It amuses me that you base your damage calcs on a mode DESCRIBED BY HEADSHOTS without noticing headshots do more damage. Aiming at upper body = they die faster?
Actually I mentioned the calcs for both normal and hardcore. And are you saying that enemies aren't bullet sponges because if you hit them in the head with repeated shots they go down in a reasonable timeframe? Or are you just going for the old "you should just play better if you don't like it" shtick?
So if your point is half a mag to kill a guy when on normal you're basically invincible beyond 5m is somehow broken, you're missing the point. It's like a 40k game where it takes more than 3 shots to kill someone; that's just how the setting works. Lying and being wrong doesn't change that.
Oh lawdy. You seem to think that I'm somehow unaware that this is what the setting is like, and that this was all deliberate design decisions, when actually what I'm saying is that they were shitty decisions and the results sucked. I already know you disagree, so what is there for you to say? Are you just going to keep saying things like "BUT OTHER GAMES DID IT"?
No, dickcheese, that in only one subgenre is it actually normal.
Oh, so it's like an appeal to the majority thing?
Actually you're full of shit anyway, since games where you and your enemies have shit all health (except bosses and certain tougher enemies) have existed since long before shooters went First Person. Tactical shooters have existed since at least 1993. You're right partly in that they only became as popular as they are now in the middle of the 00's, but the fact that it was once the dominant shooter design has no relevance to the argument at hand, just like it wouldn't if I tried to say something like "lots of modern games are like this, so this should be to".
And
one subgenre? "Games with standard enemies that don't have a lot of HP" isn't a sub-genre, or a regular genre for that matter. Would you consider Goldeneye 007 to be a "tacticool shooter"? Max Payne? Timesplitters? Perfect Dark? Vanilla bad guys in these games die from 1-3 pistol rounds on average. And not some souped up magnum pistol like the Boltok, the first one you get in the goddamn games.
If you demand all games have low health, you are actually saying all games should be the same.
No, I'm saying that I think Gears would have been a better game if this aspect of it was different. Even if I was making such straw man "demands", the amount of hitpoints enemies have is one small part of a game, and is not tantamount to your ludicrous claims of me "demanding every game be the same".
Nope; 7 torso shots kill them fine. The revolver is 2 (or three if they're the higher type like General Shirtless Man). Uh oh! Hell, you can kill a boomer-type with a single cylinder of the revolver.
Don't have my game on me to confirm, but that stats I dug up from the gears Wiki indicate that it should take more than 7, and 2 revolver rounds should leave a drone with a small amount of health left (like 20 or something tiny). But the exact stats aren't even that important really, 7 pistol rounds is far more than I'd like it to take. If my memories serve me correctly, average joe terrorist in CoD takes 3 handgun rounds, but in that game rifles are generally as strong/stronger than the handguns, whereas Gears suffers from Halo handgun syndrome.
Bringing up the Boltok as an example is a pretty weak defense, since it's one of the most powerful weapons in the game, period. It's also of limited usefulness because of it's low rate of fire and small ammunition capacity. You might as well bring up the sniper rifle as an example of weapons that kill grubs quickly. That's the weapon I used for the majority of the game as a matter of fact, because as long as I had an active reload bonus it
usually instakills with a headshot. Of course, I soon learned that helmets are capable of stopping high powered rifle rounds...
Is this the bullet sponge 'problem'?
In the flesh.
If you are going to be a wanker and bitch about Gears having a style you don't like, for consistency you have to have a whole shitload of shooters, because Gears isn't that bad.
Think you should have proofread that sentence chief
As a matter of fact, I do have quite a lot of shooters! But what has that got to do with not liking this aspect of gears?
It's only bad if you a) play on hard or b) just finished playing a 2-hit kill game like MW2.
c) don't like this sort of thing.
Nice comeback! No wonder you're such a smart guy!
Yep. I think it runs in the family, since my sister is a fundie. But I'll continue to reply like that when you so blatently misrepresent my position.
and lying about how much it takes to kill people.
Actually I'm using a calculator and getting values from
the internet because the douchebag who borrowed my 360 hasn't returned it, even though I've asked him to several times in the past month.
You're the one saying every game has to be high lethality
No, I'm saying that Gears would be a better game if guns did more damage, and additionally that upping enemy HP is a fucking lame way of increasing a game's difficulty on higher levels.
Uh, huh? In MW2 you don't have 10x the hitpoints of the enemy;
Right, but in Gears hit-points put you nearly the same as the locust. If you divided their hitpoints by two, you'd only have double the health. Which is actually probably similar to the difference you get in CoD. Actually no, I'm pretty sure that you can take more than 6 rounds without dying, even on hardened. But I don't have the stats on me...
If you reduced the locust hits and threw more in, it'd just be a setpiece shooting gallery like MW2 only INCREDIBLY EASY because now nobody can kill you.
How the fuck would it be incredibly easy? You can't take much more fire than a given individual has, and as you're so eager to point out, those can be killed by less than a full magazine from the pistol. Yes, it would be "so easy"
And just leave out the parts where I've been stating that the difficulty should be compensated for in other ways, insisting that there's no way it could be done.
It's not Gears' fault that you want to be massively superior to the enemy.
What I'm learning is you just suck at shooters.
Yes, I suck at shooters because I wish gears was balanced differently.
So... you're just being obtuse, as you know damn well heaps of games use hitpoints?
What, exactly, gave you the impression that I didn't know that lots of games
utilized hitpoints?
This is called 'differentiation'. Adults who can learn new skills can play games that are different.
I
did play it,
both of them, and finished them on hardcore (the first game because it was the closest thing to normal, the second game because I finished the first on hardcore). And I even said that they're worth playing as they are.
