Bjossi on 19/8/2007 at 01:50
Quote Posted by Malleus
As for ontopic, how about enemies with infinite ammo. They can keep firing at you forever but when you kill them, you find like one or two mags on them. It'd be fun to see them run out of ammo and switch to melee, or run for their lives or something.
Yeah, this is something that never made sense to me. It would be more fun gameplay-wise if the bad guys had limited amount of ammo. And the ammo they have left when they die, determines how much you get when you pick up their backpack/weapon/whatever they drop.
Shadowcat on 19/8/2007 at 02:40
I'm sure that's just a concession to the difficulties of creating realistic AI. If your opponents had limited ammo, they would need to intelligently make use of what they had. In most shooters it would be a simple matter to trick them into uselessly expending all their bullets.
Pyrian on 19/8/2007 at 09:10
...Which means you don't get any. I've always figured it was a case where they didn't want to over-reward skilled play. I.e., if they have a specific amount of ammo, the guy who runs in and headshots the enemies before they get a chance to shoot gets LOTS of ammo while the poor guy who's just scraping by and can't kill them until they're out of ammo gets nothing.
SubJeff on 19/8/2007 at 10:40
Quote Posted by Malygris
While this topic is hardly one of significance, I haven't noticed you contributing anything except your usual tiresome assholery. Why are you even bothering?
TBH it just looks like Zylon is trying to educate you guys. I may be wrong. But the things he has picked on are generally those that you should know better about. It's a problem with gaming when people complain about issues without thinking about them because then devs, and more importantly publishers, come up with ways to please that are really off the mark.
Look at the things Zylon has commented on objectively - he's mostly correct.
The whole "editing an ini" complaint is ridiculous because a.it's not even a gameplay mechanic!, and b.ini cheats are there for the playtesters. Of course they're not there for you to use. What do you want, a section of the main menu that is "Enable cheats"? Come on :rolleyes:
And that Assassins Creed "hijack" is pretty unforgivable, I agree.
Me? I hate escort missions, and it's more to do with pacing than anything. They are usually heavily scripted and I don't mind scripts activating relative to me but when they activate relative to the goon you're escorting... grrrr. These scenarios are usually a case of learning where the boogieman jumps from (as someone else has said). It's dull, and I've yet to see a mission like this implemented well.
Jeshibu on 19/8/2007 at 10:59
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Me? I hate escort missions, and it's more to do with pacing than anything. They are usually heavily scripted and I don't mind scripts activating relative to me but when they activate relative to the goon you're escorting... grrrr. These scenarios are usually a case of learning where the boogieman jumps from (as someone else has said). It's dull, and I've yet to see a mission like this implemented well.
Alyx in HL2 and HL2:ep1? Although it is debatable who is escorting who there.
Bjossi on 19/8/2007 at 14:56
Quote Posted by Pyrian
...Which means you don't get any. I've always figured it was a case where they didn't want to over-reward skilled play. I.e., if they have a specific amount of ammo, the guy who runs in and headshots the enemies before they get a chance to shoot gets LOTS of ammo while the poor guy who's just scraping by and can't kill them until they're out of ammo gets nothing.
Solution: Give the bad guys good helmets. :p
NamelessPlayer on 19/8/2007 at 16:49
Here's another game mechanic I just remembered that really pisses me off:
-Disproportionate health for you and your enemies depending on difficulty. Halo 2 on Legendary is extremely guilty of this; you can take a sniper rifle and shoot most of the enemies in the head, and they'll somehow survive where they wouldn't on lower difficulties, but if YOU get hit with that same sniper rifle ANYWHERE ON YOUR BODY at the same difficulty, even your LIMBS, you DIE INSTANTLY.
If you're going to make the game more difficult, make them more accurate, make them more intelligent, throw more of them at us, but DON'T SCREW WITH THE HEALTH SETTINGS SO AS TO MAKE YOUR ENEMIES SURVIVE OTHERWISE FATAL WOUNDS AND MAKE YOU SO WEAK THAT YOU DIE FROM BEING SHOT IN THE HAND OR FOOT!
-Going along that track, how is it that in Counter-Strike with the AWP and a few other games, you can shoot somebody in the toes and get a kill for it? That doesn't make any sense at all. If anything, you should lose some health and have problems moving around due to a big bullet piercing your foot, but NOT INSTANT DEATH. It's not like these bullets have some sort of deadly poison that kills you within seconds or anything no matter where they enter your body. Note that this doesn't apply to shots to the body or head, where one shot should be able to kill.
Bjossi on 19/8/2007 at 17:34
I think it is ok to increase damage enemies do to you as the difficulty gets higher, as long as it doesn't get ridiculous like in the example above.
CCCToad on 19/8/2007 at 18:38
There is a way to go about doing that, though.
For example, realistic mode in Deus Ex. It doesn't make you instantly vulnerable anywhere. However, it does make semi-accurately reflect the amount of damage you could take (Even a thug with a basic pistol can get lucky by shooting you in the head)
SubJeff on 19/8/2007 at 18:58
Quote Posted by Jeshibu
Alyx in HL2 and HL2:ep1? Although it is debatable who is escorting who there.
HL2: This isn't really an escort mission. She can die but it's not likely (and I played on the hardest difficulty). I'm talking about those "escort and protect" missions. I've not played EP1.
-----------
Now that location damage is standard there should be no excuse for unarmoured headshots not being instakill.
