60 réponses à ce sujet

[Fixers0]

 So one thing that will like to bring up to your attention and that is by biggest annoyance with the weapons in Mass Effect 2 is the fact that you can see the pattern of the shots fired, which actally should't be possible.

The Codex states that all modern infantry weapons contain a micro scaled mass accelerator that propels slugs within a mass-reducing-field, who are accelerated by a magnetic force to such speeds that they are able to inflict kinetic damage to targets, this basicly means that  shots are fired at speeds in which they hit their target almost immediatly after being fired thus it  wouldn't be possible to see the shots.

Now, im going to remind that in Mass Effect 1 bullets were ever seen, only the muzzle flash, the trail and the impact of shot were showed, but then in Mass Effect 2 almost every weapon had  clearly visable patterns,

Personally i really liked the way they did it in Mass Effect 1, it looked really cool and it fits well within the boundries of the Sci-Fi, it wasn't out of place or unnatural in the Universe, Mass Effect 2 in comparision was kinda cheap, with glowing blue bullets that contradict the codex.

So my question to Bioware, will weapons once more be in line with the Codex and will they have the proper effects? 

[Shepard Lives]

I can understand your concern, but personally I don't really care.

[CannonO]

Mass Effect 1 had a nicer story-based weapon system. They wanted more shooter appeal for ME2, and thus we got ammo and more bullet-style guns, even if it changed the lore.

[Fixers0]

Shepard Lives wrote...

I can understand your concern, but personally I don't really care.

While it seems very minor, there are a lot of small things like this introduced in Mass Effect 2 that cheapen the overal credibility of the Mass Effect Universe as if it tries to fall in line with the more generic Sci-Fi. 

Modifié par Fixers0, 20 juin 2011 - 07:53 .

[KainrycKarr]

It will be the same as ME2, they already stated that.

[Veex]

A complete non-issue for me.

[Lumikki]

I actually don't want weapons to be lore based, because ME series weapon lore was not good.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 juin 2011 - 07:55 .

[Clonedzero]

you know, you could see the bullets in ME1 as well...

[Fixers0]

KainrycKarr wrote...

It will be the same as ME2, they already stated that.

Where?, i thought they just said they were going to use thermal 'ammo' for weapons , whatever that means.

[Skirata129]

this was actually a very weird system. paticularly in the final boss fight you realize that the visible bolt does not deal damage. once you fire, the shot impacts almost immediately and deals damage, but the "bolt" can actually miss if the target is moving. so the bolt is unimportant. no clue why they included it.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Well put OP, I hope they are more consistent too.

[KainrycKarr]

Fixers0 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

It will be the same as ME2, they already stated that.

Where?, i thought they just said they were going to use thermal 'ammo' for weapons , whatever that means.

You can see it in the gameplay videos.

[Admoniter]

The funny thing is that all the weapons standard weapons are hitscan and yet they still have tracers. Which really doesn't make any sense if you think about it; weapons that hit instantly with tracers taht have visible travel time... seems pretty ass backwards to me.

I play a lot of shooters so this is especially confusing for me because as a general rule of thumb weapons that use actual projectiles that have actual travel time use tracers, weapons that are hitscan do not for well... obvious reasons. They are not needed and it would be pretty counter intuitive to add them to a weapon that is hitscan. Which is why I don't understand why BW did this.

So yes I want to see trails again if solely because having tracers is just pointless and needlessly confusing. When your eyes are telling you one thing and the game is doing something completely different there is a problem and I have a problem with tracers on ME weapons.

[aridor1570]

I think they stated that in the twitter thread, can't get a direct qoute since its somewhere in there and I'm just lazy...

[Fixers0]

Skirata129 wrote...

this was actually a very weird system. paticularly in the final boss fight you realize that the visible bolt does not deal damage. once you fire, the shot impacts almost immediately and deals damage, but the "bolt" can actually miss if the target is moving. so the bolt is unimportant. no clue why they included it.

Because the trail that is shown is actually slower then the actual shot fired, it shows the path the bullet followed before it hits the target.

[Shepard Lives]

Fixers0 wrote...

Shepard Lives wrote...

I can understand your concern, but personally I don't really care.

While it seems very minor, there are a lot of small things like this introduced in Mass Effect 2 that cheapen the overal credibility of the Mass Effect Universe as if it tries to fall in line with the more generic Sci-Fi. 

Ah, the constant need to feel like the stuff you like is more interesting than the stuff other people like. I know how that feels . :happy: (By golly, I sure said "feel" and "like" a lot of times.)

Have you by any chance heard of TvTropes? Because I would like to direct you towards two very interesting pages: the MST3K Mantra and Bellisario's Maxim.

[Admoniter]

Lumikki wrote...

I actually don't want weapons to be lore based, because ME series weapon lore was not good.

I fail to see how ME2 weapons are any better. You have a supposed heatsink system that fuctions so much like ammo that I can reload two half empty thermal clips and get a full one. As well as having a hitscan weapon that has a tracer wtih travel time *facedesk.

So I disagree ME1 weapons where better simply because within the lore they were much more logical and didn't leave me with an anyeurism when trying to think about them for extended periods of time.

Modifié par Admoniter, 20 juin 2011 - 08:02 .

[Fixers0]

Clonedzero wrote...

you know, you could see the bullets in ME1 as well...

Really, i just played Bring down the sky, took me six times to get a good picture.

[Lumikki]

Admoniter wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I actually don't want weapons to be lore based, because ME series weapon lore was not good.

I fail to see how ME2 weapons are any better. You have a supposed heatsink system that fuctions so much like ammo that I can reload two half empty thermal clips and get a full one. As well as having a hitscan weapon that has a tracer wtih travel time *facedesk.

So I disagree ME1 weapons where better simply because within the lore they were much more logical and didn't leave me with an anyeurism when trying to think about them for extended periods of time.

ME1 vs ME2?

[Skirata129]

yeah, ME1 you just saw the air distortion where the projectile has travelled. this is accurate too. military sniper spotters tell the sniper where to adjust fire by looking at the trail of the bullet in the air.

[Cainne Chapel]

Well the shots fired in ME2 hit instantly, but like SKirata said you can still see the air travel pathway/projectile, even though Impact is immediate.

*Shrugs*

Guess its so you know where your bullet is going due to the human eye not being able to see at the speed of bullet time

[Someone With Mass]

Counter-question: Will people stop ****ing about the lore and just play the damn game?

[Admoniter]

Lumikki wrote...

Admoniter wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I actually don't want weapons to be lore based, because ME series weapon lore was not good.

I fail to see how ME2 weapons are any better. You have a supposed heatsink system that fuctions so much like ammo that I can reload two half empty thermal clips and get a full one. As well as having a hitscan weapon that has a tracer wtih travel time *facedesk.

So I disagree ME1 weapons where better simply because within the lore they were much more logical and didn't leave me with an anyeurism when trying to think about them for extended periods of time.

ME1 vs ME2?

Think I may have misuderstood your point. I interpretted it as ME2 was superior, my bad.

[Fixers0]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Counter-question: Will people stop ****ing about the lore and just play the damn game?

Counter-Counter-question: How do you expect people to take a game seriously when its content contradict with the codex and previous works that was doen by the same writers?

[Siven80]

Shepard Lives wrote...

I can understand your concern, but personally I don't really care.

+1