Consolidated Infinite Ammo Discussion

[Cycloneman]

This is about discussing the design decision, not about whining to the devs or asking them for anything, okay?

 

I personally think it's a design decision that won't have a lot of effect on the game. Most shooters involve throwing so much ammo at you through a bunch of really ****ty enemies that you don't have to worry about conservation; this just sidesteps the "bunch of really ****ty enemies" part.

 

Feel free to discuss water guns, how it will make your OCD act up, and anything else you want to.

[Joseph Bulock]

I ask that no one gets this one locked this time.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yeah, I agree with the OP, in most shooters ammo being limited is almost meaningless. It does make for a decent reward though.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

As long as you have to actually reload and don't have the ability to spread bullets everywhere for hours... I can live with it.

 

But I'm the kind of person who likes running out of ammo for his pistol and SMG, then having to find alternate ways of getting past everyone.

[mkreku]

But if we have infinite ammo, why bother having to reload? Why not just let us pump as much lead into the air as fast as we can? The only thing reloading does is add artificial lag to the game, since we can't run out of ammo anyhow. We wouldn't even need the reloading animations, so the developers can spend their time on more important things!

 

And if you're using the argument "most games have so much ammo anyhow, the point becomes moot", then why not get rid of health too since most games throw bundles of healthpacks at you anyhow? Or money, since most games still make you way too rich? Do you get the point yet?

 

I, for one, enjoy fiddling with the weapons in the game. I enjoy finding the correct ammunition type for every weapon. I like having to conserve ammo for my sniper rifle (because it's ammo is big, bulky and rare) and have to solve difficult situations with other means when I'm out of ammo entirely. Yes, a lot of games give you too much ammo. But the good games are conservative with it, letting the amount of ammo play a tactical part in the game.

 

I still don't know the reason why they chose to do this, but it will be fun to find out the reasoning behind this particular design choice. Instinctively I don't like it, but since I've no idea what the game will be like I'll try to keep an open mind about it until previews/reviews/release. By the way, I absolutely hate when they artificially restrict the players shooting with the help of an overheating gauge! I'm playing Project Snowblind right now and I could seriously hurt the guy who came up with that idea. I really hope that's not included in Alpha Protocol..

[Pop]

And if you're using the argument "most games have so much ammo anyhow, the point becomes moot", then why not get rid of health too since most games throw bundles of healthpacks at you anyhow? Or money, since most games still make you way too rich? Do you get the point yet?

The health part of this is totally invalid. You die far more often in games than you run out of ammo, even (especially!) in games where ammo is scarce. The money part is valid, but that's easy enough to get around, you just have to have design that accommodates that maneuvering. For example, in Fallout 2 but the best stuff that you want is just difficult to find, especially when it comes to small guns. In Deus Ex you can accumulate a lot of money but merchants are scarce and they only have 3 things you can buy each.

[Xard]

I ask that no one gets this one locked this time.

 

it was you devs and moderators who got it locked last time, not us the "whiners" *grumble*

 

IT seems to me that this thread has outlived its usefulness, so.... LOCKED!

[SirPetrakus]

By the way, I absolutely hate when they artificially restrict the players shooting with the help of an overheating gauge! I'm playing Project Snowblind right now and I could seriously hurt the guy who came up with that idea. I really hope that's not included in Alpha Protocol..

 

The overheating gauge is perfectly valid, guns will jam when they overheat and won't shoot, with a high risk of the damn thing exploding in your hand even, which is why guns require frequent maintenance. It's as valid as reloading your gun.

 

About the infinite ammo part, sure the ammo of a handgun should be more frequent than those of a rocket launcher or a sniper rifle, but how many times in each mission will you get to use them? In a cramped hallway you won't start snipping at the guy 3' across from you, if I need to shoot someone with a sniper rifle or destroy a plated door with a rocket launcher, I should have enough ammo to do my job, but being lame at it will obviously alert others, therefore Mission Failed.

 

You can do lots of modifications to guns, such as larger clips, silencers, packing a bigger punch etc. but if you really wanna play the game stealthily, you probably won't be able to shoot 233.434 bullets without SOMEONE noticing, or you can go about it Serious Sam style and add to the body count, in which case you don't really care for reloading time.

 

Granted it's not the most realistic idea, but it will hardly make or break THIS game. That's what I think anyway.

[Cycloneman]

But if we have infinite ammo, why bother having to reload? Why not just let us pump as much lead into the air as fast as we can? The only thing reloading does is add artificial lag to the game, since we can't run out of ammo anyhow. We wouldn't even need the reloading animations, so the developers can spend their time on more important things!

Reloading forces a lull in your attack, allowing enemies to take advantage of the opportunity to get closer/shoot at you. It's a good reason not to run-and-gun.

I still don't know the reason why they chose to do this, but it will be fun to find out the reasoning behind this particular design choice.

Because they want the game to focus on things other than ammunition conservation/counting.

[Wrath of Dagon]

But if we have infinite ammo, why bother having to reload? Why not just let us pump as much lead into the air as fast as we can? The only thing reloading does is add artificial lag to the game, since we can't run out of ammo anyhow. We wouldn't even need the reloading animations, so the developers can spend their time on more important things!

 

And if you're using the argument "most games have so much ammo anyhow, the point becomes moot", then why not get rid of health too since most games throw bundles of healthpacks at you anyhow? Or money, since most games still make you way too rich? Do you get the point yet?

No, because you normally can't look for healthpacks while in combat.

 

I, for one, enjoy fiddling with the weapons in the game. I enjoy finding the correct ammunition type for every weapon. I like having to conserve ammo for my sniper rifle (because it's ammo is big, bulky and rare) and have to solve difficult situations with other means when I'm out of ammo entirely. Yes, a lot of games give you too much ammo. But the good games are conservative with it, letting the amount of ammo play a tactical part in the game.

OK, that can be an interesting game mechanic, but it doesn't have to be in every game. AP will provide other stuff for you to fiddle with.

 

I still don't know the reason why they chose to do this, but it will be fun to find out the reasoning behind this particular design choice. Instinctively I don't like it, but since I've no idea what the game will be like I'll try to keep an open mind about it until previews/reviews/release. By the way, I absolutely hate when they artificially restrict the players shooting with the help of an overheating gauge! I'm playing Project Snowblind right now and I could seriously hurt the guy who came up with that idea. I really hope that's not included in Alpha Protocol..

Overheating gauge is kind of like reload, just to limit your rate of fire and prevent you from spraying bullets all over the screen without aiming. I didn't have any problems with it in PS or Mass Effect.

[Gfted1]

I cant wait to mash the fire button while dual weilding my Uzi's. Unless the mission requires stealth its like an I WIN button. Also, I hope there is a laser gatling in the game. Dual weildable laser gatlings with infinite batteries. With Uzi's as scopes.

[Hell Kitty]

With Uzi's as scopes.

 

Screw games, you should design real weapons.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Please add every single weapon in this list to the game or I will lose all faith in Obsidian.

[Joseph Bulock]

Please add every single weapon in this list to the game or I will lose all faith in Obsidian.

 

That is a great list.

[Montgomery Markland]

Please add every single weapon in this list to the game or I will lose all faith in Obsidian.

 

That is a great list.

 

I can confirm that gorillas on pcp are great for raves

[Gfted1]

Multi-purpose bullet

It revolutionizes the world of bullets; made from silver, wood, light, Kryptonite, yellow, Vin Diesel, and, most importantly, AIDS. Too many times have people been shot only to recover and live a full life. Multi-purpose bullets will bring that to an end. These bullets can stop vampires, werewolves, evil sentient shadows, Green Lantern, and Superman...if they so happen to exist and so happen to be attacking you or you so happen to be hunting them. Also, you can throw them if you don't have a gun, as they have explosive tips.

 

[J.E. Sawyer]

Personally, I think reloading provides the core gameplay mechanic related to ammo. I do consistently promote ammo as a finite resource in games, but I don't think it's a big deal that it's not present in AP. In a setting like Fallout or even Aliens, I think ammo as a finite resource is more important -- both as a gameplay element as something that fits the tone/themes of the setting.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

So we're not exactly playing a very desperate spy with little to no ressources, are we?

[mkreku]

Personally, I think reloading provides the core gameplay mechanic related to ammo. I do consistently promote ammo as a finite resource in games...

Yes, but my problem with this design choice comes from the fact that your gun can run out of ammo, thus the need to reload. But since we're reloading from a never ending cache of ammunition (meaning we can not run out of ammo), it's not very consistent at all (to use your words). In fact, it seems a little pointless. In my head it just feels wrong.

 

Since you usually promote finite ammo, it'll be very interesting to see what makes Alpha Protocol differ enough for you to deviate from your principles. I guess it's something pretty clever to weigh up for that immediate loss of 'believability'.

[J.E. Sawyer]

]Yes, but my problem with this design choice comes from the fact that your gun can run out of ammo, thus the need to reload. But since we're reloading from a never ending cache of ammunition (meaning we can not run out of ammo), it's not very consistent at all (to use your words). In fact, it seems a little pointless. In my head it just feels wrong.

We're thinking about it from two different perspectives. You're looking at consistency and I'm looking at gameplay. The need to reload, as someone else suggested, creates an opportunity for enemies to move out of cover, advance on your position, or open fire. The need to find new ammo promotes the conservation of ammunition, consideration of ammo types, and scavenging. It also can promote the avoidance of enemies or the use of "non-consumable" methods of defeating enemies (e.g. CQC).

 

Since you usually promote finite ammo, it'll be very interesting to see what makes Alpha Protocol differ enough for you to deviate from your principles. I guess it's something pretty clever to weigh up for that immediate loss of 'believability'.

It's not my design, but I still think it's fine (my involvement in AP's system design mostly revolves around CQC, which wound up being relatively simple). It would be nice to see finite ammo in AP (personally, I enjoyed it in Drake's Fortune*), but ultimately I don't think the game is going to be made or broken on that aspect. To me, the core gun mechanics are a lot more important to the game.

 

* Then again, its not like they ever ran out of ammo.

[Zoma]

The need to reload, as someone else suggested, creates an opportunity for enemies to move out of cover, advance on your position, or open fire.

 

If Obsidian could execute this very well and convincingly with good enemy A.I, I shall salute you all.

[Nick_i_am]

Didn't have a problem with it in Mass Effect, won't here. The only real argument against it is 'wah wah realism' which goes right out the window if they've ever played any other RPG in existence.

 

Sure many 'unrealism

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

In theory, infinite ammo is wildly unrealistic. In practice, it isn't any more contrived than carrying 200 rounds in your coat pocket or checking nearby easily-broken barrels/dark corners/baby strollers for the five bullets you need to continue.

 

There are games like Drake's where you need to scrounge from the enemy, but I don't see the inherent fun in being stuck using the same weapons or robotically running over every corpse/dropped weapon to magically replenish my ammo.

 

It also simplifies the process of balancing stealth/CQC/diplomacy with the John Woo approach. Simply put, the other options have to own to be worthwhile when they cannot be justified as ammo conservation tools. For an example of lame implementation on the grounds of ammo conservation, I point out the iconic FPS knife.

 

On reloading, it seems to me like a reasonable tactical consideration. Reloading is something that can happen in a reasonably short timeframe, while running out of ammo is usually a long-term issue unless you procured on-site (which Thornton doesn't do, I believe).

 

My final thought is that Thornton would always bring "enough" ammo with him. That this is a ridiculous amount is based on him facing a ridiculous amount of enemies (for a lone guy). Maximum realism under the circumstances he'd probably have to live off the land, but what fun is the fancy new scoped pistol if you only get to use it a few times in the mission?

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with ammo conservation, but the way most games handle it is not my personal cup of tea.

[mkreku]

In theory, infinite ammo is wildly unrealistic. In practice, it isn't any more contrived than carrying 200 rounds in your coat pocket or checking nearby easily-broken barrels/dark corners/baby strollers for the five bullets you need to continue.

Noone is advocating perfect realism. And even if we were going for realism, what's more plausible: 200 bullets or infinite amounts? That's not the point though.

 

It also simplifies...

This is the point. It simplifies. Some people like it, I (instinctively) don't.

 

On reloading, it seems to me like a reasonable tactical consideration.

With finite ammo: reloading makes me check the amount of ammo still with me and consider the possibility of running out if I engage that next group of enemies.

With infinite ammo: "Stupid game, stop delaying my pray and spray, I have all the ammo in the world!!"

 

...but what fun is the fancy new scoped pistol if you only get to use it a few times in the mission?

It makes the times you get to use it feel special. If you can use it whenever, it'll just be another weapon, albeit slightly better than the last one.

[Montgomery Markland]

In practice, it isn't any more contrived than carrying 200 rounds in your coat pocket or checking nearby easily-broken barrels/dark corners/baby strollers for the five bullets you need to continue.

 

LoL @ "checking nearby easily-broken... baby strollers for the five bullets you need"

 

This is a pretty good point and I especially like the fact that baby strollers are the new barrels.