Time to settle the score: reloading, yay or nay

[Sci]

Time to get a accurate poll that will let people vote on their stance regarding the decision to yank reloading from Invisible War. Time to find out what the public really wants

[F3nyx]

Nice balanced poll - none of that "push-poll" stuff. However, people may want to put their discussions in the other thread, which has a pretty lively argument going at the moment.

[Sci]

I know all about it, and I'm right in the middle of the argument. That's why I decided to make this poll. I didn't want to skew votes by putting up options that were irrelivent. I'm doing this mainly to prove the point that IS's desicion is not popular with the general public.

Everyone, cast your votes!

[Picasso]

Developer comments from IS' forum:

Ok, the way ammo works in DX:IW is one big pool. The way this is displayed on the HUD is in clips. The bar displays how much you have in the current clip. The little bullet icons to the left of the bar show how many clips you have total. When your current clip bar emptys out, one of those icons disappears and it starts on the next clip. There is no RELOADING.

It didn't work well with the ammo pool system. For example, if we wanted to require you to reload your pistol after 6 shots, it would take extra interface to communicate that. and what happens if you reload when your clip is half gone? Do you lose that half clip? It would have been hairy. We decided to see how it played with no RELOADING, and afterwards no one missed it. It just works when you're playing. It may sound strange coming off DX, but it works in DX:IW, and the game is tuned so it doesn't become too easy because you don't reload.

[Sci]

I always figured it would pan out like this: you have your ammo pool, and when you reload, it drains from the pool an amount appropriate to the strength and clip size of the weapon you are using. If you clip was only partially empty, the game would only fill what is needed. It works just like normal ammo, except all weapons take from the same pool.

Even better is the system Oni uses. You have your clips (in Oni, there were ballistic and energy types) and you use one appropriate for the kind of weapon you are using. However, more powerful weapons will get fewer shots per clip. The pistol, for example, got 10 shots per clip, while the extremely powerful mercury bow got 2.

[Jesus, P.I.]

Originally posted by Picasso
quote:

It didn't work well with the ammo pool system. For example, if we wanted to require you to reload your pistol after 6 shots, it would take extra interface to communicate that. and what happens if you reload when your clip is half gone? Do you lose that half clip? It would have been hairy. We decided to see how it played with no RELOADING, and afterwards no one missed it. It just works when you're playing. It may sound strange coming off DX, but it works in DX:IW, and the game is tuned so it doesn't become too easy because you don't reload.

Hmm, if that's the word from the Dev's, I am not satisfied at all. These so called "problems" that they bring up have been resolved already, and reloading does not necessitate a more complex interface. The way I see it, there shoud be two numbers shown: the number of clips, and above that the number of rounds in the current clip. When the clip is empty, it simply displays that you have 0 rounds in your clip (Maybe even in flashing red text to be showy).

As for what happens if you reload, this has been implemented a couple of ways in the past. You may lose the partial clip entirely, or the unused ammo may contribute to the next clip. Both ways are viable IMHO. This is in no way hairy.

And if as the devs say, reloading doesn't work well with the unified ammo system, I say to hell with the unified ammo system. I would rather be able to reload than to have the comfort of knowing that one blob of ammo will power all my weapons.

I am not convinced that reloading leads to an inaccessible interface. After all, BF 1942 requires reloading, and if the lowest common denominator of that crowd can manage it, surely anyone can.

[Sci]

People seem to be treating complexity as if it was a bad thing. It's actually a good thing, except when it gets TOO complex. I would be hard pressed to find a person on these forums who thinks that having to reload weapons is too complex or isn't fun. It adds to the game, the tension, the feeling of urgency in a heated battle.

Originally posted by Jesus, P.I.
I am not convinced that reloading leads to an inaccessible interface. After all, BF 1942 requires reloading, and if the lowest common denominator of that crowd can manage it, surely anyone can.

Good point
The reason I hate this decision so much is that Deus Ex is based on strategy and realism. It's one of the aspects that made the original so great. Warren Spector said himself that they wanted to take everything that made the game great and do more of it. That is not what they are doing. They are ripping from the game some of the fundamental aspects of strategic combat.

[crimson_stallion]

Originally posted by Sci
People seem to be treating complexity as if it was a bad thing. It's actually a good thing, except when it gets TOO complex. I would be hard pressed to find a person on these forums who thinks that having to reload weapons is too complex or isn't fun. It adds to the game, the tension, the feeling of urgency in a heated battle.



Good point
The reason I hate this decision so much is that Deus Ex is based on strategy and realism. It's one of the aspects that made the original so great. Warren Spector said himself that they wanted to take everything that made the game great and do more of it. That is not what they are doing. They are ripping from the game some of the fundamental aspects of strategic combat.

I like reloading. I think it not only adds to realism, but adds an extra tactical side to gameplay. When you only have 2 rounds in your clip, and get a perfect opportunity to take out a guard, do you risk it and take advantage of the moment, or to you play it safe and reload, and wait for another chance?

Also made choices like the extended clip in deus ex useful (I loved that mod).

I don't think you could really blame the fact that its being developed for xbox for the reloading, because thats really a developer idea. In my FPS console experience (goldeneye, parfect dark, halo, etc) I've never played a game that didnt have reloading, so thats more a developer decision then a console standard. I'm not sure if anyone has blamed that on the console thing, but if not then I could just see it coming.

Honestly, as much as i thought "WHAT??" when i read about no reloading, the most important thing is how it is implemented. The strangest ideas can come out well if implemented right, and if it is well explained and if it's not badly missed when I play the game, then I don't mind.

As is the case with most of the changes ion storm have made.

[Quillan]

I am witholding judgement until I actually play the game, but can you really say realism and mean it? I mean, we are talking about something set 70 years in the future. We don't know what technological developments will happen in that time. From my point of view, the "realism" part will come from how well the game explains the future tech involved. Until I find that out, I am not going to say yes or no to the idea.

[GuyBrush-Threepwood]

*Pours a 40 oz malt liquor for the "fallen"*

*sob* reloading we hardly got to know ye *sob*

[F3nyx]

can you really say realism and mean it? I mean, we are talking about something set 70 years in the future. We don't know what technological developments will happen in that time.

Might be more accurate to call it "believablity" instead of realism. Granted, we don't know what will be "realistic" for 70 years in the future. However, some things stretch the imagination more than others.

From my point of view, the "realism" part will come from how well the game explains the future tech involved.

Exactly. The worry I have is that they're just using nanotech as the explanation for everything. Yes, DX2 is set in a world where nanotech is becoming increasingly prevalent - I think we'll see this world ourselves, or maybe our kids will. However, some applications of nanotech are more realistic than others.

Biomods that increase strength and speed, for example, are very plausible - the use of nanotech to construct supplemental "muscles" like those used in prosthetics is quite believable.

Seeing in infared - yeah, supplemental structures could be constructed in the eyes and wired into the optic nerves.

Neural interface is extremely plausible, as well as bot domination. Current science is heading in this direction.

The electrostatic charge biomod is also very believable, though it might be difficult to direct the burst such that it wouldn't affect the user.

Regeneration - I think nanotech would take quite a lot longer to heal than it does in DX, but the concept is fairly sound.

Thermal masking is getting a little iffy - you'd need a LOT of nanotech near the skin for that one - but body heat could conceivably be absorbed and used by nanites.

Cloaking - probably the least believable one in my view. The problem with cloaking is that you have to project a separate image for each viewer, because if everyone can see "through" you, they'd each be seeing something different. Maybe a cuttlefish-type cloak would be possible, however you'd still need Alex's skin to be covered with nanoscale cameras and multifaceted projectors.

Drones - also very implausible. Where is the drone constructed, in the air in front of Alex's face? Nanites simply cannot assemble that quickly, especially not in a medium like air, and you can't build all those nanites out of bioenergy. Alex would be one hungry dude(tte).

Incidentally, I completely avoided Cloak and EMP Drone in the first game

[edited to talk about stuff in greater detail]

[Sci]

Let's get drunk together and mourn the loss of our good friend Reloading, killed before his time by the developers of Ion Storm. *takes a swig of Jack Daniels*

[Random]

It's weird that people are so emphatic that they don't want the game to be a shooter, but when Ion Storm remove a shooter element people complain.

[Sci]

I want the game to be a shooter, I just don't want it to be a shallow shooter *cough* Quake 3 *cough*. And I don't want the devs removing vital elements of strategic combat *cough* reloading *cough*

[GuyBrush-Threepwood]

Aye *Looks about in search of liquor*... finding none Guybrush Advances on the Jack daniels chuging sci wielding a flip-comb. *snaps fingers to non-existant music*

[Sci]

That's it, I've had enough. I can't keep living in a world without reloadable weapons.

*puts gun to head and pulls the trigger, but since reloading doesn't exist anymore and Sci is just an average Shmo with no fancy augmentations, the Alex Denton-tailored firearm won't work without the nanites that the bullets are supposed to be made from.*

Great. Now the IS developers have forced me to live a life of suffering. Ironically, for the very same reason that I want to kill myself.

[GuyBrush-Threepwood]

*guybrush mortally wounds Sci with a flip-comb*

[Sci]

You are a true friend, Guybrush. Now I wait for the sweet embrace of death. Hopefully, the perfect utopia that is heavan will have for me a version of Invisible War that was made by smarter developers. *dies*

[GuyBrush-Threepwood]

glad to be of service

[super...]

so long as there are loading times i'm fine with not haveing a "clip". i dont want rockets to fire as fast as darts. the way dx did clips was ok but i totaly see where these guys are going with this game and things like clips and ammo type are part of the past.

[SK Denton]

Originally posted by Sci
People seem to be treating complexity as if it was a bad thing. It's actually a good thing, except when it gets TOO complex.

Warren Spector said himself that they wanted to take everything that made the game great and do more of it. That is not what they are doing. They are ripping from the game some of the fundamental aspects of strategic combat.

Amen!! Complexity = more choices = more variety = better gameplay = more fun

And complexity /= bad design there is a difference. If I make a menu where I make you go through 10 pages just to get to one option that is called bad design not complexity.

Actually what IS is doing is turning DX:IW into a book that you can read on a gaming machine. They might as well just take out the rest of the gameplay and just have the story play through and let you choose which faction you want to join and which ending you want.

DX:IW is what happens when you focus on the story/plot so much that you forget that you are making a GAME, and that the most important part of a GAME is the GAMEplay and not the story or plot.

[Sci]

You tell 'em

[PointlesS]

Originally posted by Quillan
I am witholding judgement until I actually play the game, but can you really say realism and mean it? I mean, we are talking about something set 70 years in the future. We don't know what technological developments will happen in that time. From my point of view, the "realism" part will come from how well the game explains the future tech involved. Until I find that out, I am not going to say yes or no to the idea.

amen...a lot of the things I see kind of questionable...but if they say it works well then I believe them...having made the first deus ex then I think they know what they're doing...

[Mehrunes]

Originally posted by SK Denton
Actually what IS is doing is turning DX:IW into a book that you can read on a gaming machine. They might as well just take out the rest of the gameplay and just have the story play through and let you choose which faction you want to join and which ending you want.

I think Warren Spector would correct you by saying that, at worst, he's turning DX:IW into a book you write on a gaming machine.

[Sci]

I hope Spector and Co. know what they're doing, because if IW arrives and I find that I've been right all along, there are going to be a lot of "I told you so" posts flying around these forums.