10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

smudboy wrote...


-Shepard still doesn't develop as a character, although they do get the opportunity to have their opinion expressed (what, was no one asking "how's it going" to them before?  Was Jacob and Miranda's shuttle ride all there was? "I feel fine."  Ah huh.)

Well as stated in my previous thread, Shepard, to me is bascically an empty, underdeveloped character and feels like a Mary Sue. He/she is solving everyones issues, but what about Shepards?

Theres no vulnerability shown in Shepard despite :
-Getting killed and being brought back to life by an organization you hate(and you have zero problems with it)
-You're former LI telling you to get lost because you joined cerberus.
-TIM treating you like his errand boy(and you have zero problems with it)
-The council still being a jackass despite saving their lives and dismissing anything you say about the reapers.

All this happened and there is virtually zero change in character. Luke Skywalker's character development progressed through out the original trilogy, Ripleys development progressed through the Alien trilogy but Shepard still remains unchanged.

Garrus,Liara,Tali all showed character progression while Shepard? Still at square one.

I'm inclined to agree, though I don't acknowledge any Alien movie after the second one

But at least in Shadow Broker, the right questions finally start to get asked.

[Embrosil]

Kavadas wrote...

I'd rather have weapons which actually perform uniquely, ala ME2, than weapons whose differences can only be measured via spreadsheets.

So basically you tell us that you are fine having two or three assault rifles having THE SAME damage and having only visual change? Than I would recommend you to go play some shooter. But wait, ME2 is a shooter. Oh, never mind. I wonder what a today's army would tell. Sir, I do not give a damn about the caliber, rate of fire or range. I just want one gun to make ratatatata and the other to make rata rata rata.

As I said earlier, in ME2 I simply do not see ANY difference between the two assault rifles. Yes, one fires fast, second one fires short bursts. So what? It takes me EXACTLY same time to kill an enemy with one or the other. And the description? This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor vs. this rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor. Wow, someone had to think really hard to come up with this...

I am currently playing ME1 for eight time and yesterday, when I saw a Colosus VIII for Tali I cried YEEESSS. There is nothing similar in ME2. Hell there are not even armors in ME2. Everyone wears colored paper. The same when I bought my first Spectre Assault Rifle. There simply IS a difference even without any mods. And yes, at the end you and your squads can fire almost indefinitely. But that is the point. I am the SPECTRE, I am supposed to have the best armor and the best equipmnent. Look at Dragon Age. At the end, you kill enemies with one stroke. And it is deliberate, you are the Gray Warden, the best of the best.

Of course I am being tired having to sell all that loot I do not need. But it has been said thousand time, the solution is not to have a loot and upgrades at all.

Modifié par Embrosil, 17 septembre 2010 - 07:03 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Embrosil wrote...

Kavadas wrote...

I'd rather have weapons which actually perform uniquely, ala ME2, than weapons whose differences can only be measured via spreadsheets.

So basically you tell us that you are fine having two or three assault rifles having THE SAME damage and having only visual change? Than I would recommend you to go play some shooter. But wait, ME2 is a shooter. Oh, never mind.

As I said earlier, in ME2 I simply do not see ANY difference between the two assault rifles. Yes, one fires fast, second one fires short bursts. So what? It takes me EXACTLY same time to kill an enemy with one or the other. And the description? This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor vs. this rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor. Wow, someone had to think really hard to come up with this...

I am currently playing ME1 for eight time and yesterday, when I saw a Colosus VIII for Tali I cried YEEESSS. There is nothing similar in ME2. Hell there are not even armors in ME2. Everyone wears colored paper. The same when I bought my first Spectre Assault Rifle. There simply IS a difference even without any mods. And yes, at the end you and your squads can fire almost indefinitely. But that is the point. I am the SPECTRE, I am supposed to have the best armor and the best equipmnent. Look at Dragon Age. At the end, you kill enemies with one stroke. And it is deliberate, you are the Gray Warden, the best of the best.

Of course I am being tired having to sell all that loot I do not need. But it has been said thousand time, the solution is not to have a loot and upgrades at all.

Hehe. Finally someone who understands how ME2 was crippled.

[upsettingshorts]

The problem with having traditional inventory elements in a game with the premise of Mass Effect is you really ought to have the best gear available. The idea that Spectres had to buy their own stuff was a clumsy way of inserting an RPG element - which I generally like - into a story that didn't fit it.

There are lots of ways to implement item progression and customization that have been discussed here and elsewhere, but if I had to pick one word to describe ME1's system it'd be "tedious."

Mass Effect 2 throws out the baby with the bathwater. Gameplay wise they clearly neutered the whole inventory system RPG experience. However they did solve the believability-within-the-story issue, making it seem like Shepard - a highly skilled and well funded space marine - is picking his preference of a small selection of top of the line weapons.

Is there a middle ground? I believe there is. I hope they find it in ME3.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 septembre 2010 - 07:08 .

[only1sgop]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

Kavadas wrote...

I'd rather have weapons which actually perform uniquely, ala ME2, than weapons whose differences can only be measured via spreadsheets.

So basically you tell us that you are fine having two or three assault rifles having THE SAME damage and having only visual change? Than I would recommend you to go play some shooter. But wait, ME2 is a shooter. Oh, never mind.

As I said earlier, in ME2 I simply do not see ANY difference between the two assault rifles. Yes, one fires fast, second one fires short bursts. So what? It takes me EXACTLY same time to kill an enemy with one or the other. And the description? This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor vs. this rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor. Wow, someone had to think really hard to come up with this...

I am currently playing ME1 for eight time and yesterday, when I saw a Colosus VIII for Tali I cried YEEESSS. There is nothing similar in ME2. Hell there are not even armors in ME2. Everyone wears colored paper. The same when I bought my first Spectre Assault Rifle. There simply IS a difference even without any mods. And yes, at the end you and your squads can fire almost indefinitely. But that is the point. I am the SPECTRE, I am supposed to have the best armor and the best equipmnent. Look at Dragon Age. At the end, you kill enemies with one stroke. And it is deliberate, you are the Gray Warden, the best of the best.

Of course I am being tired having to sell all that loot I do not need. But it has been said thousand time, the solution is not to have a loot and upgrades at all.

Hehe. Finally someone who understands how ME2 was crippled.

I agree whole heartly

[upsettingshorts]

To be fair, Kavadas said "perform differently."

Which Mass Effect 2 weapons most certainly do. Mass Effect 1 weapons all perform the same style, except on a slowly improving scale of efficiency. The crap ones heat up quickly, are less accurate, and do less damage - but they fire at the same rate and they're all fully automatic for as long as you can hold down the trigger.

Mass Effect 2 weapons have different rates of fire, different levels of accuracy, different damage per shot, and call for different approaches to utilize properly.  Some call for short range, others long, some reward accurate fire and others are more forgiving when it comes to pray-n-spray.

In that respect, Kavadas is completely right and Embrosil missed the point entirely. It's not about time-to-kill, it's about how each weapon feels different. Not just feels better. For proof of this, check out any of the weapon discussion threads for ME2 - you'll see pretty heated debates over weapons of the same type like the Mattock vs. the Revenant for example - but in Mass Effect 1 no-one disputes that Spectre Master gear is the best of the best, because there's no variety in feel.

Which just shows further that the answer lies somewhere between ME1's system and ME2's, but not with either.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 septembre 2010 - 07:40 .

[PD ORTA]

Embrosil wrote...

Kavadas wrote...

I'd rather have weapons which actually perform uniquely, ala ME2, than weapons whose differences can only be measured via spreadsheets.

So basically you tell us that you are fine having two or three assault rifles having THE SAME damage and having only visual change? Than I would recommend you to go play some shooter. But wait, ME2 is a shooter. Oh, never mind. I wonder what a today's army would tell. Sir, I do not give a damn about the caliber, rate of fire or range. I just want one gun to make ratatatata and the other to make rata rata rata.

As I said earlier, in ME2 I simply do not see ANY difference between the two assault rifles. Yes, one fires fast, second one fires short bursts. So what? It takes me EXACTLY same time to kill an enemy with one or the other. And the description? This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor vs. this rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor. Wow, someone had to think really hard to come up with this...

This is wrong.  Weapons in ME2 don't only have different firing modes ie; Full-auto, 3 round burst and semi-auto. They have different caliber Phalanx/Carnifax vs standard pistol (I forget the name). They have different rate of fire Tempest vs Locust, they have different range Katana vs Geth shotgun, as well as different recoil, Revenant vs avenger. Not to mention different amounts of ammo.
There is more difference/variety in each weapon class in ME2, than ME1. 

[upsettingshorts]

Theory: Players who play RPGs exclusively or at the very least don't play shooters much see weapons as a method for delivering DPS. In that sense, the natural progression that ME1 offers in a gradually increasing DPS/efficiency way is familiar and "in their language."  I've played RPGs since - basically - Baldur's Gate and MMOs since (and this is embarassing) Gemstone III for AOL, so this kind of thinking is not unfamiliar to me.  In fact, when I play DA:O or Age of Conan, that's basically how I'm thinking.

For players who have played or play shooters a lot (I used to, I don't play them much anymore) feel and style are of rather tremendous importance. There are situations that call for a certain weapon, and others where you ought to use a different one. These are the folks who want something like a SMG or shotgun when in close quarters, or who when they see wide open space infront of them reach for something with a little more length and accuracy like a rifle. Not because of "spreadsheet" type damage, but because they've learned through shooters that there is a such thing as the right tool for the right job.

Mass Effect 1 presented you with a gradually improving set of clawhammers.  Mass Effect 2 gives you one each of a clawhammer, a screwdriver, a wrench, and a pair of pliers.  

It's hard to come up with an example of the same kind of idea from more traditional RPGs. But since Mass Effect is a shooter/RPG hybrid, some of the gameplay conventions are going to come from shooters and as a shooter Mass Effect 2 is wildly superior to its predecessor.

/imho

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 septembre 2010 - 07:49 .

[turian councilor Knockout]

Biotics should work on enemies regardless of their protection like it was in ME 1.

[Embrosil]

Upsettingshorts wrote...


Mass Effect 2 weapons have... different damage per shot. 

How do you know? I have never seen any statistics regarding weapons damage. That is why I wrote that in my opinion, there is none. One shoots full, one small bursts but in the end, both make THE SAME DAMAGE.

[Embrosil]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Theory: Players who play RPGs exclusively or at the very least don't play shooters much see weapons as a method for delivering DPS. In that sense, the natural progression that ME1 offers in a gradually increasing DPS/efficiency way is familiar and "in their language."  I've played RPGs since - basically - Baldur's Gate and MMOs since (and this is embarassing) Gemstone III for AOL, so this kind of thinking is not unfamiliar to me.  In fact, when I play DA:O or Age of Conan, that's basically how I'm thinking.

For players who have played or play shooters a lot (I used to, I don't play them much anymore) feel and style are of rather tremendous importance. There are situations that call for a certain weapon, and others where you ought to use a different one. These are the folks who want something like a SMG or shotgun when in close quarters, or who when they see wide open space infront of them reach for something with a little more length and accuracy like a rifle. Not because of "spreadsheet" type damage, but because they've learned through shooters that there is a such thing as the right tool for the right job.

Mass Effect 1 presented you with a gradually improving set of clawhammers.  Mass Effect 2 gives you one each of a clawhammer, a screwdriver, a wrench, and a pair of pliers.  

It's hard to come up with an example of the same kind of idea from more traditional RPGs. But since Mass Effect is a shooter/RPG hybrid, some of the gameplay conventions are going to come from shooters and as a shooter Mass Effect 2 is wildly superior to its predecessor.

/imho

Yes, I agree with you. But the problem is nobody told me, that ME2 is going to be a shooter. Maybe I was stupid, but I was expecting action RPG similar to ME1. The RPG in ME2 is just to fool poor customers

[Jebel Krong]

Embrosil wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...


Mass Effect 2 weapons have... different damage per shot. 

How do you know? I have never seen any statistics regarding weapons damage. That is why I wrote that in my opinion, there is none. One shoots full, one small bursts but in the end, both make THE SAME DAMAGE.

the game tells you in the weapon description section.

/learn to read.

(it also lists whether they work better against shields/armour etc).

Embrosil wrote...

Yes, I agree with you. But the problem is nobody told me, that ME2 is going to be a shooter. Maybe I was stupid, but I was expecting action RPG similar to ME1. The RPG in ME2 is just to fool poor customers

it's not a shooter, it's a hybrid TPS/RPG - just like the first one. if you didn't know that then you're the 'poor fool'. the only thing that has really changed in combat is that you don't have to have stupid "weapon skill" points to have any accuracy. at all. with the weapons.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 17 septembre 2010 - 10:40 .

[Embrosil]

PD ORTA wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

Kavadas wrote...

I'd rather have weapons which actually perform uniquely, ala ME2, than weapons whose differences can only be measured via spreadsheets.

So basically you tell us that you are fine having two or three assault rifles having THE SAME damage and having only visual change? Than I would recommend you to go play some shooter. But wait, ME2 is a shooter. Oh, never mind. I wonder what a today's army would tell. Sir, I do not give a damn about the caliber, rate of fire or range. I just want one gun to make ratatatata and the other to make rata rata rata.

As I said earlier, in ME2 I simply do not see ANY difference between the two assault rifles. Yes, one fires fast, second one fires short bursts. So what? It takes me EXACTLY same time to kill an enemy with one or the other. And the description? This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor vs. this rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor. Wow, someone had to think really hard to come up with this...

This is wrong.  Weapons in ME2 don't only have different firing modes ie; Full-auto, 3 round burst and semi-auto. They have different caliber Phalanx/Carnifax vs standard pistol (I forget the name). They have different rate of fire Tempest vs Locust, they have different range Katana vs Geth shotgun, as well as different recoil, Revenant vs avenger. Not to mention different amounts of ammo.
There is more difference/variety in each weapon class in ME2, than ME1. 

Again, how do you know they have a different caliber? Show me a proof. Yes, they have different rate of fire, but what good is it when a single shot from one assault gun makes the same damage as three shot from a second one? I am sorry but the difference is pure visual. And about the range. Maybe we are playing different games, but I have never had a problem to reach an enemy with any weapon. Maybe that is because in ME2 we do not engage enemies at ranges beyond 100m. Even my BB gun has that range...

Modifié par Embrosil, 17 septembre 2010 - 10:42 .

[kinedave]

It's nothing to do with a 'visual' difference, it's about what feels right to the player.



I absolutely hate the Revenant due to the recoil and spray, preferring the control you have when using the Mattock or the Vindicator. But other players adore the Revenant for its stopping power.



When in ME1 did you engage enemies at ranges beyond 100m? Other than in the Mako?

[PD ORTA]

Embrosil wrote...

PD ORTA wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

Kavadas wrote...

I'd rather have weapons which actually perform uniquely, ala ME2, than weapons whose differences can only be measured via spreadsheets.

So basically you tell us that you are fine having two or three assault rifles having THE SAME damage and having only visual change? Than I would recommend you to go play some shooter. But wait, ME2 is a shooter. Oh, never mind. I wonder what a today's army would tell. Sir, I do not give a damn about the caliber, rate of fire or range. I just want one gun to make ratatatata and the other to make rata rata rata.

As I said earlier, in ME2 I simply do not see ANY difference between the two assault rifles. Yes, one fires fast, second one fires short bursts. So what? It takes me EXACTLY same time to kill an enemy with one or the other. And the description? This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor vs. this rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor. Wow, someone had to think really hard to come up with this...

This is wrong.  Weapons in ME2 don't only have different firing modes ie; Full-auto, 3 round burst and semi-auto. They have different caliber Phalanx/Carnifax vs standard pistol (I forget the name). They have different rate of fire Tempest vs Locust, they have different range Katana vs Geth shotgun, as well as different recoil, Revenant vs avenger. Not to mention different amounts of ammo.
There is more difference/variety in each weapon class in ME2, than ME1. 

Again, how do you know they have a different caliber? Show me a proof. Yes, they have different rate of fire, but what good is it when a single shot from one assault gun makes the same damage as three shot from a second one? I am sorry but the difference is pure visual. And about the range. Maybe we are playing different games, but I have never had a problem to reach an enemy with any weapon. Maybe that is because in ME2 we do not engage enemies at ranges beyond 100m. Even my BB gun has that range...

Use your eyes as proof. The difference in damage and recoil between the Phalanx and starting heavy pistol is huge which is what leads me to believe the Phalanx is a higher caliber. Same with the widow vs Viper.

The different rate of fire also effects damage against enemies with different defences, ie; faster rate of fire better against shields and barrier, slower and heavier fire better against armour. There also gameplay data on this forum that shows every guns damage multipliers.
And you'll notice I chose Shotguns for range... unless you want to argue that all shotguns have the same range?.

[Embrosil]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...


Mass Effect 2 weapons have... different damage per shot. 

How do you know? I have never seen any statistics regarding weapons damage. That is why I wrote that in my opinion, there is none. One shoots full, one small bursts but in the end, both make THE SAME DAMAGE.

the game tells you in the weapon description section.

/learn to read.

(it also lists whether they work better against shields/armour etc).

Embrosil wrote...

Yes, I agree with you. But the problem is nobody told me, that ME2 is going to be a shooter. Maybe I was stupid, but I was expecting action RPG similar to ME1. The RPG in ME2 is just to fool poor customers

it's not a shooter, it's a hybrid TPS/RPG - just like the first one. if you didn't know that then you're the 'poor fool'. the only thing that has really changed in combat is that you don't have to have stupid "weapon skill" points to have any accuracy. at all. with the weapons.

No it is not a hybrid. It is a pure TPS. Because as you say, those stupid weapon skills are what made the game RPG. Based upon you, Gears of War or Resident Evil 5 is also a hybrid. Yes, the game tells me. This assault rifle is good agains kinetic barriers, shields and armor. And second rifle reads This assault rifle is good agains kinetic barriers, shields and armor. Maybe you are an genius who can see a difference from this description, but I am not.

Modifié par Embrosil, 17 septembre 2010 - 11:53 .

[Embrosil]

PD ORTA wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

PD ORTA wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

Kavadas wrote...

I'd rather have weapons which actually perform uniquely, ala ME2, than weapons whose differences can only be measured via spreadsheets.

So basically you tell us that you are fine having two or three assault rifles having THE SAME damage and having only visual change? Than I would recommend you to go play some shooter. But wait, ME2 is a shooter. Oh, never mind. I wonder what a today's army would tell. Sir, I do not give a damn about the caliber, rate of fire or range. I just want one gun to make ratatatata and the other to make rata rata rata.

As I said earlier, in ME2 I simply do not see ANY difference between the two assault rifles. Yes, one fires fast, second one fires short bursts. So what? It takes me EXACTLY same time to kill an enemy with one or the other. And the description? This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor vs. this rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor. Wow, someone had to think really hard to come up with this...

This is wrong.  Weapons in ME2 don't only have different firing modes ie; Full-auto, 3 round burst and semi-auto. They have different caliber Phalanx/Carnifax vs standard pistol (I forget the name). They have different rate of fire Tempest vs Locust, they have different range Katana vs Geth shotgun, as well as different recoil, Revenant vs avenger. Not to mention different amounts of ammo.
There is more difference/variety in each weapon class in ME2, than ME1. 

Again, how do you know they have a different caliber? Show me a proof. Yes, they have different rate of fire, but what good is it when a single shot from one assault gun makes the same damage as three shot from a second one? I am sorry but the difference is pure visual. And about the range. Maybe we are playing different games, but I have never had a problem to reach an enemy with any weapon. Maybe that is because in ME2 we do not engage enemies at ranges beyond 100m. Even my BB gun has that range...

Use your eyes as proof. The difference in damage and recoil between the Phalanx and starting heavy pistol is huge which is what leads me to believe the Phalanx is a higher caliber. Same with the widow vs Viper.

The different rate of fire also effects damage against enemies with different defences, ie; faster rate of fire better against shields and barrier, slower and heavier fire better against armour. There also gameplay data on this forum that shows every guns damage multipliers.
And you'll notice I chose Shotguns for range... unless you want to argue that all shotguns have the same range?.

I have. And I do not see any difference in DPS between assault rifles, pistols or SMGs. Moreover as I have already written, the description for all assault rifles is exactly the same. Good against everything. In the case of shotguns, I apologize, I have not noticed you specified. And I have never used a shotgun in ME2 (now when I think about it, I have never used in ME1 as well), so I can not confirm. Well at least I have something to try on my fourth ME2 playthrough.

[Embrosil]

NewMessageN00b wrote...

One thing I still can't get... Why is that Shepard takes a few hits and is dead, but the enemies are damn bullet sponges. Even with all the upgrades. Not comparing to ME1, but it's just annoying and shows how much is it a stupid shooter.

I mean, there's no challenge in playing against dumb things running around like hamsters lost the wheel. I'd rather see them emply some crazy tactic than just put a lot of shields on them for the highest difficulty.

Because as I have already mentioned, you are not wearing armor, but colored paper. You and your teammates could as well be running naked and it would not make a difference.

I am just replaying ME1 and I can easily get out of cover and get a few hits without any problem. Doing this in ME2 is an instant death. I would never believe that armor can degrade so much in only two years. But hey, in two years we also get an excellent improvement in having an ammunition in guns. Judging by this "progress", in ME3 we will fight naked using wooden clubs...

Modifié par Embrosil, 17 septembre 2010 - 11:57 .

[PD ORTA]

Embrosil wrote...

PD ORTA wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

PD ORTA wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

Kavadas wrote...

I'd rather have weapons which actually perform uniquely, ala ME2, than weapons whose differences can only be measured via spreadsheets.

So basically you tell us that you are fine having two or three assault rifles having THE SAME damage and having only visual change? Than I would recommend you to go play some shooter. But wait, ME2 is a shooter. Oh, never mind. I wonder what a today's army would tell. Sir, I do not give a damn about the caliber, rate of fire or range. I just want one gun to make ratatatata and the other to make rata rata rata.

As I said earlier, in ME2 I simply do not see ANY difference between the two assault rifles. Yes, one fires fast, second one fires short bursts. So what? It takes me EXACTLY same time to kill an enemy with one or the other. And the description? This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor vs. this rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor. Wow, someone had to think really hard to come up with this...

This is wrong.  Weapons in ME2 don't only have different firing modes ie; Full-auto, 3 round burst and semi-auto. They have different caliber Phalanx/Carnifax vs standard pistol (I forget the name). They have different rate of fire Tempest vs Locust, they have different range Katana vs Geth shotgun, as well as different recoil, Revenant vs avenger. Not to mention different amounts of ammo.
There is more difference/variety in each weapon class in ME2, than ME1. 

Again, how do you know they have a different caliber? Show me a proof. Yes, they have different rate of fire, but what good is it when a single shot from one assault gun makes the same damage as three shot from a second one? I am sorry but the difference is pure visual. And about the range. Maybe we are playing different games, but I have never had a problem to reach an enemy with any weapon. Maybe that is because in ME2 we do not engage enemies at ranges beyond 100m. Even my BB gun has that range...

Use your eyes as proof. The difference in damage and recoil between the Phalanx and starting heavy pistol is huge which is what leads me to believe the Phalanx is a higher caliber. Same with the widow vs Viper.

The different rate of fire also effects damage against enemies with different defences, ie; faster rate of fire better against shields and barrier, slower and heavier fire better against armour. There also gameplay data on this forum that shows every guns damage multipliers.
And you'll notice I chose Shotguns for range... unless you want to argue that all shotguns have the same range?.

I have. And I do not see any difference in DPS between assault rifles, pistols or SMGs. Moreover as I have already written, the description for all assault rifles is exactly the same. Good against everything. In the case of shotguns, I apologize, I have not noticed you specified. And I have never used a shotgun in ME2 (now when I think about it, I have never used in ME1 as well), so I can not confirm. Well at least I have something to try on my fourth ME2 playthrough.

I've seen a thread somewhere on this forum, where the TS performed weapons tests to see which guns had the quickest kill time. There is a difference. 
Also ignore the descriptions and take a look at the thread bioware stickied that shows every guns damage against shields, barriers and armour.

[Whatever42]

So more people who think that RPG is some sort of lame combat system instead of a role playing game.



I do understand that some people have a certain obsession with statistics but stats are a means to an end, not the end. They are simply a mechanic adapted from tabletop wargaming by people like Gary Gygax so we could simulate combat with our little tabletop models while roleplaying. However, the mechanic itself was not the roleplaying, nor the most interesting part of roleplaying.



I do appreciate that many people love managing statistics and inventory. Everytime world of warcraft dumbs down its stats even further, many people complain because thats a critical part of the game for them. However, you don't get to throw a game out of the RPG club because it doesn't use stats. You can try but everyone will ignore you.

[Whatever42]

And the guns are very different. A locust does less damage than a tempest but is more accurate at long ranges. My incisor does a triple shot and has a large clip than a mantis so I can keep the scope on target but it burns through ammo faster. Basically, the difference in guns represent the mods in ME1, with a couple exceptions. I prefer the locust and mantis, not simply for feel but because they are most effective for what I use them for.



This is why people give the Tempest to NPCs (because they do less damage but never miss) while players take the locust. This is why they give the incisor to NPCs (because they never run out of ammo) while taking different sniper rifles, such as the widow, themselves.



That is not to say that I don't have quibbles about the guns and armor - we would probably all agree that its not a perfect system - but to say its all the same is simply incorrect.

[Embrosil]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

So more people who think that RPG is some sort of lame combat system instead of a role playing game.

I do understand that some people have a certain obsession with statistics but stats are a means to an end, not the end. They are simply a mechanic adapted from tabletop wargaming by people like Gary Gygax so we could simulate combat with our little tabletop models while roleplaying. However, the mechanic itself was not the roleplaying, nor the most interesting part of roleplaying.

I do appreciate that many people love managing statistics and inventory. Everytime world of warcraft dumbs down its stats even further, many people complain because thats a critical part of the game for them. However, you don't get to throw a game out of the RPG club because it doesn't use stats. You can try but everyone will ignore you.

That is not an obsession. If you go buy a gun today you will not be interested in a rate of fire, range, type of ammo, damage etc.? You will choose based upon what? If it  fires like ratatatata or boom boom?

[FluxDeluxe]

Time to end the inaccurate ME2 bashing because of lack of variation in weaponry. ME2's guns are far more varied than the first game in look, feel, sound effects, rate of fire, The stats are aleo variable. When you add these to stacking multipliers for certain classes/ammo powers the differences can be considerable



for your viewing pleasure



http://social.biowar...1/index/4696232



I couldn't fibnd the original post that had all the different weapon stats but that thread illustrates the point well enough

[Embrosil]

PD ORTA wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

PD ORTA wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

PD ORTA wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

Kavadas wrote...

I'd rather have weapons which actually perform uniquely, ala ME2, than weapons whose differences can only be measured via spreadsheets.

So basically you tell us that you are fine having two or three assault rifles having THE SAME damage and having only visual change? Than I would recommend you to go play some shooter. But wait, ME2 is a shooter. Oh, never mind. I wonder what a today's army would tell. Sir, I do not give a damn about the caliber, rate of fire or range. I just want one gun to make ratatatata and the other to make rata rata rata.

As I said earlier, in ME2 I simply do not see ANY difference between the two assault rifles. Yes, one fires fast, second one fires short bursts. So what? It takes me EXACTLY same time to kill an enemy with one or the other. And the description? This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor vs. this rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields and armor. Wow, someone had to think really hard to come up with this...

This is wrong.  Weapons in ME2 don't only have different firing modes ie; Full-auto, 3 round burst and semi-auto. They have different caliber Phalanx/Carnifax vs standard pistol (I forget the name). They have different rate of fire Tempest vs Locust, they have different range Katana vs Geth shotgun, as well as different recoil, Revenant vs avenger. Not to mention different amounts of ammo.
There is more difference/variety in each weapon class in ME2, than ME1. 

Again, how do you know they have a different caliber? Show me a proof. Yes, they have different rate of fire, but what good is it when a single shot from one assault gun makes the same damage as three shot from a second one? I am sorry but the difference is pure visual. And about the range. Maybe we are playing different games, but I have never had a problem to reach an enemy with any weapon. Maybe that is because in ME2 we do not engage enemies at ranges beyond 100m. Even my BB gun has that range...

Use your eyes as proof. The difference in damage and recoil between the Phalanx and starting heavy pistol is huge which is what leads me to believe the Phalanx is a higher caliber. Same with the widow vs Viper.

The different rate of fire also effects damage against enemies with different defences, ie; faster rate of fire better against shields and barrier, slower and heavier fire better against armour. There also gameplay data on this forum that shows every guns damage multipliers.
And you'll notice I chose Shotguns for range... unless you want to argue that all shotguns have the same range?.

I have. And I do not see any difference in DPS between assault rifles, pistols or SMGs. Moreover as I have already written, the description for all assault rifles is exactly the same. Good against everything. In the case of shotguns, I apologize, I have not noticed you specified. And I have never used a shotgun in ME2 (now when I think about it, I have never used in ME1 as well), so I can not confirm. Well at least I have something to try on my fourth ME2 playthrough.

I've seen a thread somewhere on this forum, where the TS performed weapons tests to see which guns had the quickest kill time. There is a difference. 
Also ignore the descriptions and take a look at the thread bioware stickied that shows every guns damage against shields, barriers and armour.

O.K. I hope that I found the right one. And here it is:

M-8 Avenger: x1.25 shields, armor, barrier
M-15 Vindicator: x1.25 shields, armor, barrier


M-4 Shiriken: x1.5 shields, barrier
M-9 Tempest: x1.5 shields, barrier


So what the hell is the difference in these guns????

Modifié par Embrosil, 17 septembre 2010 - 01:38 .