87 réponses à ce sujet

[askanec]

exxxed wrote...

 The second and third lines refer to the other dumb posts in this thread, sorry that i didn't mention it.

 As for your reply, you CAN actually pause the game and look around to make decisions based on your strategy , and come on , don't tell me you actually looked at the bullet trajectory to realize that you're actually fired upon, the best way is to look at the bullet impact on your cover, it's much more logical.

 Anyway, the enemies shoot at you, regardless at who they're aiming, if you get up and move around and/or shoot.

 For me it actually looks more as a flashy, cheap Hollywood effect, it was better done in ME 1 where you couldn't see the trajectory but the impact points varied on the quality of the weapon and/or character skill and stance (i.e, running and gunning, crouch etc.).

  Take care!

I'm pointing out that the tracer fire is the visual cue the game provides to tell you who's firing at you. And based on that, the player can make informed decisions on the gameplay. I'm not sure what bullet impact or bullet trajectory has to do with that. It seems we are just discussing two different things.

[-System]

AsheraII wrote...

1) It looks nicer
2) It helps aiming around corners
3) It's just a game, join the army or work at some physics laboratory if you're that tight about realism (in a sci-fi game, ffs  )

Agreed.

It's a game. Stop whining over fiction.

[exxxed]

askanec wrote...

exxxed wrote...

 The second and third lines refer to the other dumb posts in this thread, sorry that i didn't mention it.

 As for your reply, you CAN actually pause the game and look around to make decisions based on your strategy , and come on , don't tell me you actually looked at the bullet trajectory to realize that you're actually fired upon, the best way is to look at the bullet impact on your cover, it's much more logical.

 Anyway, the enemies shoot at you, regardless at who they're aiming, if you get up and move around and/or shoot.

 For me it actually looks more as a flashy, cheap Hollywood effect, it was better done in ME 1 where you couldn't see the trajectory but the impact points varied on the quality of the weapon and/or character skill and stance (i.e, running and gunning, crouch etc.).

  Take care!

I'm pointing out that the tracer fire is the visual cue the game provides to tell you who's firing at you. And based on that, the player can make informed decisions on the gameplay. I'm not sure what bullet impact or bullet trajectory has to do with that. It seems we are just discussing two different things.

 Tracers makes you able to see the trajectory, english ain't my native language, but was it that hard to figure that i was referring to tracers (i.e. visible bullet trajectory), and about the impact point, i was referring to the effects/splashes the bullet makes when it hits solid cover, it makes you able to see that you're being fired upon much more clearly than tracers! In other words it's kind of pointless.

[askanec]

exxxed wrote...

askanec wrote...

exxxed wrote...

 The second and third lines refer to the other dumb posts in this thread, sorry that i didn't mention it.

 As for your reply, you CAN actually pause the game and look around to make decisions based on your strategy , and come on , don't tell me you actually looked at the bullet trajectory to realize that you're actually fired upon, the best way is to look at the bullet impact on your cover, it's much more logical.

 Anyway, the enemies shoot at you, regardless at who they're aiming, if you get up and move around and/or shoot.

 For me it actually looks more as a flashy, cheap Hollywood effect, it was better done in ME 1 where you couldn't see the trajectory but the impact points varied on the quality of the weapon and/or character skill and stance (i.e, running and gunning, crouch etc.).

  Take care!

I'm pointing out that the tracer fire is the visual cue the game provides to tell you who's firing at you. And based on that, the player can make informed decisions on the gameplay. I'm not sure what bullet impact or bullet trajectory has to do with that. It seems we are just discussing two different things.

 Tracers makes you able to see the trajectory, english ain't my native language, but was it that hard to figure that i was referring to tracers (i.e. visible bullet trajectory), and about the impact point, i was referring to the effects/splashes the bullet makes when it hits solid cover, it makes you able to see that you're being fired upon much more clearly than tracers! In other words it's kind of pointless.

I place more importance in knowing which enemy is shooting at me from which location than just the knowledge I'm being shot at. It's just the way the gameplay is: it tells you which biotic power is coming at you from which enemy, or which of them is shooting rockets at you.

If you feel that such information is pointless, then it's certainly your prerogative. 

[Lance Of Longinus]

Honestly, I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make.
The guns in ME fire grain-sized bullets, which when propelled fast enough could theoretically impact with the force of a nuclear weapon, and that is how they compensate their stopping power for the fact they have so little mass. The bullets move fast, yes, but the problem is they are far too slow for grain-sized rounds to ever be damaging. It's like firing a 9mm round at a target and firing a .50 caliber round at the same velocity. There is a significant difference is damage, this in the same, but vastly scaled up.
And it's never addressed at all. That's what bugs me.

Modifié par Lance Of Longinus, 19 avril 2010 - 02:08 .

[MadCat221]

I understand it and noticed it myself, Lance.



Also... why don't these "thermal clips" slowly cool off on their own? Why did they all of a sudden hold all their heat when the guns cooled off in the last game?



Clumsily done.

[ToJKa1]

Someone in another thread had a hypothesis that they absorb heat via a chemical reaction, and thus can't be reused, whereas hetasinks of ME1 weapons were passive, and could be used after cooling down. Good enough explanation for me.

[Havokk7]

Taranatar9 wrote...

If the RPG purists have their way, Shepard will be using swords and crossbows next time.

For serious though. The bullets aren't actually subsonic. It's just artistic license.

I don't think it is just RPG purism to think about swords. I read a book many years ago that talked about space marines using swords. It was explained that no-one had developed a weapon that would go through body armour but not go through spaceship hulls, so it was too dangerous to use ranged weapons on a spaceship. Thus, sowrds and axes and maces were used.

But, yes, the real answer is "artistic license". This is a game, not a physics simulator. :-)

[FlyingWalrus]

MadCat221 wrote...

I understand it and noticed it myself, Lance.

Also... why don't these "thermal clips" slowly cool off on their own? Why did they all of a sudden hold all their heat when the guns cooled off in the last game?

Clumsily done.

Ever waited for iron heated to red hot levels to cool down on its own?

It's not exactly a fast ocurrence.

[Ecael]

Lance Of Longinus wrote...

I cannot wrap my head around this.
I've been playing ME2, and what I just cannot understand is why the bullets move so slow. This just doesn't make any sense. Bullets in the ME universe have naturally escalated from marble sized rounds propelled at sonic velocities in order to damage a target to grain sized bullets fired at ridiculously high velocities that would be unachievable without the advent of element zero and the mitigation of much of this thanks to the mass effect fields encapsuling the rounds. This would naturally mean that bullets would be required to near instantly hit a target in order to deal damage, a grain-sized bullet fired at the same velocitiy of a 9mm bullet might hope to sting someone.
I can understand why this was implemented, I suppose. To be more shooter-like and have you require to 'lead' targets, and maybe I might of accepted it if BioWare even bothered to address it, but it's not even acknowledged. Is galactic technology cyclic? Will the humans, turians and asari start firing space muskets at each other?
I really enjoyed ME2, but this blatant disregard of established lore is insulting.

Bullets are slower to necessitate use of the cover system in Mass Effect 2. If everything was instant, you couldn't really switch between firing and sitting in cover because enemies on Insanity would kill you instantly.

If you really want an explanation on the lore though, just tell yourself that Shepard's cybernetic augmentations from the Lazarus Project gives him a natural Adrenaline Rush and the ability perceive time much more slowly than normal people would (which would also explain why your squadmates love to run into enemy gunfire).

[kraidy1117]

Ecael wrote...

Lance Of Longinus wrote...

I cannot wrap my head around this.
I've been playing ME2, and what I just cannot understand is why the bullets move so slow. This just doesn't make any sense. Bullets in the ME universe have naturally escalated from marble sized rounds propelled at sonic velocities in order to damage a target to grain sized bullets fired at ridiculously high velocities that would be unachievable without the advent of element zero and the mitigation of much of this thanks to the mass effect fields encapsuling the rounds. This would naturally mean that bullets would be required to near instantly hit a target in order to deal damage, a grain-sized bullet fired at the same velocitiy of a 9mm bullet might hope to sting someone.
I can understand why this was implemented, I suppose. To be more shooter-like and have you require to 'lead' targets, and maybe I might of accepted it if BioWare even bothered to address it, but it's not even acknowledged. Is galactic technology cyclic? Will the humans, turians and asari start firing space muskets at each other?
I really enjoyed ME2, but this blatant disregard of established lore is insulting.

Bullets are slower to necessitate use of the cover system in Mass Effect 2. If everything was instant, you couldn't really switch between firing and sitting in cover because enemies on Insanity would kill you instantly.

If you really want an explanation on the lore though, just tell yourself that Shepard's cybernetic augmentations from the Lazarus Project gives him a natural Adrenaline Rush and the ability perceive time much more slowly than normal people would (which would also explain why your squadmates love to run into enemy gunfire).

Or you just don't compare gameplay with lore......

[R0cket Surge0n]

FUKKIN' BULLETS, HOW DO THEY WORK!?

[BellatrixLugosi]

Lance Of Longinus wrote...

I cannot wrap my head around this.
I've been playing ME2, and what I just cannot understand is why the bullets move so slow. This just doesn't make any sense. Bullets in the ME universe have naturally escalated from marble sized rounds propelled at sonic velocities in order to damage a target to grain sized bullets fired at ridiculously high velocities that would be unachievable without the advent of element zero and the mitigation of much of this thanks to the mass effect fields encapsuling the rounds. This would naturally mean that bullets would be required to near instantly hit a target in order to deal damage, a grain-sized bullet fired at the same velocitiy of a 9mm bullet might hope to sting someone.
I can understand why this was implemented, I suppose. To be more shooter-like and have you require to 'lead' targets, and maybe I might of accepted it if BioWare even bothered to address it, but it's not even acknowledged. Is galactic technology cyclic? Will the humans, turians and asari start firing space muskets at each other?
I really enjoyed ME2, but this blatant disregard of established lore is insulting.

Shoot yourself with rock salt........point blank............with a shotgun............in the stomach...............tell me how you feel

[Lance Of Longinus]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

MadCat221 wrote...

I understand it and noticed it myself, Lance.

Also... why don't these "thermal clips" slowly cool off on their own? Why did they all of a sudden hold all their heat when the guns cooled off in the last game?

Clumsily done.

Ever waited for iron heated to red hot levels to cool down on its own?

It's not exactly a fast ocurrence.

If you just waited for it to cool manually, but as evidenced from ME1, there are obviously heat-flushing methods.
And Bellatrix, have you tried that? If you're saying that's painful, then maybe think that if those were actual bullets you'd be dead, not in pain.
And I'll accept Ecael's explanation, I guess. It still leaves questions but w/e.

Modifié par Lance Of Longinus, 20 avril 2010 - 03:50 .

[SuperMedbh]

Erm, perhaps they're going so fast that they superheat the air they pass through and what you see is not the bullet but its wake thingy.



Or perhaps it just looks better that way. See "Rule of Cool".

[BellatrixLugosi]

What a fleck of paint can do to the space shuttle in orbit



moar pictures

[Lance Of Longinus]

Of course everyone knows that. That's the point, that small paint chip was moving at ridiculously high speeds because of a lack of resistance in space (as there is literally nothing in a vacuum, Sir Isaac Newton being the deadliest SOB in space), it wasn't moving at speeds comparable to a bullet. It was accelerated to a speed fast enough to act as a bullet, which is the point behind the bullets in ME.

[BellatrixLugosi]

Use the imagination!

[KenLyns]

1. Remember, the Alliance issues cheap, stock quality gear to all troops. We were used to the top-end Spectre brand weapons that can fire indefinitely without overheating, but you don't get them until some time into the game. If you compared, for example, the starting Lancer 1 in ME1 and M8 Avenger in ME2, the Avenger is clearly better. The problem with ME2 is that in-game pickups and upgrades don't improve the weapon that much. (All the Cerberus Skunkworks Gorgon rifles mysteriously ceased to exist in ME2...)

2. The only gun I seem to have problems with projectile lag is the Collector assault rifle. 

3. Does the Locust fire subsonic ammo, since it's suppressed? 

[Lance Of Longinus]

I would say the Lancer was better, by virtue that I used the Avenger as little as possible for the awful weapon it was.

[BellatrixLugosi]

KenLyns wrote...

1. Remember, the Alliance issues cheap, stock quality gear to all troops. We were used to the top-end Spectre brand weapons that can fire indefinitely without overheating, but you don't get them until some time into the game. If you compared, for example, the starting Lancer 1 in ME1 and M8 Avenger in ME2, the Avenger is clearly better. The problem with ME2 is that in-game pickups and upgrades don't improve the weapon that much. (All the Cerberus Skunkworks Gorgon rifles mysteriously ceased to exist in ME2...)

2. The only gun I seem to have problems with projectile lag is the Collector assault rifle. 

3. Does the Locust fire subsonic ammo, since it's suppressed? 

lol

[Dudeman315]

I commended ME1 on not using ammo being a great new feature. ME2 's explanation for it's removal was weak at best. Ashley Williams and co whipped Geth ass on Eden Prime with these inferior to Geth weapons, not to mention Shepard's assaults on the Geth strongholds all throughout ME1. After all of that the council decided to switch from infinite ammo weapons to finite ammo weapons, cause the Geth kill stuff better? Not in my ME1 experience. When would anyone switch from some like infinite fuel, food, energy to a finite system that was proven to be inferior in addition to being limited.

[Ecael]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Lance Of Longinus wrote...

I cannot wrap my head around this.
I've been playing ME2, and what I just cannot understand is why the bullets move so slow. This just doesn't make any sense. Bullets in the ME universe have naturally escalated from marble sized rounds propelled at sonic velocities in order to damage a target to grain sized bullets fired at ridiculously high velocities that would be unachievable without the advent of element zero and the mitigation of much of this thanks to the mass effect fields encapsuling the rounds. This would naturally mean that bullets would be required to near instantly hit a target in order to deal damage, a grain-sized bullet fired at the same velocitiy of a 9mm bullet might hope to sting someone.
I can understand why this was implemented, I suppose. To be more shooter-like and have you require to 'lead' targets, and maybe I might of accepted it if BioWare even bothered to address it, but it's not even acknowledged. Is galactic technology cyclic? Will the humans, turians and asari start firing space muskets at each other?
I really enjoyed ME2, but this blatant disregard of established lore is insulting.

Bullets are slower to necessitate use of the cover system in Mass Effect 2. If everything was instant, you couldn't really switch between firing and sitting in cover because enemies on Insanity would kill you instantly.

If you really want an explanation on the lore though, just tell yourself that Shepard's cybernetic augmentations from the Lazarus Project gives him a natural Adrenaline Rush and the ability perceive time much more slowly than normal people would (which would also explain why your squadmates love to run into enemy gunfire).

Or you just don't compare gameplay with lore......

But gameplay and lore go together like lamb and tuna fish.

[EAWare_amirite]

Gameplay and lore compliment each other. When executed properly and with commitment.