891 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

Yes, it's my call, unwise or otherwise.  That means I do have player agency... so that kills any arguments that it's "imposing anything" or "forcing" players to play in a certain style, doesn't it?  The fact that I've made such an unwise decision in the past also shows that it's a decision I made without meta-game knowledge... it shows that I was "immersed" enough in the battle that I just kept on fighting and advancing.  That I got to the end of the mission without actually fully running out of ammo in all weapons, just shows that I played skillfully... using a good balance of weapons and powers (even the limited powers that a soldier has - adrenaline rush and concussive shot) and using my squad mates to good effect as well.

The 'fact' that one made a declared unwise decision only indicates that one may be unwise; not that said choice was made w/o game knowledge. And that getting to the end of the game only indicates perseverance, as most of us here did so. Repeatedly. Any self-placed laurels of achievement are for internal reflection alone; not necessarily something to be shared with the rest of the class.

[UpUpAway]

The 'fact' that one made a declared unwise decision only indicates that one may be unwise; not that said choice was made w/o game knowledge. And that getting to the end of the game only indicates perseverance, as most of us here did so. Repeatedly. Any self-placed laurels of achievement are for internal reflection alone; not necessarily something to be shared with the rest of the class.

 

The one making the decision can in fact state that they made said decision without game knowledge; whereas, the one who did not make the decision can only speculate.  Your accusation is unfounded simply because you were not the one making the decision. 

 

You may not like my being somewhat boastful, and I'll quit that, but it still does not change the academic point being made... If any decision can be made by the player, the player then still must have agency.  You cannot claim that you have no agency (that the game "forces" you into a particular play style, etc.), yet insist that I made a choice at that same point.  Since we're both players, it's the same for both of us... either neither of us can make any choice in the matter or both of us can.  You've said it yourself... I made a choice (unwise or otherwise matters not)... therefore, you must be making a choice as well.  Player agency, therefore, is preserved... not taken away by that particular game mechanic.

 

Getting back to the OPs post - The Mass Effect franchise is in a sub-genre of RPGs... call it an aRPG or an RPS, even.  It has never offered the same level of player agency as some other RPGs.  It's style also changed significantly between the first game in the series and the second.  Some people liked the change, some didn't (inevitable really whenever changes are made to a franchise).

 

Given the duration of time that has passed, it is also very likely that several things will change with ME:A.  I think it will still be as much a RPG as it ever was (not more so and not likely less so).  I also expect it will be as much an RPS as it every was.  If you didn't like it before, you probably won't like it now.  If you did, you may like it now... or you may not (depending on if you like the changes that are made or object to them).  Filling in the "gap" will be new players, who will have to decide whether or not they like ME:A just based on it's own merits and not based on their experiences with the previous Trilogy at all.

 

Of course, these new people can come here to BSN and be told that they won't like ME:A by people who did not like the Trilogy and have stated rather pointedly that they want to see ME:A fail.  Of course, that may just pique their curiosity (that is, some advertisers believe that negative rumors are every bit as effective as positive advertising at increasing sales).  Who knows.

 

Regardless, of how you classify and compare it to it's predecessor, will be either a good game or a not so good one... and only time will tell for sure.

[Pasquale1234]

I just did a test and my Predator was restoring the same amount of ammo regardless of the ammo status of my other guns.

Hey! I thought you said you were doing SR only. Cheater-cheater-cheat.  
 

The way clip pickup works in ME2 is that each weapon has a defined range for pickup per clip (it is mostly listed on the wiki, although somewhat incomplete. For instance Vindi just has 17-? listed but that should be 17-32 IIRC). Every weapon that has less than max spare ammo will add an amount in that range each time you grab a clip. That is max spare, not total... so empty gun with max spare ammo doesn't pick up any.

There are some predefined clip locations that seem to give double. And of course if you pick up power cells with full HW ammo it will refill all guns to max spare ammo immediately.

Well, that explains the variations we've seen.

Thanks.

[UpUpAway]

 

The way clip pickup works in ME2 is that each weapon has a defined range for pickup per clip (it is mostly listed on the wiki, although somewhat incomplete. For instance Vindi just has 17-? listed but that should be 17-32 IIRC). Every weapon that has less than max spare ammo will add an amount in that range each time you grab a clip. That is max spare, not total... so empty gun with max spare ammo doesn't pick up any.

There are some predefined clip locations that seem to give double. And of course if you pick up power cells with full HW ammo it will refill all guns to max spare ammo immediately.

 

 

I have, on occasion, noticed in ME2 that a power cell has not restored all my weapons to max spare ammo, even though I`ve had full HW AMMO and the weapon itself has had a full clip in it (I usually do a quick reload of everything before picking up the power cell).  Also, I`m not using the off-hand ammo pack either.  It hasn`t happened frequently enough for me to figure out the cause for it or if it`s just happening during a particular mission (assuming it`s just a bug of some kind).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Why isn't there a reason to believe this? Are you saying because they don't in game? Obviously if they flew in game then my claim would be false because that wouldn't be compatible with "they just choose not to."

Yes.

Not believing something to be true is very different from believing it to be false.

[capn233]

Yes.

Not believing something to be true is very different from believing it to be false.

 

I see.  So it would seem we should reject both the Asari can fly claim along with the clip logistics problem.  Neither have in game evidence to support them.

[capn233]

I have, on occasion, noticed in ME2 that a power cell has not restored all my weapons to max spare ammo, even though I`ve had full HW AMMO and the weapon itself has had a full clip in it (I usually do a quick reload of everything before picking up the power cell).  Also, I`m not using the off-hand ammo pack either.  It hasn`t happened frequently enough for me to figure out the cause for it or if it`s just happening during a particular mission (assuming it`s just a bug of some kind).

 

I can't remember if I have seen something like this.  I don't use HW typically so that I can gain money a little faster, get more clips, and because I just don't in general like them.  I know each time I get a HW upgrade that I have to top off HW ammo again before I get the 100 credits and clips.

 

Might be a bug.  The game isn't without some odd behaviors.  Don't have a great way to look at the scripts in ME2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But they aren't less effective. Being more difficult to use effectively doesn't make a thing less effective if when used well it is more effective.

A gun with full body shots wont kill a single target as quickly, but with headshots or against multiple targets the thermal clips are more effective.

The lore also doesn't state the reduced lethality against a single target is the result of the thermal clips. As I said, it is equally as reasonable to assume that armour/kinetic barrier technology advanced to the point where most sniper rifles don't do as much relative damage anymore.

Mass Effect 1 didn't have armour plating as its own hit point bar, so it's very clear that some major advancements have been made in defensive technology in the 2 years Shep was MIA.

So the ME2 enemies just became hit point sponges.

That's not awesome design.

My test on the other hand was done on Normal.

and I was 1 shotting opponents with body shots in Mass Effect 2. Did you keep your sniper rifle fully upgraded?

I don't know. It's been years and I only played the game once (because I hated it, though not because of the combat - the combat was nowhere near the worst thing about the game).

I should probably just concede that I don't have much knowledge of ME2's combat. Though I do know I preferred the combat in both ME1 and ME3.

And the numbers were tuned to be too high.

I'm not saying 2xFM for sustained fire shouldn't be a thing. I'm saying the numbers shouldn't have been tuned as highly as they were.

It's beyond stupid to refuse to balance your game simply because "it made it into the game and it's lore now". It needed a change because it was too powerful in ME1.

What does "too powerful" even mean?

I would prefer one consistent ruleset across the series, but failing that I want explanations for any and all changes.

This would be easier if they'd document their games better.

[capn233]

So the ME2 enemies just became hit point sponges.

 

Well they weren't spamming shield boost or immunity any longer, so largely individual low tier enemies took less time to kill than ME1, at least comparing Insanity to Insanity.  I don't remember how often they used these things on Normal in ME1, it has been way too long.  But normal ME2 enemies lacked their protections, and had extra damage taken for the early part of the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I see. So it would seem we should reject both the Asari can fly claim along with the clip logistics problem. Neither have in game evidence to support them.

That's not quite true. There's direct in-game evidence that if we consume all of the clips in an area the weapons stop working. The question then is whether we think that circumstance never arises. I think it does arise because we see it arise.

And in Andromeda, I'm going to wonder where all these thermal clips are coming from given that this is a new galaxy with new civilizations that are extremely unlikely to have developed exactly the same technology.

While the thermal clips might be marginally better than the heatsink weapons in environments where the clips are plentiful, in environments where we have no reason to expect the clips are plentiful I would expect us to bring the old style weapons.

If the ark is stocked with weapons that require thermal clips, the ark had better also be stocked with the means to manufacture and distribute thermal clips indefinitely. Otherwise that's just dumb.

[Elhanan]

Well they weren't spamming shield boost or immunity any longer, so largely individual low tier enemies took less time to kill than ME1, at least comparing Insanity to Insanity.  I don't remember how often they used these things on Normal in ME1, it has been way too long.  But normal ME2 enemies lacked their protections, and had extra damage taken for the early part of the game.

Many creatures had armor added on to their health bars on higher difficulty (eg; Husks) effectively becoming more sponge like.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well they weren't spamming shield boost or immunity any longer, so largely individual low tier enemies took less time to kill than ME1, at least comparing Insanity to Insanity. I don't remember how often they used these things on Normal in ME1, it has been way too long. But normal ME2 enemies lacked their protections, and had extra damage taken for the early part of the game.

I'm pretty sure the ME1 enemies only used Immunity on Insanity.

[capn233]

Many creatures had armor added on to their health bars on higher difficulty (eg; Husks) effectively becoming more sponge like.

 

Sure, but those didn't necessarily take longer to kill with apples to apples comparisons.

 

Why I mentioned 2 shotting an ME2 Insanity Husk with the Mantis on Sentinel.  Mantis isn't necessarily even supposed to be equivalent to HMWSR line god tier gear.  And in any case Husks have more health than normal mooks because they can be instakilled by ragdolling, freezing, incinerating, or shooting their legs.

 

I'm pretty sure the ME1 enemies only used Immunity on Insanity.

 

Well the had shield regen regardless, but I thought geth used boost.  Maybe they didn't, but they can regenerate their protections.  Most enemies in ME2 do not regenerate their protections.  Geth will, but they aren't even all that common.

[Elhanan]

Sure, but those didn't necessarily take longer to kill with apples to apples comparisons.
 
Why I mentioned 2 shotting an ME2 Insanity Husk with the Mantis on Sentinel.  Mantis isn't necessarily even supposed to be equivalent to HMWSR line god tier gear.  And in any case Husks have more health than normal mooks because they can be instakilled by ragdolling, freezing, incinerating, or shooting their legs. 
 
Well the had shield regen regardless, but I thought geth used boost.  Maybe they didn't, but they can regenerate their protections.  Most enemies in ME2 do not regenerate their protections.  Geth will, but they aren't even all that common.

Per the Wiki for ME2:

◾Almost all enemies have at least one extra bar of protection that is stronger than on Hardcore
◾Enemies are deadly accurate and extremely aggressive, demonstrating teamwork and coordination
◾Enemies use tech, biotics and ammo powers very frequently

And again, from my perspective, Insanity gameplay was more difficult here than in the other games; lesser and fewer weapons, and weapon restrictions being a factor.

[capn233]

Well I won't argue that ME2 Insanity is overall more difficult than the other two games.  Although I would say that early new character ME1 is probably more punishing against setups that are not min-maxed.

 

But despite being more difficult, it doesn't necessarily take longer to kill a typical footsoldier in ME2 than in ME1. It doesn't really even take longer with appropriate weapons in ME2.

 

The main difference isn't the weapons anyway, it is that in ME2 there were a lot of powers that actually did direct damage or improved your damage.  Powers didn't hardly do damage in ME1, although a few debuffed damage protection and a couple could indirectly improve average damage by preventing immunity spam.  Powers are by and large CC or debilitation in ME1.  All CC in ME2 also grants damage bonuses via the ragdoll / frozen bonus.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The main difference isn't the weapons anyway, it is that in ME2 there were a lot of powers that actually did direct damage or improved your damage. Powers didn't hardly do damage in ME1, although a few debuffed damage protection and a couple could indirectly improve average damage by preventing immunity spam. Powers are by and large CC or debilitation in ME1. All CC in ME2 also grants damage bonuses via the ragdoll / frozen bonus.

What are you talking about? Sabotage, Overload, and Neural Shock all did damage, not to mention grenades.

Engineers in ME1 had lots of non-shooting options.

[Cyonan]

Hey! I thought you said you were doing SR only. Cheater-cheater-cheat.  

 

Shooting the wall is fair game =P

 

Although while I've been able to manage SR only so far I will admit that ideally the Mantis should have had 15-20 spare ammo. I've not missed once and my only non headshots so far were intentional to see if I could still OHK with body shots, and I've still almost been out of ammo during a fight. I'm not sure how the Viper will do with its better ammo economy but lower damage.

 

The average player isn't going to see a 100% hit rate even with the time dilation =P

 

So the ME2 enemies just became hit point sponges.

That's not awesome design.

 

Playing on Normal, they really haven't become massive hit point sponges. The only exception I've run into are that Krogan are more common because of the Blood Pack units, but Krogan are supposed to be hit point sponges. Even then Warp(from Miranda)->Headshot->Headshot kills them.

 

I don't know. It's been years and I only played the game once (because I hated it, though not because of the combat - the combat was nowhere near the worst thing about the game).

I should probably just concede that I don't have much knowledge of ME2's combat. Though I do know I preferred the combat in both ME1 and ME3.

 

While I prefer the mechanics of ME3 combat it's worth noting that balance wise, it was even more difficult to OHK with sniper rifles in that game.

 

They introduced the shield gate mechanic which meant that for the bullet which breaks the shield, all remaining damage is negated. It was changed in MP to be a heavy damage reduction but as far as I know it was still 100% in singleplayer.

 

What does "too powerful" even mean?

I would prefer one consistent ruleset across the series, but failing that I want explanations for any and all changes.

This would be easier if they'd document their games better.

 

It means that it was too powerful relative to everything else in the game. Many of us who play on Insanity do so because we want to be challenged without having to intentionally gimp ourselves. I like a game that challenges my skill as well as my ability to build a character, rather than feeling like in order to challenge my skill I need to intentionally make a less effective character build.

 

BioWare's lore has always been a case of "It works alright unless you stop to think about it" especially in relation to game mechanics. I don't think that's ever going to change.

 

I like having explanations, but the lore should never get in the way of making good game mechanics. I'd rather have good combat with a retcon than go back to ME1's shooter mechanics.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Although while I've been able to manage SR only so far I will admit that ideally the Mantis should have had 15-20 spare ammo. I've not missed once and my only non headshots so far were intentional to see if I could still OHK with body shots, and I've still almost been out of ammo during a fight. I'm not sure how the Viper will do with its better ammo economy but lower damage.

The average player isn't going to see a 100% hit rate even with the time dilation =P

As an indifferent player of shooters, even pausing to aim I didn't always hit my targets.

I distinctly remember running out of ammo from time to time.

While I prefer the mechanics of ME3 combat it's worth noting that balance wise, it was even more difficult to OHK with sniper rifles in that game.

But EDI and I both using Incinerate could take down most enemies instantly.

I don't recall any powers being that deadly in the previous games.

They introduced the shield gate mechanic which meant that for the bullet which breaks the shield, all remaining damage is negated. It was changed in MP to be a heavy damage reduction but as far as I know it was still 100% in singleplayer.

Was that documented anywhere? I didn't know about that.

It means that it was too powerful relative to everything else in the game. Many of us who play on Insanity do so because we want to be challenged without having to intentionally gimp ourselves. I like a game that challenges my skill as well as my ability to build a character, rather than feeling like in order to challenge my skill I need to intentionally make a less effective character build.

BioWare's lore has always been a case of "It works alright unless you stop to think about it" especially in relation to game mechanics. I don't think that's ever going to change.

I like having explanations, but the lore should never get in the way of making good game mechanics. I'd rather have good combat with a retcon than go back to ME1's shooter mechanics.

I would let lore trump challenge 100% of the time.

I'm entirely opposed to the concept of challenge. Challenging the player, to me, completely undermines the RPG concept.

[Rawls]

We all want it to be good,  no discussion there.

 

Some consider ME1 the better of the ME trilogy as its most RPG.  Others swing the other way, including myself because I'll play just about any game as long as it's good.  imo ME2 and 3 (bar the ending) were better.

 

Bioware has it's roots in RPG,  but is there room in customers hearts to accept a good game with RPG elements. I would think there is a broader market for bioware making games which aren't just RPG.  If this keeps Bioware afloat, isn't that a good thing.

 

I just want a good game and I want Bioware to not be swallowed up by EA,  what do you think?

I think a good game with RPG elements is enough.  I would like more RPG-like elements than ME2 & ME3 had.  When it comes to classic RPG components, I would be happy with:

 

Take ME3 & DA:I as a starting point

- Less linear quest design than ME3 - something similar to ME1 would work for me

- Longer top tier quality main storyline than DA:I provided

- More story focused main quest - side quest interdependency (many fewer fetch quests than DA:I - fetch quests should be reserved IMO for any war table like component)

- Add more variety in the various class builds than ME3 provided (I thought DA:I had enough options within the classes)

- I was okay with the weapons crafting in ME3, but I think armor & casual outfits could benefit from more customization options

- A meaningful settlement system would be a huge plus since this game's story appears to be in part about colonization (I don't need it to be full on like FO4, but more than just changing the drapes as it is in DA:I and ME3: Citadel)

 

So ME3 like game mechanics with a little more depth would work fine for me. 

[Cyonan]

As an indifferent player of shooters, even pausing to aim I didn't always hit my targets.

I distinctly remember running out of ammo from time to time.

 

I've been a shooter fan as well as a sniper fan for a long time.

 

Hitting the enemies in ME2 with 60% time dilation is a breeze compared to when I played the old Delta Force games which featured projectile instead of hitscan(meaning bullets have travel time), bullet dropoff over extreme distances, and distances even longer than you see in ME1.

 

Though one can make the assumption that if I'm almost running out of ammo with a 100% hit rate then people with 50 hit rates will definitely be running out which is closer to where the average player will land.

 

But EDI and I both using Incinerate could take down most enemies instantly.

I don't recall any powers being that deadly in the previous games.

 

Incinerate/Overload were probably the deadliest powers in SP because of how their mechanics worked. Biotics didn't fare quite as well and needed to rely more on combo spam instead.

 

Was that documented anywhere? I didn't know about that.

 

Not that I know of, but a lot of stuff in ME3 wasn't documented that people like myself and others had to figure out using memory reading software and looking at the source code.

 

Things like number of targets cap on AoE abilities, Biotic Charge has a hidden 50% damage reduction buff, defense multipliers for a lot of abilities all went undocumented.

 

There was also a number of bugs like Incendiary Rounds dealing significantly more damage than listed across multiple hits, which obviously went undocumented because it was unintentional.

 

I would let lore trump challenge 100% of the time.

I'm entirely opposed to the concept of challenge. Challenging the player, to me, completely undermines the RPG concept.

 

That's the shooter half of Mass Effect showing up. I like to have my skills challenges and Mass Effect is a shooter, so things like Insanity should do so. As a general rule I also say I shouldn't have to intentionally gimp character builds in order for the hardest difficulty to be challenging. Mass Effect 3 actually failed at this because Insanity was way too easy.

 

Although RPGs still have some challenge to them. If I want to play a D&D character that is supposed to be a tactical genius, I need to understand good D&D combat strategies which itself can present a difficulty for the player depending on how good their tactical thinking is. A good GM will point out certain things for such a character to give you the info you need, but isn't going to put it all together and play the character for you. You still need to know the basic strategies of combat.

 

It's just that the "challenge" of a RPG tends to be more application of knowledge rather than reflex and hand eye coordination like a shooter is.

 

I just enjoy having both challenged.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I've been a shooter fan as well as a sniper fan for a long time.

Hitting the enemies in ME2 with 60% time dilation is a breeze compared to when I played the old Delta Force games which featured projectile instead of hitscan(meaning bullets have travel time), bullet dropoff over extreme distances, and distances even longer than you see in ME1.

I really enjoyed Delta Force. Probably because of that game's overall slower pace.

And I'm not a fan of hitscan.

Not that I know of, but a lot of stuff in ME3 wasn't documented that people like myself and others had to figure out using memory reading software and looking at the source code.

Things like number of targets cap on AoE abilities, Biotic Charge has a hidden 50% damage reduction buff, defense multipliers for a lot of abilities all went undocumented.

That's a problem. Players should be given documentation on how the game's mechanics work.

And if the mechanics get patched, so should the documentation.

There was also a number of bugs like Incendiary Rounds dealing significantly more damage than listed across multiple hits, which obviously went undocumented because it was unintentional.

And those either need to get patched out or have the documentation amended to describe them.

That's the shooter half of Mass Effect showing up. I like to have my skills challenges and Mass Effect is a shooter, so things like Insanity should do so. As a general rule I also say I shouldn't have to intentionally gimp character builds in order for the hardest difficulty to be challenging. Mass Effect 3 actually failed at this because Insanity was way too easy.

Although RPGs still have some challenge to them. If I want to play a D&D character that is supposed to be a tactical genius, I need to understand good D&D combat strategies which itself can present a difficulty for the player depending on how good their tactical thinking is. A good GM will point out certain things for such a character to give you the info you need, but isn't going to put it all together and play the character for you. You still need to know the basic strategies of combat.

It's just that the "challenge" of a RPG tends to be more application of knowledge rather than reflex and hand eye coordination like a shooter is.

I just enjoy having both challenged.

I don't love physical challenges, but mostly because I think they break RPGs. The player doesn't physically exist in the setting, so his physical attributes can't affect the setting without damaging the setting's coherence.

[Pasquale1234]

Shooting the wall is fair game =P

Did it hit back? 
 

Although while I've been able to manage SR only so far I will admit that ideally the Mantis should have had 15-20 spare ammo. I've not missed once and my only non headshots so far were intentional to see if I could still OHK with body shots, and I've still almost been out of ammo during a fight. I'm not sure how the Viper will do with its better ammo economy but lower damage.

Why, thank you.

The other half is that it isn't easy to reacquire a full ammo load for SRs in ME2. Each dropped clip you pick up gives you precious little. I usually made trips to the clip stores planted in each level to try to take a full load into the next room / battle before moving on. So - it would also be helpful to increase the amount of fresh SR ammo you receive per clip.
 

The average player isn't going to see a 100% hit rate even with the time dilation =P

That is also true. I've not noticed any differences in ammo drop rates on different difficulties, but players with lesser hit rates should be expected to need more. The time dilation is pretty much automatic with an Infiltrator; I generally avoided AR with my soldier, because I don't much like it.

In any case, my previous arguments about ME2 forcing a playstyle would have been more accurately stated as not supporting / allowing some playstyles. The game really doesn't seem to want you to try to RP a sniper.

[Cyonan]

That's a problem. Players should be given documentation on how the game's mechanics work.

And if the mechanics get patched, so should the documentation.

 

And those either need to get patched out or have the documentation amended to describe them.

 

You wont get any argument from me here. I would have loved to see more documentation on all the mechanics of things.

 

I'm wondering if they're going to put more work into that with ME:A after seeing how much work the ME3 MP community put in to find and document all of those numbers ourselves. From what I recall their reasoning for setting things up largely they way they did was to not make the game too "mathy" with numbers, but the ME3 MP community at least I think pretty clearly showed them that many of us want to know the numbers behind everything.

 

I don't love physical challenges, but mostly because I think they break RPGs. The player doesn't physically exist in the setting, so his physical attributes can't affect the setting without damaging the setting's coherence.

 

In a pure RPG I would agree there shouldn't be a physical challenge to the player, but I've always maintained that Mass Effect isn't a pure RPG and some concessions will end up being made for the shooter half of the game.

 

Which physical challenge should be present in a shooter.

[The Loyal Nub]

We all want it to be good,  no discussion there.

 

Some consider ME1 the better of the ME trilogy as its most RPG.  Others swing the other way, including myself because I'll play just about any game as long as it's good.  imo ME2 and 3 (bar the ending) were better.

 

Bioware has it's roots in RPG,  but is there room in customers hearts to accept a good game with RPG elements. I would think there is a broader market for bioware making games which aren't just RPG.  If this keeps Bioware afloat, isn't that a good thing.

 

I just want a good game and I want Bioware to not be swallowed up by EA,  what do you think?

 

I didn't think the first three games were pure rpg. If they had been I would have been able to play any character, any race, with any specialty. That's a pure rpg to me at any rate.

 

ME was a fun sci-fi shooter with rpg elements in that story decisions had consequences. I am hoping for more of the same from the next game. I think of Dragon Age as the closer to what an rpg is.

[capn233]

What are you talking about? Sabotage, Overload, and Neural Shock all did damage, not to mention grenades.

Engineers in ME1 had lots of non-shooting options.

 

Grenades aren't powers in ME1.

 

Yes Overload and Sabotage did direct damage, but how many Sabotages do I need to use on an ME1 Insanity Husk to actually kill it?  How many 40s cooldowns does this take? The proportion of damage from powers relative to guns in ME1 is minuscule. 

 

Neural Shock actually does "toxic damage" which is not the same as applying damage in ME1, what it actually does is reserves a portion of the health bar that must be regenerated through before the target can regenerate lost health.

 

And lest we forget that biotics basically did 0 damage in ME1, outside a little force with Throw and some pitiful dot with Warp.  The only practical way to kill things with Throw in ME1 is to hit a map edge with them, and this isn't usually possible in engagements on side missions, only works on mainline missions.  ME1 Warp is good for dropping damage protection, it is horrible for actually damaging things.

 

Tech powers are actually much more useful for damage in ME2 as they can typically insta-strip basic protections if upgrades are being pursued correctly, every power that ragdolls or freezes gives you "100%" bonus damage to the target, and biotics were reworked so that Warp did decent up-front damage, and you could combo with lift skills and warp for AOE damage.