Yep.Originally Posted by shobhit7777777
And yes, those weapon crates are a constant eyesore. The Beland-headed team seems to take pride in them, however. Every one of them being emblazoned with "WEAPON STASH" seems to be indicative of that. I remember when enemy strongholds having 5.56 NATO ammo just lying around was a little to hard to swallow.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Don't change the quotes. Bad practice and super annoying...even if I agree with you. Don't do it.
Uh...K.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
@SolidSage
You're right
BOOM! I'm saving that one for later! ( You're right about me being right.)
Le Cell? Francais in homage to Ubi?
for the night is dark and full of terrors
Um, you do realize that most takedowns (with a handgun) in SCC have involuntary shooting, right? The reason they made it infinite was because the player would run-out of ammo while doing a H2H move, which would be unfair.
Though, I would like limited mags. Just thought I'd point it out.
You do realize that the developers had no obligation to make such takedowns in the first place, right?
I frankly don't see the logic here. They have involuntary shooting, so they "fix" it by giving the gamer infinite pistol magazines? A simpler solution: take the involuntary shooting out all together and, I don't know, give Sam a knife or something. Even if they were pressured by higher-ups to put pistol takedowns like those into the game (because they're all the rage?), making magazines endless is just bonkers.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
My previous comment was a bit rude... Allow me to re-phrase it:
Ahem...
SCC had infinite mags, because they had involuntary shooting during takedowns, Why? Well because they wanted it to be "realistic" so based it off Seal CQB which is about creating space for you to shoot at point-blank. You'd think the Devs could have simply made more moves without shooting involuntarily, but no. Also they wanted to do something different, somehow this led to shooting during takedowns.
I know this sketchy explanation sounds odd, but well a lot of games make stupid mistakes... Though, I never thought Splinter cell would.
I saw an article (not posting link because I'm lazy and using dial-up for internet connection), where they talked about the need for infinite mags because of involuntary shooting, and the game would put the player in a situation where he/she would need to rely on guns.
To be honest, I don't think they put infinite ammo due to the involuntary shooting. This is because there are other ways of resolving the issue of running out of bullets when you need them. I highly doubt they just solved the issue by saying " oh let's just add infinite ammo!". And everyone was like" ya, that's a great idea! ". They most likely did this fo a) the devs believed that the gameplay was too difficult without infinite ammo or B) something had to be done for whatever reason and they changed it last second. The reason I'm saying this, is because if they didn't put infinite ammo in, the pistol could just be "locked away" on the player and he wouldn't be able to access it unless he had found ammo. Also holding down on the menu pad( the ****on that changes guns) will put your pistol/equipped weapon away. This way the player takes the enemies down with his hands and doesnt fire off close quarter shots with his pistol. The devs could've just activated this anytime a player tried to cqc or m&e with an empty gun. It would an easier solution and less despised than infinite ammo.
Last edited by michaelanjello; 04-09-2012 at 03:02 AM.
I think the last three comments basically summarize it; realistic effective cqc and not enough time or effort in chasing the branches. They could have made one of the other cqc animations occur in place of an empty gun, could have built the math surrounding smart ammo, even made cqc more than a one ****on push and allowed for choice of takedown. But they didn't. I believe that deadline and R&D losses (investments) had a lot to do with the somewhat shallower depths of SCC's build out.
It was still so much of a better game for me than earlier SC's, which were for the most part, much better than other games of their release periods. Largely because of how the co-op play had evolved and was presented.
for the night is dark and full of terrors
Contrary to what movies or Discovery documentaries might lead you to believe.....Takedowns in SCC are very authentic. SOF are trained to put people down quietly with chokeholds, stabs and neck snaps but their primary method of silent elimination is the silenced shot to the head. Ghost Recon nails this technique as your character sneaks up..goes into "Closer-than-ever" mode and you can either shoot or do a CQC kill.
Krav Maga, being a specialist military martial art would definitely encompass CQB pistol shooting techniques..as Sammyfun said. And Sam is a Navy SEAL after all.
That said
I agree with you on the addition of infinite ammo.Me no like.
I think that they put in infinite ammo because pistol gameplay was an extremely intricate part of gameplay.
1. Pistols used for M&E
2. Pistols for takedowns
3. Pistols for silent headshots
4. Pistols for when the **** hits the fan and it invariably does
5. MOST IMPORTANT which everyone forgets- Shooting out LIGHTS.
The addition of the aggro-stealth gameplay has made it necessary to use the pistol more...earlier games could get away with this thanks to lower enemy density and a more classic approach.
Take all of the above into account and you can easily imagine how difficult the game could've been with only 60 rounds of ammo.
Also, they wanted the AI to be more lethal..hence they are usually equipped with standard SMGs and Assault Rifles...if they were to make scavenging the only form of ammo collection the they would have had to equip the AI with pistols..and exotic silenced pistols at that. Could've been problematic from an immersion POV to see a Russian goon packing a suppressed 5-7 (And yes I realize how immersion shattering infinite ammo is as well)
Given that they had a limited development time and PO'd fans and bosses..the devs MAY have thought that Inf Ammo was the most efficient solution..not the best bet would certainly get the job done.
Mind you, I am not defending it's inclusion....but I can see why they did it.
Posting Permissions
newhenpal
Reply With Quote