Support NeoGAF

[Jac_Solar]

Realistically, your characters, almost always being hardened soldiers, would reload as fast as possible every single time and be affected by things entirely outside the players control, like positioning and incoming fire. Realism isn't really a good comparison here.

I was just replying to the person who said that it was unrealistic, when it's in fact more realistic than unrealistic, if anything.

 

[Snapshot King]

I was just replying to the person who said that it was unrealistic, when it's in fact more realistic than unrealistic, if anything.

And I'm just saying that they're right, it is more unrealistic than anything, but also that it kind of doesn't matter anyway because it's dumb.

 

[nib95]

One of the most awesome new unique features this gen, lord knows why more games don't use it. Really adds a layer of strategic/gameplay depth to simple reloading, additional challenge and reward.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

And I'm just saying that they're right, it is more unrealistic than anything, but also that it kind of doesn't matter anyway because it's dumb.

It's an entirely optional mechanic, balanced by an all but flawless riak/reward system. How is it dumb? I don't get your complaint.

 

[Snapshot King]

It's an entirely optional mechanic, balanced by an all but flawless riak/reward system. How is it dumb? I don't get your complaint.

Well, in singleplayer, it only really works in a scenario in which the character is sitting behind cover doing nothing but a gimmicky minigame for an extended length of time.

In multiplayer, it causes some weapons to be, to other players, randomly better or worse. The game that invented it also had the situation where sniper rifles were worthless unless actively reloaded, so every match would start with a sprint to the rifle then an empty shot to get the reload. The rifle should merely have been like that in the first place.

 

[Jac_Solar]

And I'm just saying that they're right, it is more unrealistic than anything, but also that it kind of doesn't matter anyway because it's dumb.

Ok, if you want to discuss the semantics of this, then you have to also consider the fact that, regardless of who the soldier you are playing as was in the past, you're always put in radically different and new situations in the game.

And on top of that, you're also picking up new, alien weapons that 'the soldier' has to get used to/learn/mix up with -- so, again, is it really more realistic that your reload takes 1 second (example) every single time to the millisecond, instead of some variation?

The "most realistic" would be if the bar in Gears of War was far bigger, of course, since it is an experienced soldier, but saying that your reload time never changes in the slightest is more realistic just isn't logical.

I'm not discussing the damage aspect of it -- just the speed.

 

[Hypron]

I never really liked the damage boost aspect of AR in gears, it's pretty unrealistic and there's no justification whatsoever for it (unless I missed it). I quite liked shortening the reload time of my guns when I played the game though. Although, it's more a gimmick than a solid mechanic, I never really thought "damn this game would have been better if it had active reloading".

 

[Snapshot King]

Ok, if you want to discuss the semantics of this, then you have to also consider the fact that, regardless of who the soldier you are playing as was in the past, you're always put in radically different and new situations in the game.

And on top of that, you're also picking up new, alien weapons that you have to get used to -- so, again, is it really more realistic that your reload takes 1 second (example) every single time to the millisecond, instead of some variation?

The "most realistic" would be if the bar in Gears of War was far bigger, of course, since it is an experienced soldier, but saying that your reload time never changes in the slightest is more realistic just isn't logical.

If you want to argue semantics, then if you're picking up an alien weapon, or any new weapon, your reload time should initially be awful. Using the AR example, there shouldn't even be a sweet spot when you first get it, and over time you would get one, more and more, until the entire bar is active, as your character got used to it.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Well, in singleplayer, it only really works in a scenario in which the character is sitting behind cover doing nothing but a gimmicky minigame for an extended length of time.

In multiplayer, it causes some weapons to be, to other players, randomly better or worse. The game that invented it also had the situation where sniper rifles were worthless unless actively reloaded, so every match would start with a sprint to the rifle then an empty shot to get the reload. The rifle should merely have been like that in the first place.

You can active reload any time, while doing anything, so your first point is nonsense.

And when AR'd, your Guns are noticeably louder and the tracer fire brighter, so in mp, if you can't tell if someone is AR'd, you're blind, deaf or both.

 

[Jac_Solar]

If you want to argue semantics, then if you're picking up an alien weapon, or any new weapon, your reload time should initially be awful. Using the AR example, there shouldn't even be a sweet spot when you first get it, and over time you would get one, more and more, until the entire bar is active, as your character got used to it.

I agree. That would be cool. But I was speaking in regards to the boundaries set by the game, and pitch perfect automation is never more realistic when it comes to dealing with human elements, even though just ignoring the sweet-spot gives you that. But that was my point -- an element of variation is more realistic than none at all.

 

[toastyToast]

I'd rather not see any more support for the 'reload after every bullet fired even though its a 40 bullet magazine' culture. Shit is dumb as fuck

How about incentivizing not reloading after every shot?

 

[Serra]

I think its kinda dumb honestly. I have never played a game where I thought "active reload would make this better"

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

Title says it all. Shortening the reload time for a weapon when a player times the second press of the button properly is a fun and rewarding mechanic. If you're lazy about it you can still just press the button once, but the reload takes longer.

Has this been incorporated into anything other than the Gears of War series? Does anyone actually dislike this mechanic?

Great question. I actually like the active reload in Gears of War. Adds a tiny bit of realism.

 

[Sophia]

Well, in singleplayer, it only really works in a scenario in which the character is sitting behind cover doing nothing but a gimmicky minigame for an extended length of time.

In multiplayer, it causes some weapons to be, to other players, randomly better or worse. The game that invented it also had the situation where sniper rifles were worthless unless actively reloaded, so every match would start with a sprint to the rifle then an empty shot to get the reload. The rifle should merely have been like that in the first place.

Sniper Matches in Gears of War were amazing. Tossing down a smoke grenade to get that active reload and to give yourself cover in a corner while playing Annex. So goood. There aren't a whole lot of shooters like that this generation.

I'd rather not see any more support for the 'reload after every bullet fired even though its a 40 bullet magazine' culture. Shit is dumb as fuck

How about incentivizing not reloading after every shot?

There's a lot of ways you could deal with that. Including simply having the active reload be harder to hit the more bullets you have left in the gun. And of course, reloading after every bullet fired makes it harder by default in Gears of War anyhow.

 

[famousmortimer]

Active reload from gears and the way that spotting worked in BFBC2 should be standard in *most* shooters, but isn't. Because COD.


Erg.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

I'd rather not see any more support for the 'reload after every bullet fired even though its a 40 bullet magazine' culture. Shit is dumb as fuck

How about incentivizing not reloading after every shot?

By only buffing the bullets you add in the reload and making it hard to spam by making the AR target smaller each time?

Oh wait, that's how Gears does it.

 

[Snapshot King]

You can active reload any time, while doing anything, so your first point is nonsense.

And when AR'd, your Guns are noticeably louder and the tracer fire brighter, so in mp, if you can't tell if someone is AR'd, you're blind, deaf or both.

That's my point. You aren't aware that they're AR'd until they fire, and with half the weapons in gears of war, it's already too late by that point. Sniper rifle, shotgun, torque bow, boomshot. To an outside observer, from a single shot, it may down you/kill you or not, based on what from your perspective is random chance. It's nonsense.

As for the singleplayer portion. Yes, you can do it at any time, but the games sequences were clearly all built around sitting behind a rock and actively reloading and then getting back out once your health had regenned which is all dreadfully slow. Removing active reload and simply making the active one the default would expose how much time you spend behind a rock to be much longer because you're really just waiting for your health to come back. It's a trick to cover up a poorly tuned system.

 

[FyreWulff]

It's annoying in other games that use the same button for reload as they do for picking guns up.

See also: trying to vent a Plasma Repeater in Reach without picking anything up.

 

[The Faceless Master]

other shooters out there have animations that are longer than the actual reload time and people game the mechanics by quick weapon switching, etc to get that extra edge on reloads in them. no damage bonus though...

 

[Sophia]

That's my point. You aren't aware that they're AR'd until they fire, and with half the weapons in gears of war, it's already too late by that point. Sniper rifle, shotgun, torque bow, boomshot. To an outside observer, from a single shot, it may down you/kill you or not, based on what from your perspective is random chance. It's nonsense.

If you got yourself in a situation where it was already too late, then you screwed up in the first place and the player who killed you should be praised for completely owning you in the metagame aspect. Gears of War had it's balance issues, but it was nowhere near as unbalanced as your "point" makes it out to be.

 

[abstract alien]

I agree. Zombi U style loading is cool too, but I guess that is only possible on Wii U and 3DS(or ps3/vita I suppose). It actually made me fumble up a few times while being chased, which turned up the intensity even more lol

You can just push a button as well, but eh. Boring.

 

[Snapshot King]

If you got yourself in a situation where it was already too late, then you screwed up in the first place and the player who killed you should be praised for completely owning you in the metagame aspect. Gears of War had it's balance issues, but it was nowhere near as unbalanced as your "point" makes it out to be.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I feel like minute to minute encounters shouldn't be filled with unpredictable and perceptually randomized elements for the sake of a a metagame. I'm also the kind of guy who'll turn off items in a game like Smash, for example.

 

[Sophia]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I feel like minute to minute encounters shouldn't be filled with unpredictable and perceptually randomized elements for the sake of a a metagame. I'm also the kind of guy who'll turn off items in a game like Smash, for example.

That's your problem then. It's not really unpredictable, it just requires the foresight to know something as simple as how to counter what and not blindly rush in and start shooting.

 

[MisterAnderson]

I agree that the bonus damage rewarded for active reloading in Gears is a little much since it was just abused in multiplayer (emptying your clip for an active reload for the bonus damage is stupid). A faster reload should be reward enough by itself.

People complaining about active reloading being a "minigame" though? That's a hell of a stretch... it's pressing a button twice instead of once.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

That's my point. You aren't aware that they're AR'd until they fire, and with half the weapons in gears of war, it's already too late by that point. Sniper rifle, shotgun, torque bow, boomshot. To an outside observer, from a single shot, it may down you/kill you or not, based on what from your perspective is random chance. It's nonsense.

As for the singleplayer portion. Yes, you can do it at any time, but the games sequences were clearly all built around sitting behind a rock and actively reloading and then getting back out once your health had regenned which is all dreadfully slow. Removing active reload and simply making the active one the default would expose how much time you spend behind a rock to be much longer because you're really just waiting for your health to come back. It's a trick to cover up a poorly tuned system.

Opinions and all that, but really? GOW is one of the best designed games this gen. It's bloody marvellous. "They threw active reload in to hide how long you spend hiding behind a rock" is just beyond ridiculous.

A actual kind of agree about the damage buff thing though, I can see your point in MP.

 

[Canis lupus]

Its not something I miss from other games.

 

[toastyToast]

By only buffing the bullets you add in the reload and making it hard to spam by making the AR target smaller each time?

Oh wait, that's how Gears does it.

The buff is completely unnecessary though. You're rewarded by reloading faster than you should be able to

That's more of a nuance of AR to not make it stupid rather than incentivizing not reloading haphazardly

 

[Snapshot King]

That's your problem then. It's not really unpredictable, it just requires the foresight to know something as simple as how to counter what and not blindly rush in and start shooting.

There is no situation in which countering is a solution to metagame induced issues. In some cases, you turn a corner, note a certain weapon, and try best you can to take our your opponent. A proper metagame would allow me to know what the other player has on tap, for example, supers in a fighter. Instead, unless they fire, I can only, and must only guess every time that they HAVE actively reloaded, which is obviously sometimes not the case. If I were to take a risk on a movement where they would not be able to down me with a regular weapon, but COULD with an AR one, it's essentially a completely blind risk and my success is entirely determined through events I had no knowledge or control over.

Were this a fighter, I could see if my opponent had super, and know his options. I think it's a bit of a mess really and I can't stand it. Then again, no matter what I play, I'm as big a fan as any as making it a pure, even playing ground for everyone. Weapon unlocks, killstreaks, damage boosts for...whatever. It's all trash.

Opinions and all that, but really? GOW is one of the best designed games this gen. It's bloody marvellous. "They threw active reload in to hide how long you spend hiding behind a rock" is just beyond ridiculous.

A actual kind of agree about the damage buff thing though, I can see your point in MP.

It's fine. It works well enough for what it is, but it's slow. I disagree utterly that it is one of the best designed games this gen. It only appears such because it's generally in such poor company. It is absolutely worse than the game is takes inspiration from the most (RE4) and is a joke next to that games successor (Vanquish). But since RE4 and Vanquish would make for terrible multiplayer modes, Gears gets to live in the spotlight as the best you can get from this kind of bad system.

 

[Sophia]

There is no situation in which countering is a solution to metagame induced issues. In some cases, you turn a corner, note a certain weapon, and try best you can to take our your opponent. A proper metagame would allow me to know what the other player has on tap, for example, supers in a fighter. Instead, unless they fire, I can only, and must only guess every time that they HAVE actively reloaded, which is obviously sometimes not the case. If I were to take a risk on a movement where they would not be able to down me with a regular weapon, but COULD with an AR one, it's essentially a completely blind risk and my success is entirely determined through events I had no knowledge or control over.

Were this a fighter, I could see if my opponent had super, and know his options. I think it's a bit of a mess really and I can't stand it. Then again, no matter what I play, I'm as big a fan as any as making it a pure, even playing ground for everyone. Weapon unlocks, killstreaks, damage boosts for...whatever. It's all trash.

*facepalm*

Or you could just not turn the corner in the first place? It's not like maps are randomly designed without any concept of choke points or key locations. Hold back, wait to see what your opponent has and if they did an active reload, ???, and profit.

It's fine. It works well enough for what it is, but it's slow. I disagree utterly that it is one of the best designed games this gen. It only appears such because it's generally in such poor company. It is absolutely worse than the game is takes inspiration from the most (RE4) and is a joke next to that games successor (Vanquish). But since RE4 and Vanquish would make for terrible multiplayer modes, Gears gets to live in the spotlight as the best you can get from this kind of bad system.

Vanquish is a very different game from Gears of Wars. The similarities between the two basically end at "They're third person shooters with cover aspects", and high level play between the two games and their single player game modes is nothing alike.

 

[MisterAnderson]

People arguing about the bonus damage from active reloads in Gears are missing the point of the thread. I was never claiming the bonus damage was inherent to the idea behind the "active reload" mechanic. Simply rewarding players with faster reloads with good timing of a button press (and variations of this mechanic) is what I was mainly intending to discuss.

And for the record I am of the opinion that bonus damage for active reloads is too much of a reward and too abusable in multiplayer. I'd much prefer the simple reward of a faster reload (and maybe a gun jam if messed up) if implemented into more games.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Snapshot King, you know what else is better than Gears of War?

Hamburgers. I mean, they have loads in common, but hamburgers is its natural successor.

 

[Snapshot King]

*facepalm*

Or you could just not turn the corner in the first place? It's not like maps are randomly designed without any concept of choke points or key locations. Hold back, wait to see what your opponent has and if they did an active reload, ???, and profit.



Vanquish is a very different game from Gears of Wars. The similarities between the two basically end at "They're third person shooters with cover aspects", and high level play between the two games and their single player game modes is nothing alike.

You're completely ignoring the problems in my example and instead point out "WELL DON'T DO THAT." I can provide examples all day and you can counter with vacuous, non committal and small-minded responses to every one because the game is obviously a larger arena than any one example can provide. Even your solution to my example doesn't solve my key problem, that there are scenarios in the game where you are completely unable to know what you are up against even when being confronted with your opponent face to face.

As an earlier poster pointed out, the damage boost is totally unnecessary, merely being able to reload twice as fast should be its own incentive, and would fit happily in said metagame because it would be a reasonable assumption that people have full clips, and would allow for quicker reloads during scuffles.

As for your second point, THATS MY POINT. Gears and Vanquish are extremely different and it reflects poorly on Gears as a result.

Snapshot King, you know what else is better than Gears of War?

Hamburgers. I mean, they have loads in common, but hamburgers is its natural successor.

I was not aware that hamburgers were a genre of videogame that could be characterized as a third person shooter. I figured they were a food.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

I was not aware that hamburgers were a genre of videogame that could be characterized as a third person shooter. I figured they were a food.

Hamburgers>Vanquish>Gears

 

[Dead Man]

Quicker reloading is fine, but i never liked the extra damage aspect of it in Gears.

Boom. It is a bit silly, is why.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Also, I find it strange that Gears 1 outsold Vanquish, with a single console, and a much smaller user base. It had like a quarter of the audience (I'd guess) and still outsold it.

It is therfore obviously superior.

 

[nOoblet16]

Is there any real risk aspect though? If you miss it the gun just reloads at the regular rate, instead of jamming and taking longer or something.(Don't think there would be any fans of it if that were the case though) There's no penalty at all to active reload in most games to my knowledge

Your gun jams and takes twice the time to reload than it normally would (without active reload).This makes for a HUGE difference in multiplayer, your whole approach changes depending on whether your reload was a perfect reload (in which case you don't hesitate to take any shot because of the damage bonus and completely expose yourself) or an active reload (evens out the level field and keeps the fight neutral and on the edge) or if you encountered a jam (in which case you have to evade and escape as you cann't do anything at all during this time and are extremely easy to get killed).

So no it's not at all pointless.

 

[Snapshot King]

People arguing about the bonus damage from active reloads in Gears are missing the point of the thread. I was never claiming the bonus damage was inherent to the idea behind the "active reload" mechanic. Simply rewarding players with faster reloads with good timing of a button press (and variations of this mechanic) is what I was mainly intending to discuss.

And for the record I am of the opinion that bonus damage for active reloads is too much of a reward and too abusable in multiplayer. I'd much prefer the simple reward of a faster reload (and maybe a gun jam if messed up) if implemented into more games.

To address your point more directly, reloads should last as long as they should. They should be timed to coincide with the gameplay flow of the game. I am not a fan of the active reload, personally, although that should be obvious.

Also, I find it strange that Gears 1 outsold Vanquish, with a single console, and a much smaller user base. It had like a quarter of the audience (I'd guess) and still outsold it.

It is therfore obviously superior.

And I'm supposed to take you seriously how?

 

[Sophia]

You're completely ignoring the problems in my example and instead point out "WELL DON'T DO THAT." I can provide examples all day and you can counter with vacuous, non committal and small-minded responses to every one because the game is obviously a larger arena than any one example can provide. Even your solution to my example doesn't solve my key problem, that there are scenarios in the game where you are completely unable to know what you are up against even when being confronted with your opponent face to face.

As an earlier poster pointed out, the damage boost is totally unnecessary, merely being able to reload twice as fast should be its own incentive, and would fit happily in said metagame because it would be a reasonable assumption that people have full clips, and would allow for quicker reloads during scuffles.

I'm not ignoring your point. I'm pointing out your entire reasoning is flawed in the first place. Active reload's damage boost has it's issues, nobody in their right will deny that after the two-piercing issues with the shotgun. Yet it's not an entirely unknowable, unlearnable mechanic as you claim. Tournement play proves that your so called "scenarios where you are completely unable to know what you are up against" is completely false on so many levels. Total bullshit, even. You can hear your opponent reload, the mechanics of the boosted damage tell you that he had to fire his gun to get in the first place, you know how many AR increased damage shots he's got by how many times he fired. Etc, etc. It's simply not completely unknowable.

You seem to have some sort of weird bias towards the game and franchise given comments like...

As for your second point, THATS MY POINT. Gears and Vanquish are extremely different and it reflects poorly on Gears as a result.

... that. If the two games are extremely different, then it can't exactly reflect poorly on Gears now can it?

Hamburgers>Vanquish>Gears

Hersey! Goood Hamburges >>>>>>>> Vanquish = Gears of War >>>>> Bad Hamburgers.

(Granted, Good hamburgers > Any video game any day.... >.>)

 

[zon]

I just find it annoying. If it's not in CS 1.6 then it's ass.

 

[troushers]

Why aren't are our commodified, focus group tested, repetitive shooters even more homogenous? Why must they be in any way distinct?

 

[NinjaBoiX]

And I'm supposed to take you seriously how?

The numbers don't lie my man.

And yes, of course I was being a bit sarcastic.

Look, Vanquish is amazing, truly awesome. But FFS, it doesn't make a mockery of Gears as you said. They are really rather different games apart form anything else.

 

[Snapshot King]

I'm not ignoring your point. I'm pointing out your entire reasoning is flawed in the first place. Active reload's damage boost has it's issues, nobody in their right will deny that after the two-piercing issues with the shotgun. Yet it's not an entirely unknowable, unlearnable mechanic as you claim. Tournement play proves that your so called "scenarios where you are completely unable to know what you are up against" is completely false on so many levels. Total bullshit, even. You can hear your opponent reload, the mechanics of the boosted damage tell you that he had to fire his gun to get in the first place, you know how many AR increased damage shots he's got by how many times he fired. It's simply not completely unknowable.

You seem to have some sort of weird bias towards the game and franchise given comments like...



... that. If the two games are extremely different, then it can't exactly reflect poorly on Gears now can it?

You're telling me that there is no scenario, ever, in which a person would run into an enemy and be unable to tell if they've actively reloaded or not? That to point that out is total bullshit? Seriously?

As for the difference, a good steak is different from a bad steak, in the ways that it tastes good, and has a superior texture, etc. I don't have a bizarre bias against Gears of War, I simply think it's overrated and not all that good in the first place. I don't think that's so much of a weird bias. Disliking it does not imply some kind of vendetta.

The numbers don't lie my man.

And yes, of course I was being a bit sarcastic.

Look, Vanquish is amazing, truly awesome. But FFS, it doesn't make a mockery of Gears as you said. They are really rather different games apart form anything else.

It absolutely does. Gears iterated on a formula established with RE4, and improved it in some ways to fit a multiplayer setting, whereas Vanquish iterated on that formula to create a nearly perfect game. Gears therefore looks like a total failure alongside it. But we're getting way outside of the scope of the topic now.

Needless to say, active reloading is terrible and its fantastic that it is rarely used in other games. Makes me hope that other devs know that it's a lame gimmick.

 

[Sophia]

The numbers don't lie my man.

And yes, of course I was being a bit sarcastic.

Look, Vanquish is amazing, truly awesome. But FFS, it doesn't make a mockery of Gears as you said. They are really rather different games apart form anything else.

They're COMPLETELY different games. It's an insult to even compare the two. High level play in Vanquish is more akin to an oldschool shoot em up like Contra, and nothing at all like the slower-paced nature of Gears of War.

You're telling me that there is no scenario, ever, in which a person would run into an enemy and be unable to tell if they've actively reloaded or not? That to point that out is total bullshit? Seriously?

As for the difference, a good steak is different from a bad steak, in the ways that it tastes good, and has a superior texture, etc. I don't have a bizarre bias against Gears of War, I simply think it's overrated and not all that good in the first place. I don't think that's so much of a weird bias. Disliking it does not imply some kind of vendetta.

There is one such scenario: It's called you played poorly and missed every sign of what your enemy was doing over the round. "You" being used in the general sense and not referring to you specifically, of course.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

It absolutely does. Gears iterated on a formula established with RE4, and improved it in some ways to fit a multiplayer setting, whereas Vanquish iterated on that formula to create a nearly perfect game. Gears therefore looks like a total failure alongside it. But we're getting way outside of the scope of the topic now.

Needless to say, active reloading is terrible and its fantastic that it is rarely used in other games. Makes me hope that other devs know that it's a lame gimmick.

Gears - 94 MC
Gears 2 - 93 MC
Gears 3 - 91 MC

17.77 million global sales.

"Gears therefore looks like a total failure alongside it."

 

[Snapshot King]

They're COMPLETELY different games. It's an insult to even compare the two. High level play in Vanquish is more akin to an oldschool shoot em up like Contra, and nothing at all like the slower-paced nature of Gears of War.

Exactly, you just proved my point.

There is one such scenario: It's called you played poorly and missed every sign of what your enemy was doing over the round. "You" being used in the general sense and not referring to you specifically, of course.

Clearly we're not going to agree on this when I am firmly in the belief that this scenario occurs, and your response is "well yeah but you're bad." Metagames are for the pre or post match. During said match, the game should be taking center stage.

 

[Sophia]

Exactly, you just proved my point.

Remind me again, in crystal clear terms, what exactly your point is regarding Gears of War and Vanquish? Given you just outright said that both games iterated on the same formula. I'm having difficulty following your completely out of whack train of thought on this when you say one thing then proceed to make such contradictory statements as this.

Clearly we're not going to agree on this when I am firmly in the belief that this scenario occurs, and your response is "well yeah but you're bad." Metagames are for the pre or post match. During said match, the game should be taking center stage.

Metagaming and Yomi occur at more than just the pre/post match game, you know? It's every level of the gameplay. If you know that a map has a certain chokepoint, and if you know that your enemy just fired at you and missed, and you STILL fall for his active-reloaded enabled damage, then that's on you and not the fault of the game itself.

Active Reload damage was certainly too powerful when used in specific aspects tho, but those aren't fatal flaws of the entire mechanic, just balance concerns that needed to be worked out (and they were in future installments.)

 

[BurnOutBrighter]

It should be, it's an interesting risk/reward mechanic that rewards good timing, precision and awareness/multitasking.

It fits in perfectly with competitive shooter gameplay too, it's not like a random hacking minigame or anything. Maybe remove the damage bonus but keep the timing bonus/jamming delay.

 

[SoCoRoBo]

It's a fantastic mechanic on its own, damage boost is a bad appendage to it.

Not sure how well it's work in other games though. Gears has a pace that is very very unique to it. It's one of the things that's most awesome about the game, every fight has a rhythm to it. Very rarely do you have to rely on twitch, except in gnasher duels. It's a lot more like a roaming beat em up (along the lines of Anarchy Reigns maybe? haven't played it) than most shooters. It's great when the reloading can be factored into the rhythm of the fight, be absolutely frustrating in something like COD where it's a distraction from it.

 

[scar tissue]

Quicker reloading is fine, but i never liked the extra damage aspect of it in Gears.

This.

The damage buff is bad from a gameplay perspective (I have no way of knowing if my enemy has an AR buff, plus it encourages shooting into the ground and then active reloading at the start of the round, which is pretty retarded), and it makes zero sense from the perspective of the fiction.

Thankfully, Judgement will drop the damage buff (or so I've heard).

 

[Mikeside]

Gave either of you two played a Gears game before?

Every gun jams if you miss the active reload, that's the whole point of the risk reward mechanic.

If it's too difficult for you, like Pop o matic, you can ignore it altogether, but if you go for it, and miss, it leaves you vulnerable for an extra second or so.

Jeez, if you don't know how it works, don't enter a discussion about it!

I feel like GAF would be a much quieter place if everyone followed this advice.