Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is argument is getting circular...

I have to agree with that. Despite the techno-babble jargon in the game and in the ME Wikia that purports to explain how the weapons work, on-screen, the vast majority of them aren't all that impressive and are, in fact, apparently inferior to some 21c weapons.

Using Husks as an example, even the heaviest pistols require multiple shots to drop one, even targeting the head (though head-shots do accrue bonus damage). I get that they are cybered-out and and the like, but a single round from a bolt-pistol to the face will literally shatter your skull. Like, you might have parts of your lower jaw still affixed to your neck, but your head is fething gone. Even the explosive rounds of ME do not permit one-shot kills of Husks by way of pistols (shotguns and sniper rifles yes, but now we're comparing heavier weapons to a pistol).

Even the beam-rifle from ME2 is not particularly impressive, requiring it to be held on-target for several seconds before dealing lethal damage... and by that time you've drained 20-30% of its energy cell (of which you only have 1 in most cases). This is not an efficient or effectively-lethal weapon.

((Edited because auto-correct hates me))

 Psienesis wrote:
I have to agree with that. Despite the techno-babble jargon in the game and in the ME Wikia that purports to explain how the weapons work, on-screen, the vast majority of them aren't all that impressive and are, in fact, apparently inferior to some 21c weapons.

Using Husks as an example, even the heaviest pistols require multiple shots to drop one, even targeting the head (though head-shots do accrue bonus damage). I get that they are cybered-out and and the like, but a single round from a bolt-pistol to the face will literally shatter your shatter. Like, you might have parts of your lower jaw still affixed to your neck, but your head is fething gone. Even the explosive rounds of ME do not permit one-shot kills of Husks by way of pistols (shotguns and sniper rifles yes, but now we're comparing heavier weapons to a pistol).

Even the beam-rifle from ME2 is not particularly impressive, requiring it to be held on-target for several seconds before dealing lethal damage... and by that time you've drained 20-30% of its energy cell (of which you only have 1 in most cases). This is not an efficient or effectively-lethal weapon.

It's a problem a lot of sci-fi games have. They have to make their game a compelling experience with a variety of weapons for the player to enjoy. This often means that they pigeon hole weapons into nonsensical roles with terrible range and accuracy. Halo is a notable offender in this category. The MA5 series of rifles are vastly inferior to a AR-15s despite being developed in the 25th century. But they have to be to give "long ranged" weapons like the BR-55HB or the M6D a defined role. There is also the consideration that firefights in video games happen, most of the time, in close quarter ranges. To give these "long-ranged" weapons a role they have to significantly decrease the ranges of the "close ranged weapons" to laughable standards. Otherwise, the difference between a MA5C and a BR55 would be lost on most players and people would think they are "Samey". The qualities that differentiate firearms (Jamming rate, easy of carry etc.) don't translate well to the digital realm.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Burna Boyz use a fuel that isn't even known in the ME universe so we can't conclusively say that a ME cutting torch is the same as a Burna Boyz flamer.

We also can't conclusively say it's superior.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
ME guns aren't that impressive when you compare them to what you'd find in 40k.

Graphically, the result of weapons hitting their targets in ME3 are actually not that dissimilar to what you see in Space Marine. In either game, you can turn peoples' heads in to gibs with a headshot, but otherwise the non-heavy weapons will just pump a hole in them.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Boltguns are rapid firing .75 mass reactive rocket launchers that turn people in gory chunks

Which is really not very impressive and not much better than what modern societies could produce. A gunsmith with the proper tools could make a boltgun in the modern world. And 40k's tech never gets better-- honestly, boltguns aren't really that impressive of a technology. By contrast, ME's weapons and armor producers are in a constant arms race, with better armor and shield producers constantly striving against better and better weapons that make the boltgun look like the crude tool that it is (and let's face it, that's precisely what it is).

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I disagree with your assertion that the only reason they performed that way was because Shepard was firing them.

Never said that.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
In my opinion this means that armor in ME doesn't offer reliable protection against small arms that are generally inferior to a Boltgun whereas Astartes power armor does.

Actually, because of shields, the armor in ME offers reliable protection against small arms that are equivalent to a boltgun, or even superior to one. What you seem to fail to understand is that Mass Effect is a shooter-rpg video game, rather than a dice rolling wargame, which means that armor and protection are treated very differently, mechanics-wise. ME's system functions off of a hit points system with hundreds or thousands of hit points per character, and the player or the AI aims their weapon with weapons doing more damage when they hit specific points, rather than rolling dice to determine hits and how much damage is done. Armor in this game is represented by additional health in player characters, and for the most heavily armored enemies, it's represented by a reduction in damage done (depending on the type of ammo used).

With that kept in mind, I would like to point out that your argument is circular. Your argument boils down to "because ME weapons can usually pierce ME armor to at least do some damage, that means ME armor sucks, which also means ME weapons suck", as if that is the only logical conclusion that you can come to-- which is a ludicrous notion. We'll never get a satisfying answer to this question because we don't have the physics necessary to do any kind of simulation, but working with the starting assumption that Astartes Power Armor is superior to any other kind of armor is evidence of bias, not of looking at each one to give them a fair view. And an assumption that, just because the results aren't gory within the context of the video game is, to me, a bad assumption. Very few games have anything resembling realistic bullet injuries, and certainly 40k isn't one of them. 40k is even less internally consistent about the effects of its weapons than ME is.

Instead, I posit that Mass Effect weaponry is actually quite effective against armor, as evidenced by its ability to damage metal and armored targets just as well as flesh targets. As a result, Mass Effect armor appears to be less effective than it actually is, because within the time period we have in the ME universe, weapons are usually winning the race between weapon developers and armor developers. Heavy armor reduces the damage that ME weapons do... but it doesn't eliminate it entirely, because the weapons are inherently quite effective against armor. So I would say a Krogan Battlemaster's armor is at least as good as carapace, with a bit of wiggle room depending on the Battlemaster's resources and how they customized it. And ME weaponry would indeed pierce power armor, but do reduced damage depending on the weapon, the ammo, and the modifications on the weapon. The boltgun would detonate against the shields until they were drained (three to four shots, given that bolter shells are neither high explosive nor fragmentation weapons), then successive impacts would wear down upon the ablative armor until the armor was worn down enough for the killing blow to land.

Actually, my argument is that Autoguns=ME weapons as ME weapons do similar damage to unarmored humans as a 21st century firearms. ME weapons can reliably pierce ME armor so therefore autoguns can too. Astartes power armor is very resistant to autoguns.(I believe you have to hit a soft armor spot to punch through) so therefore ME weapons can not reliably pierce Astartes power armor unless a sharpshooter like Legion was firing it.

I would agree to the arms race argument but the sticking point for me is how ME weapons damage unarmored targets. A weapon that was more powerful than a bolter would gore an unarmored human/asari/salarian as Bolters are described, in the lore, as being very powerful weapons with the ability to blow humanoid targets to bits in a single blow. I know I'm repeating myself at this point but I just want to make it clear where I stand on this issue. Greater Kinetic force=more gory of an impact generally speaking with ballistic weapons.

A krogan claymore =/= an autogun however.

It explicitly states that a normal human firing it will break or dislocate their arm if firing it without support or augmentation.

I would agree to the arms race argument but the sticking point for me is how ME weapons damage unarmored targets. A weapon that was more powerful than a bolter would gore an unarmored human/asari/salarian as Bolters are described, in the lore, as being very powerful weapons with the ability to blow humanoid targets to bits in a single blow.

Again, using actual gameplay as evidence is flawed. The reason ME weapons don't cause limbs to fly off and turn people to paste is because the designers don't want an 18+ years sticker stuck on their game which will reduce sales.

The same logic can be seen in games like counterstrike and CoD. Weapons today can cause horrible wounds to people, yet in games their effects are reduced to simply ragdolling the target and maybe applying some red colouring.

Simply put, realistic ballistic damage on human targets in games harms their sales.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
A krogan claymore =/= an autogun

That brings up the point that typical Krogan equipment requires one to be VERY up close. Claymores do NOT have good range. Not even close. So the Bolter has an immediate advantage right then and there.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
A krogan claymore =/= an autogun

That brings up the point that typical Krogan equipment requires one to be VERY up close. Claymores do NOT have good range. Not even close. So the Bolter has an immediate advantage right then and there.

I would chalk that up to a gameplay mechanic. Guns in video games rarely act in a realistic fashion to make for an interesting gaming experience. Unless you think Boltguns only have a maximum range of 100 feet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
A krogan claymore =/= an autogun however.

It explicitly states that a normal human firing it will break or dislocate their arm if firing it without support or augmentation.

I would agree to the arms race argument but the sticking point for me is how ME weapons damage unarmored targets. A weapon that was more powerful than a bolter would gore an unarmored human/asari/salarian as Bolters are described, in the lore, as being very powerful weapons with the ability to blow humanoid targets to bits in a single blow.

Again, using actual gameplay as evidence is flawed. The reason ME weapons don't cause limbs to fly off and turn people to paste is because the designers don't want an 18+ years sticker stuck on their game which will reduce sales.

The same logic can be seen in games like counterstrike and CoD. Weapons today can cause horrible wounds to people, yet in games their effects are reduced to simply ragdolling the target and maybe applying some red colouring.

Simply put, realistic ballistic damage on human targets in games harms their sales.

You know, now that I think about it I remember a time where a unarmored character survives taking a direct gunshot wound. You may be onto something here. Has anyone read the books/comics? Are ME weapons particularly destructive there?

Zaeed survives beign shot in the head - that said, people do that RL, too.

I mean, heck, just the other day I was reading something about a seven-year-old who took eight bullets, two of them in the head, and lived to tell the tale.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
And a squad of Space Marines topple entire planets with fewer and less-specialized troops.

No, see, if a planet has cutting torches that means their weapons can punch through Astartes armor. The USSR had cutting torches so therefore a Mosin-Nagant can easily penetrate power armor. Thus, even Dimitry could kill the Space Marine veteran.

TBF, Dimitri could solo the entire 30k imperial army, but whatevs.

Commander Bailey survived a few rounds to the gut, but his armor took most of the damage-- it was well abused.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
A krogan claymore =/= an autogun however.

It explicitly states that a normal human firing it will break or dislocate their arm if firing it without support or augmentation.

I would agree to the arms race argument but the sticking point for me is how ME weapons damage unarmored targets. A weapon that was more powerful than a bolter would gore an unarmored human/asari/salarian as Bolters are described, in the lore, as being very powerful weapons with the ability to blow humanoid targets to bits in a single blow.

Again, using actual gameplay as evidence is flawed. The reason ME weapons don't cause limbs to fly off and turn people to paste is because the designers don't want an 18+ years sticker stuck on their game which will reduce sales.

The same logic can be seen in games like counterstrike and CoD. Weapons today can cause horrible wounds to people, yet in games their effects are reduced to simply ragdolling the target and maybe applying some red colouring.

Simply put, realistic ballistic damage on human targets in games harms their sales.

They have nudity and sex scenes, it's already an M-rated game. This is not however, really the issue. An artistic decision, perhaps, but not one related to the rating of the game (once you have sex scenes, you're not going to get the T-rating that violence permits). Even so, without graphic representation, the decision could be made to simply greatly increase the damage output of weapons to reflect their supposedly-enhanced lethality (unless we're to believe that humans have universally evolved into super-beings).

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
A krogan claymore =/= an autogun

That brings up the point that typical Krogan equipment requires one to be VERY up close. Claymores do NOT have good range. Not even close. So the Bolter has an immediate advantage right then and there.

I would chalk that up to a gameplay mechanic. Guns in video games rarely act in a realistic fashion to make for an interesting gaming experience. Unless you think Boltguns only have a maximum range of 100 feet.

'Tis true; in reality most artillery can fire multiple miles, but even long ranged weapons like lobbas can supposedly only fire 0.03 (approximately) meters.

It's very difficult to tell who would win, because both characters are represented in such different mediums. A game that relies on chance and a game that relies on pressing buttons are hardly similar, and to port one character into another's system would inevitably not go down well.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
A krogan claymore =/= an autogun however.

It explicitly states that a normal human firing it will break or dislocate their arm if firing it without support or augmentation.

I would agree to the arms race argument but the sticking point for me is how ME weapons damage unarmored targets. A weapon that was more powerful than a bolter would gore an unarmored human/asari/salarian as Bolters are described, in the lore, as being very powerful weapons with the ability to blow humanoid targets to bits in a single blow.

Again, using actual gameplay as evidence is flawed. The reason ME weapons don't cause limbs to fly off and turn people to paste is because the designers don't want an 18+ years sticker stuck on their game which will reduce sales.

The same logic can be seen in games like counterstrike and CoD. Weapons today can cause horrible wounds to people, yet in games their effects are reduced to simply ragdolling the target and maybe applying some red colouring.

Simply put, realistic ballistic damage on human targets in games harms their sales.

They have nudity and sex scenes, it's already an M-rated game. This is not however, really the issue. An artistic decision, perhaps, but not one related to the rating of the game (once you have sex scenes, you're not going to get the T-rating that violence permits). Even so, without graphic representation, the decision could be made to simply greatly increase the damage output of weapons to reflect their supposedly-enhanced lethality (unless we're to believe that humans have universally evolved into super-beings).

Nudity and sex? Barely. The ME games were given 15+ in most countries.

For a comparison, go play the old firewarrior game, and compare the weapons from there to the fluff and your own interpretations, they are sure to be different.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
A krogan claymore =/= an autogun however.

It explicitly states that a normal human firing it will break or dislocate their arm if firing it without support or augmentation.

I would agree to the arms race argument but the sticking point for me is how ME weapons damage unarmored targets. A weapon that was more powerful than a bolter would gore an unarmored human/asari/salarian as Bolters are described, in the lore, as being very powerful weapons with the ability to blow humanoid targets to bits in a single blow.

Again, using actual gameplay as evidence is flawed. The reason ME weapons don't cause limbs to fly off and turn people to paste is because the designers don't want an 18+ years sticker stuck on their game which will reduce sales.

The same logic can be seen in games like counterstrike and CoD. Weapons today can cause horrible wounds to people, yet in games their effects are reduced to simply ragdolling the target and maybe applying some red colouring.

Simply put, realistic ballistic damage on human targets in games harms their sales.

They have nudity and sex scenes, it's already an M-rated game. This is not however, really the issue. An artistic decision, perhaps, but not one related to the rating of the game (once you have sex scenes, you're not going to get the T-rating that violence permits). Even so, without graphic representation, the decision could be made to simply greatly increase the damage output of weapons to reflect their supposedly-enhanced lethality (unless we're to believe that humans have universally evolved into super-beings).

Nudity and sex? Barely. The ME games were given 15+ in most countries.

For a comparison, go play the old firewarrior game, and compare the weapons from there to the fluff and your own interpretations, they are sure to be different.

Given 15-rating in the EU.

US media takes sex more seriously. As in, they are terrified of it (what if they start getting ideas!?)

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
A krogan claymore =/= an autogun however.

It explicitly states that a normal human firing it will break or dislocate their arm if firing it without support or augmentation.

I would agree to the arms race argument but the sticking point for me is how ME weapons damage unarmored targets. A weapon that was more powerful than a bolter would gore an unarmored human/asari/salarian as Bolters are described, in the lore, as being very powerful weapons with the ability to blow humanoid targets to bits in a single blow.

Again, using actual gameplay as evidence is flawed. The reason ME weapons don't cause limbs to fly off and turn people to paste is because the designers don't want an 18+ years sticker stuck on their game which will reduce sales.

The same logic can be seen in games like counterstrike and CoD. Weapons today can cause horrible wounds to people, yet in games their effects are reduced to simply ragdolling the target and maybe applying some red colouring.

Simply put, realistic ballistic damage on human targets in games harms their sales.

They have nudity and sex scenes, it's already an M-rated game. This is not however, really the issue. An artistic decision, perhaps, but not one related to the rating of the game (once you have sex scenes, you're not going to get the T-rating that violence permits). Even so, without graphic representation, the decision could be made to simply greatly increase the damage output of weapons to reflect their supposedly-enhanced lethality (unless we're to believe that humans have universally evolved into super-beings).

Nudity and sex? Barely. The ME games were given 15+ in most countries.

For a comparison, go play the old firewarrior game, and compare the weapons from there to the fluff and your own interpretations, they are sure to be different.

I am led to understand that 16 is the "age of majority" in the UK, is it not? If so, a 15+ game/film there would be akin to an R-rated film (which permits people 17 and older) or an M-rated game (which is intended to mimic R-rated films, but there's no teeth behind the rating system) in the US.

You are thinking too much into this. In the UK ME is a 15+ game.

Media deemed only suitable for adults is 18+

Those 3 years are an important market for game companies, so most will tone things down below what is considered only suitable for 18+.
Also, it is important for companies not to go too far if they want to make the largest profit they can, because some countries (Australia I'm thinking of you) often go overboard and ban games outright.

As I said before, play firewarrior if you can get it. It offers the easier comparison of comparing 2 computer games. Bolters fire on it like they are supposed to, but they don't pulp things because of said reasons.

Play Space Marine instead. It is far more modern, which means it is able to be more accurate, and is also more up to date.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Play Space Marine instead. It is far more modern, which means it is able to be more accurate, and is also more up to date.

That, and you can punch the gak out of traitor humies. Seeing them appear is like watching medpacks dance around you.

It's a shame the game's AI is so poor. The CSM fight like cucumbers.

They should sprint, roll, evade, stun, and chain attacks just like you do.

Their strength and toughness is accurate, though.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
You are thinking too much into this. In the UK ME is a 15+ game.

Media deemed only suitable for adults is 18+

Those 3 years are an important market for game companies, so most will tone things down below what is considered only suitable for 18+.
Also, it is important for companies not to go too far if they want to make the largest profit they can, because some countries (Australia I'm thinking of you) often go overboard and ban games outright.

As I said before, play firewarrior if you can get it. It offers the easier comparison of comparing 2 computer games. Bolters fire on it like they are supposed to, but they don't pulp things because of said reasons.

My point being, in the US, it is "technically" an 18+ game (hence the Mature Audiences rating), but we don't have actual laws that enforce the ESRB ratings, hence "they lack teeth". It's up to individual businesses to decide who can and cannot buy an M-rated game. The de facto ruling is that an AO-rated game (Adults Only) is definitively 18+... but they are not sold by stores. You can only get them over the internet, thus via digital payment, which operates with the understanding that the account holder is 18+, and, also, has no enforcement mechanism.

In the US you could, in fact, make an extremely violent video game and walk away with a T (Teen) rating, so long as there was no sexual content, sexual violence or realistic depiction of something like disembowelment or decapitation. They could explode into a fountain of red gore... but so long as it wasn't "realistic", you might skate with a T rating.

It's funny how the situation in Germany is basically reversed.

Big Blind Bill wrote:
They have nudity and sex scenes, it's already an M-rated game. This is not however, really the issue. An artistic decision, perhaps, but not one related to the rating of the game (once you have sex scenes, you're not going to get the T-rating that violence permits). Even so, without graphic representation, the decision could be made to simply greatly increase the damage output of weapons to reflect their supposedly-enhanced lethality (unless we're to believe that humans have universally evolved into super-beings).

Nudity and sex? Barely. The ME games were given 15+ in most countries.

For a comparison, go play the old firewarrior game, and compare the weapons from there to the fluff and your own interpretations, they are sure to be different.

I am fairly sure the bolt rounds in Space Marine do detonate. Try firing them at a wall - you are blowing craters in it. Try firing it at an Ork - he is torn up badly.

Boltguns in Space Marine only tear Orks up badly on a headshot, to my memory. Coincidently, so do guns in Mass Effect. However, I don't put this down as either one necessarily being realistic to the setting.

You need two or three bodyshots to kill them, although it should be noted that they are blasted up when killed by bolter fire, no matter where they are struck (or well, it's programmed to be a 50% gib chance, or something to that effect).

I do not think there's anything like that in ME.

IIRC, in ME, headshot kills blow the head away entirely, and Power Combo Explosions plus other powerful weaponry (heavy weapons and some powers) cause the entire body to turn to gibs and pink mist. Indeed, biotic/tech explosions are the most powerful weapon in ME, scaling massively in damage the higher the difficulty goes, to the point that the best offensive class in an ME3 multiplayer game is any class that can initiate its own power combos.

It was a little while since I played it, but I do not think there are any gibs or even exploding heads at all in the ME games, possibly except for Husks.

Oooh wait. Cerberus Assault Troopers, too. If you take something like the Widow and shoot them in the head, it is destroyed.

 Ashiraya wrote:
It was a little while since I played it, but I do not think there are any gibs or even exploding heads at all in the ME games, possibly except for Husks.

There are, and it's not just cerberus, though they're the most common.. All human-sized enemies can be headshot like this (including Geth, for some reason). I'm not sure of the requirements for head explosions, though I know for a fact that you can get them with some heavy pistols, all shotguns, some assault rifles, and all sniper rifles. I'm guessing that you get head gibs if your weapon does a certain amount of damage over the kill threshold.

That's the Widow, again. Are you sure it is not a feature unique to the high-powered sniper rifles?

Oh wait, you mentioned that. Hurr. Hmm. Curious that these weapons cause death gibs when headshotting, whereas the numerous bodyshots we see in cutscenes do not.

Remember when Bailey was shot at the Citadel? He recovered quite handily, and yet I doubt his shirt was any more protective than Cerberus helmets, and shots that would explode someone's head entirely is probably not the thing you just shake off. Odd.