bullets

Ever since I read the article “Restate Assumption: Out of Ammo” on Gausswerks blog I have been giving ammo a lot of thought. Coincidentally, at the same time, BioWare abandoned thier “infinite ammo” system from Mass Effect 1 in Mass Effect 2. Why would they make this change?

Action shot of Mass Effect highlighting the overheating ammo system action shot of mass effect 2 highlighting the ammo clip system

(Quick recap: In ME1 your guns overheat if you fire them to quickly. They work similarly to the plasma weapons from the Halo series. You either have to control your rate of fire, letting off the trigger when heat gets critical or let them vent for a few seconds after overheating, leaving you unable to fire. In ME2 they abandoned that system and switched to a standard ammo system with clips and reloading.)

I think they did this because, like myself, the developers realized Mass Effect’s combat style lacks tension. You never need to worry about running out of ammo. You are allowed to use your best weapon 100% of the game without ever having to switch. Eventually once you found the best gear, overheating wasn’t even an issue anymore. On some gun and upgrade configurations you could literally hold the trigger down indefinitely and never have to worry about overheating. That situation doesn’t make for interesting gameplay.

What is ammunition in first person shooter games? Its a way to kill bad guys of course, but in the end its what keeps you alive. Ammunition is the ultimate realization of “a good offense is the best defense.” What happens in a shooter when you are in the middle of battle and run out of ammo? You are probably dead. In many cases, ammo almost acts as a separate life bar. Maybe a more situational life bar, but if ammo runs out, your life is going to run out next.

The risk of running out of ammo, which you need to defend your precious life bar, creates tension in your gaming experience. You need to choose which gun you use, which ammo to use, and when its safe enough to conserve and use a knife. Limited ammo pulls you to explore the levels in hopes of finding a hidden stash. I love ammo, and I love being almost out of it. It makes the game more enjoyable because it demands that you as a player make more decisions.

Decisions = Gameplay

Let’s look at the very beginning. Games like Wolfenstein and Doom pioneered the FPS genre, they were the first, and can be forgiven for a rather simplistic view of ammunition. In both of these games you have limited ammo but your guns never had to reload, and you have access to every gun you at all times. I call this the baseline. The “control.” Dozens, probably hundreds of shooters were released after Doom that had the exact same ammo/weapon system.

Wolfenstien retro gaming! Doom, retro gaming!

The first game that decided to break the mold (from my personal experience) was Bungie’s Marathon. An exceptional shooter with an excellent story and a unique mechanic for reloading. By unique I mean realistic. In most games that offer a reload button (most of them today), you will reload anytime you press it. If you have a clip that is three bullets short and you reload, you will somehow put three bullets into the clip. It happens in an instant, and nothing is wasted. How is that supposed to work?

Bungie's Marathon highlighting the game's ammo system.In Marathon there is no reload command. The only way to reload a gun is to empty the clip. If you have one bullet left in your eight round clip then you need to shoot that bullet off and insert a new clip. It is the most realistic mechanic for dealing with ammo I have ever seen to this day. Although oddly enough your character can still carry eight different weapons, and ammo for each all at once.

Playing Marathon presents wonderful tension. The risk of running out of ammo is very real, but reloading in the middle of combat also puts you in serious risk. So what do you do when you have three shots left in your pistol, and 2 extra clips on your belt? You have two choices:

1. Run into battle with a three-round clip and two behind. You have 19 bullets, but you will have to deal with a reload three shots in to combat. 2. Play it safe, fire off the three rounds and load up a full clip. Now you will enter battle with only 16 bullets, but a full clip.

You are constantly faced with this situation with the pistol, the assault rifle and especially the grenade launcher. This element added a lot to the game and I wouldn’t mind seeing a similar reload mechanic explored in the future.

Bungie didn’t stop innovating there. The next big hit they created is Halo. I doubt Halo is the first game to do it, but it is certainly the first that caught my attention: in Halo you can only carry two guns at a time. This is a huge change from shooters I have played up until Halo. Each time you come up on a weapon you need to make a serious choice. You must exchange a gun you already have with the gun you found.

Bungie's Halo Highlighting the rocket launcherThe rocket launcher is the best example. It is a very polarized weapon, it ranges from being indispensable, to horrible. Giving up a more general weapon, like a the plasma rifle to take the rocket launcher involves pretty intense benefit analysis. This opens some great design space for weapons. Because the player doesn’t have every weapon at his disposal at all times, extremely specialized weapons can be designed, which are super powerful sometimes forcing players to choose and anticipate. The rocket launcher is obviously well suited for taking out large armored targets like tanks and banshees. But it it is usually overkill against standard grunts and elites. It also has a limited ammo capacity, you can only carry a maximum of six total rockets. Being out of rockets makes the gun totally worthless.

alt

Gears of War continued the tradition of limited weapons and brought something new to the table. Reloading in Gears is actually a mini game. Once you click reload, a timed animation plays, displaying your reload progress. If you do nothing, once the animation is over you will reload as normal. However there is a little indicator on the bar, and if you tap the reload button again right on the indicator you perform a “active” reload. Not only will you reload faster, but your bullets will have a damage boost for a short time. If you mistime your second reload, you jam your gun, severally delaying your reload. I am in love with this system! Especially in the middle of a fight, with an enemy charging your cover position, performing a super reload and blasting the enemy with an enhanced shotgun round really makes you feel like a badass. Jamming your gun at a critical time is both dramatic and hilarious.

What am I getting at? Ammunition shouldn’t be an afterthought when it so often is. Ammunition is design space open for crafting a better gaming experience. Mass Effect 2 is catching a bunch of complaints for adding a “stupid ammo system.” Stupid? ME1 had an ammo system which reduced tension (eventually down to zero), and decision making (always used the same gun). Mass Effect 2 is more fun to play. The pressure to conserve your ammo is a primary reason. You are not able to just snipe your way through the game. You only get nine sniper rounds before needing to find ammo or switch weapons, so you need to make each shot count, or make a choice to use a different weapon altogether to ensure you have your primary weapon available when you need it. This massive increase in decisions is directly related to the game play of Mass Effect 2.

What idea are they going for? Maybe I am the one that missed the boat but does anyone actually take “bag decomposition” into consideration when buying chips? When buying any food product? When did this become a selling point? Answer: it NEVER DID.

What kind of a person throws the bag on the ground anyway? Not the kind of person who cares about how fast a plastic bag decomposes. Those people would never throw a bag on the ground. Those “super green people” are probably too busy being vegan to even eat chips. It must be for the degenerate kids who throw fast food bags out of the window of their cars while flirting with disaster speeding. After all at least now they can have all the fun of littering with none of the negative consequences.

“Dude Joe, don’t throw that bag out the window, a turtle could get stuck in it and die.”
“Don’t worry brah, Sunchip bags are built to decompose quickly and naturally. The turtles will be safe. Now finish your beer, we have some vandalism to do.”

What’s the matter? Can’t advertise superior flavor? Can’t advertise loud crunch? Can’t advertise low price-point? Well… Maybe it’s about time this product HIT THE BRICKS.

 

Grey

angry and sleepy?
everything is overcast
tea isn’t helping

miniature cookies
why did I take so many
to eat only one?

empty restaurant
ipod plays my radio
heard it all before

My computer thinks the word cunt is a typo. This is one of those rare cases in which I know my computer is wrong and I am right. Cunt is indeed a word.

I right clicked on the word and clicked on the “learn spelling” command. SUDDENLY I froze! My fingers firmly holding the mouse button down. The “Learn” button light up blue just waiting for me to let it go and commit the command. Just then, like my life flashing before my eyes (but in reverse), I saw my future. There might come a time when I intend to type the word count, or cut, or maybe even cute and somehow end up typing cunt. If my computer does not underline this word as a typo, and if this document happens to be important, or somehow sensitive, the trouble this typo will cause me will probably be worse than the trouble of knowing cunt is spelled correctly, even though it is underlined in red. And so, I took the pointer off the “learn spelling” button. Now my computer thinks I have spelled the same word wrong five times, and I am willing to live with that.

Nitpicking? Absolutely.

“Shoot for the moon and if you miss you will still be among the stars.” -Les Brown

I hate this quote. I think it’s stupid, tacky and 100% cliche. It’s just a wordy way to say always try your best. The problem with this quote is the totally absurd premise that if you miss the moon, then you will be among the stars. This is a very loose interpretation of the word “among.” If indeed you get shot from Earth in order to reach the moon and miss, you will be floating in space. If you are “in” space and so are the stars, then I guess you are among the stars right away. As a matter of fact, we are all among the stars as I write this, and as you read it.

Obviously this explanation of among the stars isn’t what Les Brown was going for. He is trying to infer that if you miss the moon you will reach “the stars” because you have shot yourself so hard with your will power. Well the closest star is Proxima Centauri and it’s 4.2 light years away. So you might be “among” Proxima in about 1 million years. But then you are only among a single star. It’s not possible to be among multiple stars because they are so far apart from one another. Stupid.

Secondly I am having a hard time following the analogy of the moon and the stars. Shooting for the moon is like choosing a goal and going after it. This I understand. For example, I want to get myself a really nice house or a nice career. That is my moon, and I am shooting for it. Now I am lost, I don’t understand what the stars are supposed to represent.

Say I miss, I didn’t get the job, or the house. Now I am among the stars? What are the stars? Are the stars symbolic of the lessons I learned in my quest for the moon? Are the stars my new friends and connections? Are the stars a symbol of the the warm fuzzy feeling I get for shooting so high and failing or missing? It would be hard to believe that the stars are actually my shitty 1-room apartment and my min-wage job that I ended up with after MISSING my original goal the moon.

Maybe I am missing the point altogether. In which case this quote is PURE GENIUS. Maybe what it’s saying is, when we are setting our original goals we should aim for the moon. But because at that time we are so short sighted and inexperienced we are unable to understand that there are stars beyond the moon. If we try as hard as we can to reach the moon and miss, only than can we see all the other opportunities. If that is the case, then this quote makes some sense. But it isn’t. It sucks.

Anyone who uses this “inspirational quote” seriously, is automatically on my shit list.

I remember an event in my young life, in middle school, we had to make some kind of art project relating to the Oregon trail. Well back in elementary school for an art project the whole class made a little rocking chair made out of clothes pins. It was perfect I thought. A perfect hand made miniature rocking chair, the kind an old-time carpenter would make for the setters of the time. So I handed that in and got an A.

The teacher thought I did a great job, until some pompous cunt decided to tattle on me and tell the teacher that I made that in an art class two or three years ago. The teacher confronted me about it, and I didn’t lie, I said yes I made it some years ago. However I was never graded on it, and after all I DID make it. Although I vaguely understood that I had broken a rule and did feel somewhat guilty about it, I had some doubt and some questions. Was this really wrong?

I don’t know why I have been thinking about it today, but I keep adjusting the scenario a little bit to see exactly where it becomes “wrong” to hand in your own work. Here are some scenarios.

Scenario 1: I made the chair in art class three years ago, took it home, and turned it in as an art project at a later time. (What actually happened.) This is against the rules, and can be considered academic dishonesty. Pretty serious crime.

Scenario 2: I made the chair in art class three years ago. I lost it, but remembered how to make it. I remade the same chair for the Oregon Trail project. Now this is interesting. As a matter of fact I could have simply lied and adopted this story and no one would know any better. I made the chair, absorbed the skills, and remade the same chair but for a new project. I am not sure what would have happened if I took this stance but thinking about it, it seems totally legitimate. The idea remains the same, but the labor was put in just like everyone else.

Scenario 3: I read how to make the chair in some book, and simply made the chair. Obviously this is fine, and this is what the teacher would like me to do.

It seems like so much grey area. What is it exactly that we are being graded on in this case? The creative process? The time, labor and attention to detail? I think this whole paradigm should be changed and students should be allowed to plagiarize their own work anytime they want. I think it will drive students to create work of a much higher quality and encourage students to keep detailed bibliographies and source lists of all the work they have ever done because it WILL come in handy. Imagine how nice it would be if you put 15 hours into a paper, but you knew it would probably work for you at least two or three times? Not to mention these papers would go through years of refining, which would bring the quality up.

I don’t know I haven’t made up my mind about this. Just some food for thought.

 

Gambling

smokey poker room
I sit reluctantly
—lose predictably

seek comfort in food
the Bellagio buffet
got my money’s worth

Touchdown Vegas

two hours backward
fifty degrees warmer
touchdown in Vegas

hundreds of people
crank slot machine handles
unhappy faces

The Battle

common cold syndrome
nothing a sauna can’t fix
two hundred degrees

each room in the house
contains a stale cup of tea
I still have a cough

“I’m glad we are friends.”
text hits like a sledgehammer
reads like a curse