563 réponses à ce sujet

[Gleym]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...
Isn't that what you are doing? Arguing for the inclusion of melee weapons without justifying it beyond, "Hurr melee weapons would be teh awesome!1111"

I'll change my position on melee weapons in ME3 if someone can make a convincing argument that melee weapons have a major role on a modern battlefield.

As I recall, I made plenty of justifications for why melee weapons should be included, both in terms of sense, application, and otherwise. I guess it's easy to pretend that I didn't in order to deflect attention from the fact that you didn't bother to read the whole thread and the numerous ideas and justifications provided.

[Cra5y Pineapple]

Must need a Mass Effect-powered light sabre baseball bat.

[Joshep]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

Just FYI, I'm a former Marine.

Yes all Marines are trained in hand to hand combat and they carry issued bayonets, and in some cases kabars that they purchased. Does hand-to-hand combat still occasionally occur on the battlefield? Yes, and there are a few examples of it both in Iraq & Afghanistan. Does it occur often? No.

Ok, can real life marines turn into pure energy, teleport across the field, and get into Close range in a matter of seconds? If you can please tell me ****in how.

I am a vanguard, i get close to my enemy ALL the freakin time, that's why i use a shotgun and melee attacks frequently, but shotguns run out of ammo quickly, and when they do you are un-armed.

That's when a knife wouild come in handy.

Swords can't be compared to bayonets or combat knives. The bayonet is used an extension of the rifle, not a replacement of it. Swords aren't issued because you can't wield one and a rifle at the same time. Using a sword in combat would require abandoning your rifle in favor of a blade, against other men armed with machine guns, assault rifles, carbines, pistols and grenades. You aren't going to come out on top of that fight.

They can come up with an excuse, you see the Halo plasma swords? The only "physical" thing in the sword is the part you use to grab it, the rest is just energy.

So you can have both your gun and your sword (the gun in your back and thw sword attached to your wrist), and a knife would be very useful for vanguards.

In the Mass Effect universe your typical soldier or merc is armored from head to toe, making melee weapons even more obsolescent than they are currently.
Someone wearing combat armor in ME is also protected at the neck.

Say that to Thane, breaking the neck of a mercenary and killing three of them in close quarters in less than a second.

Charging at a heavily armored merc with a sword should end with Shepard getting a shotgun blast to the face, and the 'critical mission failure' message.

Say that to my vanguard, charging all the time towards heavily armored mercs and killing them with melee attacks only (if they are alone).

Unlike the Jedi Shepard isn't a wizard with magical powers.

I suppose biotic abilties are a bit like magic, but those biotic powers don't grant the ability to deflect incoming rounds with a blade.

A little bit like magic? They are COMPLETELY magic, there's no logical explanation to biotic abilities (i'm studying for biochemistry engineer).

And they can come up with an excuse, like they did with the soldier, look at "adrenaline rush" that makes everything go 100 times slower, they can come up with something like "your senses are heavily enhanced so you can deflect bullets with your sword" or something like that.

I like at least some effort put into it to make the universe (and combat) seem believable,

....

So, some guys turning into pure energy and teleporting from a point to other, some others casting a black hole in the middle of the battlefield or a ball of fire that FOLLOWS PEOPLE around even showing an intelligent behavior seems believable to you.

Are you on crack?

Modifié par Joshep, 17 octobre 2010 - 09:58 .

[Gleym]

He isn't on crack, Joseph. Just convinced that his preference is the 'one and only' way to portray the Mass Effect universe, just like many of the other people who make an effort to naysay suggestions. It's easy to insist that you're right when you deliberately ignore anything that contradicts your statement, after all.

[Mecha Tengu]

in WH40k. a sci fi universe, the justificaiton for melee combat and weapons was because of the fact that many soldiers were running around the battlefield with heavy power armour, impervious to any small fire and even canon fire.



Melee Weapons had anti matter properties and would be able to eat through power armour, and psionic barriers, having no real counter except for other melee waepons. Thus Melee combat was reintroduced into the far future, after centuries of warfare being dominated by ranged weapons

[Saremei]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...


I'll change my position on melee weapons in ME3 if someone can make a convincing argument that melee weapons have a major role on a modern battlefield.

Everything has a use on the battlefield. If there is even the slightest chance of a knife or melee weapoin seeing use, then you should (and do) have it.

I can easily justify knives or advanced melee weapons in mass effect: shepard can punch.  The simple fact that shepard can (and quite often does) punch is more than enough validation for advanced melee weaponry.  A punch will never be as dangerous as a blade, even in armored situations.  If shepard had a retractable punch blade as another poster had mentioned, then his force vs an armored target would be multiplied even if it does not penetrate the enemy armor.  I'm not even suggesting something that replaces using the rifles.  The blade could eventually break off during use because of the forces it would experience, leaving shep without the augmented punch, but still having his regular ability to smash face.  It could be a triggerable bonus to close quarters effectiveness in times when it is needed.  Otherwise, it could just be the very realistic and believable bayonet attachment that does not require shep to remove his hands from his rifle while still being a very capable force multiplier.

I don't see what people get about knives being too low tech anyway. There are many ways the blades could be improved dramatically using mass effect universe tech.  Maybe a nanoedge blade with small nanomachines constantly churning on the visibly smooth edge, providing a razor sharp edge with chainsaw like effect. Maybe a small mass effect core to reduce or increase mass at will. Reduce for quickest strike, or increase to bludgeon with a slower, more powerful swing.

[Mecha Tengu]

think lightsabers. Able to cut through anything except cortosis and other lightsabers, completely nullifying heavy armour and biotic barriers



it's not as if Im bringing a kitchen knife to a battlefield

[Gleym]

Precisely. It's as if people think that you're going to bring this day and age's equivalent of a melee weapon into Mass Effect's era of weaponry. If armor and firearms have evolved throughout the course of history, you can bet your ass that melee weaponry has evolved as well. Someone creates a thicker and more durable armor? Someone else creates a weapon that can puncture it, be it firearm or melee. That's how the arms dealership works.



And again, it's not as if there aren't melee weapons in Mass Effect already. Tali and Zaeed have knives on their person. Zaeed even talks about using a knife to pry the headplate off a krogan while it's still alive, and the Codex talks about using molecular blades to cut through a krogan's durable armor. The game itself introduces the concept of a melee weapon on its own.

[Joshep]

Another thing, you see Jack punching people with biotics (i said this already, but i'm saying it again), or Kaidan sayin he killed a guy with a biotic kick?

Punches like that would be far more dangerous at close range than any gun.




And look a Big boss's CQC in Metal Gear solid 3, it was a shooting game but had some hand to hand or hand to gun, something similar for ME would be cool.

[Gleym]

Big Boss' CQC isn't even a Metal Gear Solid thing. It's an actual tactic used for the exact kind of reason and circumstance we're talking about, which is one where you're using a firearm, and an enemy either gets too close, or manages to blindside you from out of hiding and you need to switch to close-quarters rather than waste ammo firing blindly or simply wounding the enemy, when you could avoid both issues with a combat knife and the training to use one with deadly force.

[Shepard needs a Vacation]

to all the haters what about the fight with the shadow broker, you had to punch him, granted he had a kinetic barrier, that close a knife to the eye would have done the trick.

[Gleym]

I already made mention of that fight earlier in this thread, I just kept the details of who Shepard fought out on account of spoilers for whomsoever hadn't played the DLC. But then again, I suppose it's for the best to repeat it, seeing as the naysayers don't seem to want to read the whole thread and the answers, reasoning and points made against them as opposed to simply repeat the same things over and over again as gospel.

[Joshep]

Gleym wrote...

I already made mention of that fight earlier in this thread, I just kept the details of who Shepard fought out on account of spoilers for whomsoever hadn't played the DLC. But then again, I suppose it's for the best to repeat it, seeing as the naysayers don't seem to want to read the whole thread and the answers, reasoning and points made against them as opposed to simply repeat the same things over and over again as gospel.

He, the funny thing is that Close quarters combat already exist in ME universe, it's just not implemented into the gameplay.

[Gleym]

And even then, the gameplay aspect that we are discussing isn't even that big of one. Just that instead of wrecking your rifle by smashing it against a friggin' krogan's headplate, or breaking your fist trying to punch a mech, they give us something to use in those circumstances, even if it's a simple swing of a knife.

[Tempest]

How can one make melee combat "effective" on the battlefield? Well to be quite frank, it just depends on the type of battlefield you are in.

Considering that ME2 and half of ME1 was littered in corridor/indoor combat, it "means" that attacks of close proximity will be more effective than long ranged weapons. Vanguards (and to some extent the Infiltrator) are/is a class(es) that specializes in getting in the face of their opponent. Kasumi is a great example of how an Infiltrator would fight in CQ based combat.

But if ME3 focus on the battlefield is more open, like Eden Prime or some sections of Omega, than yeah a human running into "that" battlefield with a melee weapon should be shot on site.

You also have to remember that there were MANY moments in ME2 where your allies were the focus of attention and that gave you openings for you to attack. To be honest, as the Infiltrator class in Hardcore mode, I have gone invisible multiple times (with melee attack REALLY buffed) and beat the face in of MANY Krogan, Asari Commandos, Husks and the occasional Harbinger. Why would I do such a thing? Well because A)It was fast and effect. B)Saved me bullets and most importantly C) It was really fun.

Heaven forbid we have fun in video games.

Would it ruin immersion? No it would not, as said certain classes would specialize in it, i.e. Vanguards and Infiltrators. If you don't see how important melee combat would be for these classes, than you didn't like these classes because they lacked good melee skills/abilities/weapons to make them amusing to you.

Modifié par Tempest, 18 octobre 2010 - 12:40 .

[Roamingmachine]

I've allways been confused by how little part melee seems to play in ME battles with personal shields working as they do.Bullets fired from small-arms have never been particulary effective at killing, they simply cause too little damage (unless hitting the central nervous system) for the desired Dead Right There effect you need to stop someone determined to use your eyeballs as juju beads.Against a charging,determined opponent, hitting him so he'll die 2 minutes later simply ain't good enough.Advantage of firearms has been the ability to pump the blood-crazed lunatic full of holes long before he reaches you and propably hitting something important in the process.Personal shields change all that. While in open battlefields firearms still would hold the advantage, any kind of close-range fighting (urban, jungle etc.) would be dominated by bayonet charges and other melee attacks simply because are more effective ways of killing.



So yes, i fully support more melee in ME3, preferably as a bayonet or a retractable blade(s) in the armor.

[Aedan_Cousland]

Gleym wrote...

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

Isn't that what you are doing? Arguing for the inclusion of melee weapons without justifying it beyond, "Hurr melee weapons would be teh awesome!1111"

I'll change my position on melee weapons in ME3 if someone can make a convincing argument that melee weapons have a major role on a modern battlefield.

As I recall, I made plenty of justifications for why melee weapons should be included, both in terms of sense, application, and otherwise. I guess it's easy to pretend that I didn't in order to deflect attention from the fact that you didn't bother to read the whole thread and the numerous ideas and justifications provided.

I read the entire thread.  I just decided to hand wave your posts with an equally dismissive reply as the one I recieved after giving my justification for melee weapons not being in ME3. As I recall I stated that modern weaponry had made them practically obsolete, a statement that you also chose to ignore in order to imply that my objection to melee weapons in ME3 was given without any justification.

Also that statement I made about modern weaponry having made melee weapons practically obsolete is fact, not opinion.

Joshep wrote...

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

Just FYI, I'm a former Marine.

Yes all Marines are trained in hand to hand combat and they carry issued bayonets, and in some cases kabars that they purchased. Does hand-to-hand combat still occasionally occur on the battlefield? Yes, and there are a few examples of it both in Iraq & Afghanistan. Does it occur often? No.

Ok, can real life marines turn into pure energy, teleport across the field, and get into Close range in a matter of seconds? If you can please tell me ****in how.

After I had posted that guns have made swords obsolete on page 6, you replied, "Then why ALL marines are trained in Close quarters combat? Or why do they ALL bring combat knifes to the battle field?"

With that post you argued for melee weapons like swords or combat knives in ME3 on the basis that according to you, they were not yet obsolete and by extension, their inclusion would be realistic. Yet when I posted a rebuttal arguing that the most common usage for knives by modern soldiers or Marines was as can openers, you argue that the Vanguard charge isn't realistic either, and thus any discussion on what happens in a modern army or on a modern battlefield is irrelevant.

Well, which is it?  Either you support melee weapons in ME3 because you think it would be fun even if unrealistic, or because you think melee weapons are not yet obsolete. You can't have it both ways.

I am a vanguard, i get close to my enemy ALL the freakin time, that's why i use a shotgun and melee attacks frequently, but shotguns run out of ammo quickly, and when they do you are un-armed.

That's when a knife wouild come in handy

I'm all for melee attacks as they are currently in the game. It should be nothing more than a butt-stroke to the head of an opponent with the butt of your rifle or shotgun. The only thing I'd change is that a butt stroke should never end in a fatality for an armored opponent. It should knock them off their feet, but they should need to be shot while on the ground to put them down for good.

With that being said I *might* be ok with a bayonet attachment for a rifle if a good explanation can be given on why it is able to penetrate combat armor in the Mass Effect universe. But that is a big *if.* A wizard did it explanation isn't going to work. I do draw the line however at melee weapons like swords, war hammers and battle axes. They have long ago become impractical for the battlefield and with ranged weapons only becoming more deadly, that isn't likely to change in the future. They are as dead as calvary charges and battleships

Joshep wrote...

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

I like at least some effort put into it to make the universe (and combat) seem believable,

A little bit like magic? They are COMPLETELY magic, there's no logical explanation to biotic abilities (i'm studying for biochemistry engineer).

And they can come up with an excuse, like they did with the soldier, look at "adrenaline rush" that makes everything go 100 times slower, they can come up with something like "your senses are heavily enhanced so you can deflect bullets with your sword" or something like that.

snip

So, some guys turning into pure energy and teleporting from a point to other, some others casting a black hole in the middle of the battlefield or a ball of fire that FOLLOWS PEOPLE around even showing an intelligent behavior seems believable to you.

Are you on crack?

I never argued that everything in the Mass Effect universe was realistic, only that we don't need melee weapons on the basis that they aren't. I don't expect the developers to strive for 100% realism, but I think they do need to walk a fine line between realism & fantasy. At this point I'm against anything being added to the game that makes it more unrealistic than it already is. With characters surviving being exposted to hostile enviroments sans combat armor in ME2, and Shepard's remains being found, reconstructed and revived after burning up in a planet's atmosphere, I think we've reached the limit on the amount of unrealistic content already in game. If ME3 is going to include war hammers and claymore swords then why not go all out, and have Shepard defeat the Reapers from the exposed cockpit of a WW1 era Sopwith Camel, complete with goggles and aviator's scarf fluttering in the vaccuum of space?

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 18 octobre 2010 - 06:07 .

[Foolsfolly]

The bonus disc for the Platinum edition of Mass Effect 1 has the devs say that they were not going to have melee weapons.



Can we let this die now? No one wants useless weapon types (looking at melee and unarmed skills in Fallout).

[Gleym]

By Fallout, do you mean Fallout 3, Foolsfolly? Cause just about everything in that game was useless and contrary to what worked efficiently in the first two games. Melee and Unarmed skills in FO1/FO2 were actually quite useful and handy.

[CaolIla]

Give a Krogan a 50 pound Hammer and I think neither armor nor Barrrier could take the damage.

But the Krogan still needs to be real close to smash his enemies to bits and pieces.



I would like to see a Vanguard Combo attack, like using the kinetic force of this "warping" ability for a Blow with a Knife or something like that.

It shouldn't be to easy to execute but powerful and devastating.

Imagine a 200 Pound Plane with a knife attached to the front hitting you with 1000 mp/h.... should be the same ; )

[uzivatel]

Gleym wrote...

By Fallout, do you mean Fallout 3, Foolsfolly? Cause just about everything in that game was useless and contrary to what worked efficiently in the first two games. Melee and Unarmed skills in FO1/FO2 were actually quite useful and handy.

It was not on par with ranged weapons even in F1 and F2 (did not play F3 or FT), but the turn based system allowed you to get close to enemies without being fired at. Its the same reason knives were useful in games like JA - you could go right to your enemy and just stab him provided he used all his action points in the previous turn and could not interrupt you.

[Gleym]

I seem to recall that, given how ammo wasn't something you could pick up in the truckloads like in ME2, wasting your shots at close range when you had a huge fist o' metal and enough unarmed combat prowess to floor an opponent and then start stabbing the crap out of them with a knife or a spear was something rather prevailent in FO1/FO2 against enemies that weren't in Power Armor or had the advantage of being heavily armed slavers or gangsters..

[Kangasniemi]

Roamingmachine wrote...

I've allways been confused by how little part melee seems to play in ME battles with personal shields working as they do.Bullets fired from small-arms have never been particulary effective at killing, they simply cause too little damage (unless hitting the central nervous system) for the desired Dead Right There effect you need to stop someone determined to use your eyeballs as juju beads.Against a charging,determined opponent, hitting him so he'll die 2 minutes later simply ain't good enough.Advantage of firearms has been the ability to pump the blood-crazed lunatic full of holes long before he reaches you and propably hitting something important in the process.Personal shields change all that. While in open battlefields firearms still would hold the advantage, any kind of close-range fighting (urban, jungle etc.) would be dominated by bayonet charges and other melee attacks simply because are more effective ways of killing.

So yes, i fully support more melee in ME3, preferably as a bayonet or a retractable blade(s) in the armor.

So you honestly think that it would be safer to let a blood-grazed lunatic get so close that you could try to stab him with a knife is a good idea? You do know that there are different kinds of bullets right? No matter how blood lusted or insane person is, popping a ranger/ black talon or an fragmenting bullet (mind you fragmenting/exploding bullets are forbidden by every law made by man, but they do exist) in to him will stop him dead in his tracks. The shock alone is enough to stop a normal person in his tracks and the wound caused by these kind of bullets will kill you in worst (or best) case in seconds. And it doesn't even have to be a head shot a hit any where from torso to thighs is enough.

Trying to kill someone with a knife is hard as hell. The actual wital spots for a knife kill are ridiculously small. And if you miss them, it just causes some pain to the assailant. Swords are even worse, you need extensive training to be able to do anything other than stab with them. Wearing any kind of body armor makes it even worse with a blade.

So no melee class/swords/knives/hammers/beavers-on-a-stick/rat flails in ME.

Or if they do implement a insta kill melee attack then it should apply to weapons also. A shotgun blast, a burst from a rifle or a shot from a pistol will and MUST always be more damaging than a knife stab.

[Maestro975]

I say do it. Doesn't have to be anything major; they could just have it when you're pressing the melee button, or a cutscene depicting a knife fight.



A knife attack could also be paired with tactical cloak, though I think that's pretty much what Kasumi's shadow strike is.

[Skyline GT-R34]

Also that statement I made about modern weaponry having made melee weapons practically obsolete is fact, not opinion.

You have not dismissed that combat knives can and have been used to kill opponents during military operations in the 21st century. While it is true that modern soldiers use their standard issue combat knifes for survival situations or as can openers 99% of the time, the knife still has it's usage as a potent weapon when an exceptional situation arise. In the game a Vanguard will just create those "exceptional situations"

if a good explanation can be given on why it is able to penetrate combat armor in the Mass Effect universe.

The standard explanation is in the codex itself: molecular blade. If you want a better explanation, how about this? Combat knives are used in situations where firing a mass-accelerator weapon would be too slow or when the target is too close - whether accidentally or deliberately - for efficient aiming. Modern knives are made from carbon nanotubes with a molecular blade. They are equipped with a mass effect field generator which allow the operator to substantially increase the mass of the knife for better penetration through combat armor.

I never argued that everything in the Mass Effect universe was realistic, only that we don't need melee weapons on the basis that they aren't. I don't expect the developers to strive for 100% realism, but I think they do need to walk a fine line between realism & fantasy. At this point I'm against anything being added to the game that makes it more unrealistic than it already is. With characters surviving being exposted to hostile enviroments sans combat armor in ME2, and Shepard's remains being found, reconstructed and revived after burning up in a planet's atmosphere, I think we've reached the limit on the amount of unrealistic content already in game. If ME3 is going to include war hammers and claymore swords then why not go all out, and have Shepard defeat the Reapers from the exposed cockpit of a WW1 era Sopwith Camel, complete with goggles and aviator's scarf fluttering in the vaccuum of space?

It is science-fiction, you say it is unrealistic by today's standard, and it is, if we use our present-day understanding of science to try and understand the technology of Mass Effect. Clarke's Third Law; Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. No one knows what will happen in the future, in less than a decade we mapped the human DNA, pushed further and further the power of computers and made the world around us virtual. Mass Effect is set in 2183 AD, 173 years from today. I'm sure the technology will have advanced be beyond what we can even imagine today in 2010.

Modifié par Skyline GT-R34, 18 octobre 2010 - 04:23 .