Generalized Ammunition.

[AT God]

I HATE generalized ammo. I don't even like it when ammo is classified as Pistol, Submachinegun, assaultrifle, etc. If the guns are the same caliber, its okay but I hate being in a game where the enemies get to carry different guns than the player and you still end up picking up and using their ammo. Some of the best parts of games that have weapon specific ammo is finding a supply cache of ammo for your favorite weapon. It is what made Half-Life 2 worth exploring, trying to find a SMG grenade or an awesome package of .357 rounds.

One thing that interests me about the whole guns/ammo deal, the original Battlefield games, (Pre-CoD ones, 1942/Vietnam/2) had the proper reload mechanic of discarding the remaining bullets in the clip since the player animation showed the player throwing the magazine onto the ground. They of course changed it when BC/BF3 decided they need to go after the CoD market, but I liked the idea, because I suffer from reload anxiety, i reload weapons that I have only fired 1-2 bullets from, and it often gets me killed in games like Counter-strike when I stop to reload my AK47 after shooting one bullet at the leader of a group of approaching enemies.

The original Tom Clancy shooters did the more realistic reload method of the player keeping half empty magazines but when you ran out of full ones you began loading half full magazines which was unique but annoying. I am wondering when these "realistic" shooters like what EA has made Battlefield into will start requiring you to reload magazines themselves. Such as if I fire 15 rounds in a mag and then switch to my other magazine and fire 10, have the ability to take bullets out of one mag and load them into another.

 

[rob_simple]

When the game has a shooter focus, then no. Why would a pistol shoot the same round as a AK47, an RPG, and a sniper rifle?

It ruins my immersion. Sure, I can survive a fifty foot drop and keep shooting, but if I don't use a 762X39mm round for my AK, then my game will be ruined!

Some games do the realistic thing where most assault rifles all use the same ammo, same for pistols, etc.

Except that's not realistic. There are a lot of different rounds for "assault rifles" and a lot of different rounds for "pistols," and a lot of different rounds for "SMGs" and sometimes, they overlap.

Treating all Assault Rifles as using the same ammo pool is decidedly UNrealistic.

I think STALKER did it the best where there were different assault rifle ammo types and you had to make sure to get the right ammo for the gun you had.

See, that's more realistic. It's also silly and pointless micromanaging.

For having everything have the same ammo, it seems to dumbed down to me. Probably only logically work if all the guns were energy weapons and used batteries or something.

Logically, heavy arms will use a heavier "battery" than light arms, because of necessity. So no, that doesn't work.

As for being dumbed down, odds are the games you're playing dumb a lot of things down. So the issue isn't with dumbing things down, it's them being dumbed down in places that don't meet your approval.

I can't help but notice you didn't give an opinion on anything in regard to what the OP was asking, instead opting to condescendingly point out minor problems with other poster's opinions. You seem to do this in almost every thread I see you posting in and I'm just wondering: does it make you feel good being so pedantic all the time?

OT: I can only think of a few games where I've seen this system implemented and it is almost never a good idea because, as others have pointed out, if you run out of ammo for one gun you run out of it for all of them. Also, I'm not sure how diluted you want it, but it would seem silly to me if I was carrying the same amount of ammo I usually have for a pistol but for my rocket launcher.

As a slight aside, I always thought a good way to get around the 2-gun limit apparently imposed 'for the sake of realism' would be a single gun that could replicate itself into different weapons. Because nanomachines or something, hell, I dunno, I just think it would be a neat mechanic.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I like my ammo to be categorized. I relish counting my bullets/shells ala survival horror.

 

[Icyheart]

The only game I can think of now that did the "ammo pool" thing well was Jak 3, for three reasons: for one it compartmentalized the ammo with four types of ammunition with three guns per type so even when you ran out for three guns you could still use the other nine. for two, spare ammo was everywhere so if you had to you could almost always use the base mod of each gun. For three, the ammo used in each shot depended on the power of the gun, so you had the choice between using, say, the Super Nova to almost deplete one type with a single shot and kill everything in the room or sparingly using the lesser mods to surgically kill everything in the room. All that, and, of course, the guns were actually fun to use

 

[IllumInaTIma]

I think that idea of generalized ammo might work, but only half way. Alien Shooter 2 did it really well. In that game you have many kinds of pistols, but only one kind of pistol ammo, many kinds of assault rifles, but only one kind of assault rifle ammo. See where I'm going? The idea of totally generalized ammo is kind of extreme, but so is the idea of tons of different kinds of ammunition, like in Fallout New Vegas, where we had 9mm, 10mm, 5.56, .10, .357, .38, .22, government issued etc. And then, for every kind of ammo there were also hollow point ammo, surplus ammo, armor piercing rounds... It just felt a little too much, at least for me.

 

[purplecactus]

Hmm, I don't know. It seems like an oversimplified concept to replace something that works quite well. As much as I hate finding ammo that doesn't match up with what weapons I have, the idea of having every ammo pack found be one that I can use is kind of repellent, it just seems that it would take the challenge out of things.

That, and I quite enjoy when I'm down to the bottom of my stash and need to actually think about what I do/who I shoot.

Just me, though.

 

[ItsNotRudy]

I think it's a bad idea to be out of ammo for everything once you emptied any weapon.
It eliminates the point of fallback weapons, resource management and turns the already paperthin strategy element of shooters into a "find the most ammo efficient weapon and stick with it" numbers game.

Why is it a bad idea? Resident Evil 4 pulled it off nicely

 

[loc978]

I'm one of those who thinks it should depend on the setting. I think Bioshock Infinite handles it acceptably, simply assuming each weapon requires different ammunition. Mass Effect 2 bungled it horribly, claiming universal heatsinks in lore and then having different ones for different guns all packaged together in generic refill packs... the new Fallout games, as the old, handled it acceptably and have mods to handle it correctly.

As for a game with consumption rates and such on universal ammo... sure, why not? Just don't make it with anything akin to real guns. Every time a game has me load the same ammo into a 1911 as a 92F, I lose a ton of respect for its design team.

 

[WanderingFool]

Most recently I played Bioshock Infinite and it struck me. While the Vigors, or your Plasmids, all draw from the same resource pool, your guns all require entirely different ammunition for each particular example.

The question is whether ranged weapons should behave in a similar fashion to Vigors/Plasmids in certain video games, with a player possessing an Ammo bar that becomes drained as you use weapons, being replenished by looting enemies or finding particular world items.

Not suited for every game out there, I agree, but I feel like it couldn't hurt to see the concept explored more often. Tweaking the consumption rate of certain weapons depending on their power, rate of fire, accuracy, or special features is a tricky task.

Let your voice be heard. Should games feature an Ammo Bar or should ammunition counters stay the way they are?

What you are talking about is Universal Ammo, and its a tricky thing to get right. Balance to much in one direction, players will only use one or two weapons because they have the right balance of power and ammo consumption. Balance it to much in the other, and they will use only one or two specific weapons because they are uber OP and ammo is a non-point.

OT: I can only think of a few games where I've seen this system implemented and it is almost never a good idea because, as others have pointed out, if you run out of ammo for one gun you run out of it for all of them. Also, I'm not sure how diluted you want it, but it would seem silly to me if I was carrying the same amount of ammo I usually have for a pistol but for my rocket launcher.

As a slight aside, I always thought a good way to get around the 2-gun limit apparently imposed 'for the sake of realism' would be a single gun that could replicate itself into different weapons. Because nanomachines or something, hell, I dunno, I just think it would be a neat mechanic.

One Word: Vanquish. Another word: B.L.A.D.E.

So many things awesome with that game...

 

[Techno Squidgy]

I'm not fond of the magical refilling magazine where you always have a topped up magazine, but I let it slide because it makes things more fun. However, I hate shared ammo, I don't think it makes games more fun, and if nothing else, it's just stupid to think you can load a 9mm handgun, a 5.56mm assault rifle and a .308 hunting/sniper rifle with the same ammo.

 

[an annoyed writer]

I generally agree with most people here that it is a rather bad idea. Guns don't work that way, and we already take a TON of liberties with them as-is because the liberties we do take make the game more fun. For example, wouldn't it be a pain in the ass to have to load bullets into your mags EVERY TIME you wanted to reload your guns? We took that out of games because it slows down gameplay, especially when you want to do a tactical reload, where you swap a partially-expended mag for a full one. What you suggest is ludicrous: you don't use the same ammo in a pistol that you do in a shotgun or rifle: the cartridges are used for different purposes, and are designed with that in mind. Now, having ammo box pickups that have all different types of ammo in them, so you can refill multiple different weapons at once? Fantastic idea! So much so that we already use them in a ton of games.

 

[Chicago Ted]

As a slight aside, I always thought a good way to get around the 2-gun limit apparently imposed 'for the sake of realism' would be a single gun that could replicate itself into different weapons. Because nanomachines or something, hell, I dunno, I just think it would be a neat mechanic.

Star Wars Republic Commando had this, with your main weapon being able to switch between an assault rifle, sniper rifle, and grenade launcher on the fly by altering the attachments. It was an alright mechanic I guess, it made sense, but I honestly didn't like it all that much because it made the game feel less diverse. Sure, you had one extra weapon slot that you could fill with something you found in the field, but the number of weapons you could actually pick up wasn't that large. To me, it just made the shooting of the game feel a bit more bland to me because you wound up always using the basic assault rifle variant for 90% of the time.

And to clarify, the rifle used different ammo also for each component, making it turn into one of those cases where "I don't know whether to use this attachment or not, because I may need it in 5 minutes". Still a great game, but one of my main gripes about it.

Edit: Just to be clear, despite this, I think that having only one ammo pool for a game would be a mistake. Suddenly it would make you rely on one weapon almost constantly. It all really goes to the developers though to determine how to best balance the mechanics of the game for this.

 

[rob_simple]

OT: I can only think of a few games where I've seen this system implemented and it is almost never a good idea because, as others have pointed out, if you run out of ammo for one gun you run out of it for all of them. Also, I'm not sure how diluted you want it, but it would seem silly to me if I was carrying the same amount of ammo I usually have for a pistol but for my rocket launcher.

As a slight aside, I always thought a good way to get around the 2-gun limit apparently imposed 'for the sake of realism' would be a single gun that could replicate itself into different weapons. Because nanomachines or something, hell, I dunno, I just think it would be a neat mechanic.

One Word: Vanquish. Another word: B.L.A.D.E.

So many things awesome with that game...

Vanquish did so many things right, in fact I consider every shooter since to be a failure purely by virtue of the fact no one had rocket boots.

If they could combine those mechanics with the jet pack from Dark Void I think we'd have an instant classic on our hands.

 

[rob_simple]

As a slight aside, I always thought a good way to get around the 2-gun limit apparently imposed 'for the sake of realism' would be a single gun that could replicate itself into different weapons. Because nanomachines or something, hell, I dunno, I just think it would be a neat mechanic.

Star Wars Republic Commando had this, with your main weapon being able to switch between an assault rifle, sniper rifle, and grenade launcher on the fly by altering the attachments. It was an alright mechanic I guess, it made sense, but I honestly didn't like it all that much because it made the game feel less diverse. Sure, you had one extra weapon slot that you could fill with something you found in the field, but the number of weapons you could actually pick up wasn't that large. To me, it just made the shooting of the game feel a bit more bland to me because you wound up always using the basic assault rifle variant for 90% of the time.

Yeah, but I think that maybe had more to do with the fact that the weapons you could change your gun into were so bland and unoriginal. I mean, if you've got a gun that can turn into absolutely anything then the only limit is a developers imagination. Maybe if the mechanic worked more like you could scan things in the environment and they become weapons, similar to Dead Rising 2 but in a shooter context.

That way, you could just be boring and replicate the enemy's guns, or you could scan the properties of fire and engineer a flamethrower; burst open a fire hydrant and create a riot hose; smash a window and create shrapnel grenades or powder glass bombs to use as traps...those are pretty basic ideas but I think it could have potential.

 

[Chicago Ted]

Yeah, but I think that maybe had more to do with the fact that the weapons you could change your gun into were so bland and unoriginal. I mean, if you've got a gun that can turn into absolutely anything then the only limit is a developers imagination. Maybe if the mechanic worked more like you could scan things in the environment and they become weapons, similar to Dead Rising 2 but in a shooter context.

That way, you could just be boring and replicate the enemy's guns, or you could scan the properties of fire and engineer a flamethrower; burst open a fire hydrant and create a riot hose; smash a window and create shrapnel grenades or powder glass bombs to use as traps...those are pretty basic ideas but I think it could have potential.

Ah, misunderstood what you were getting at originally. As for that idea, I have to say... That actually sounds quite awesome...

The main problem I could see with it though is that it would turn into something too contextual. Suddenly the environment would just be littered with set pieces for the weapon. Has a lot of potential for an idea, but the execution for it would need to be just right, and would be quite difficult to pull off.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

I think it's a bad idea to be out of ammo for everything once you emptied any weapon.
It eliminates the point of fallback weapons, resource management and turns the already paperthin strategy element of shooters into a "find the most ammo efficient weapon and stick with it" numbers game.

Why is it a bad idea? Resident Evil 4 pulled it off nicely

Wha? RE4 had multiple ammo types.

well besides ruining balance if not done extremely well, I find 'all for one' to be in general a cop out and lazy design by the developers in question (unless well explained in fluff).

 

[Rossmallo]

Metroid Prime: Hunters used it. Yet another reason why the game was a total failure.

 

[sextus the crazy]

IMO STALKER games did it the best - all Western assault rifles used the standard NATO 5.56x45 ammo, most Soviet rifles used standard 5.45x39 ammo, etc. There are standard ammunition types, but you cant use them for every gun.

Pretty much. Most small arms types take similar ammo (assault rifles & 5.56mm, pistols & 9mm, shotguns & 12 gauge, GPMGs and 7.62mm etc.)

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I'm a little put off with games that use universal ammo.

The best way universal ammo can be utilized is if it consumed differently with various weapons. This is a no-brainer; smaller, less powerful weapons like a handgun consumes 1 unit of ammo per shot, while larger, more powerful weapons like a rocket launcher might consume 100 units of ammo per shot. This will allow you to delegate what weapon would be best to spend ammo in a given situation. Managing your ammo would be easier, but it will force you think more strategically in order to avoid running out of ammo or dying a cheapskate.

In terms of Bioshock Infinite (or the series in general), Vigors/Plasmids draw form a finite pool of Eve in order to activate because they are considerably more powerful and versatile than weapons and firearms. This balances out the game so you are not breezing through the game by shocking foes to death or having them eaten alive by crows. It also forces you to use the Vigors/Plasmids more tactfully, whether in the manner they are used or how you combine them with your gunplay.

An example of how a game missed the target with universal ammo is Dead Space 3.

Now, there are plenty of reasons why I didn't get/like Dead Space 3 (atmosphere is one of them), but the fact that it utilized a crafting system that utilized universal ammo is a bit of a downer to me. I assumed that, although you could create a nearly endless amount of weapon combinations, I still figured that you would have ammunition for certain forms of weapon attachments (plasma cutter ammo, machine gun ammo, flamethrower ammo, etc.). That way, you could have a custom line gun that has a grenade launcher sub-weapon that draws from different ammo (so if you run out of one, you can still utilize the other, or simply change the weapon to accommodate another attachment with available ammo). But having universal ammo takes out the tension of running out of ammo, and ammo conservation is tossed aside to make way for a more fast paced, rail shooter-esque style of shooting.

This by no means makes Dead Space 3 a bad game; in fact, it's a good one and, more specifically, a good third-person shooter. Unfortunately, compared to its past two installments, it's just not a good Dead Space game.

 

[Little Gray]

Generalized ammunition sucks balls. I would say Fallout New Vegas did it best. Different types of weapons used different types of ammo. You had to manage your ammunition and make sure you had the right ammunition for your gun. Not every shotgun or pistol used the same ammo and it made the game more interesting. It also added diversity to the weapons.