TheLostGenius wrote...
CLimbing over mountains in the Mako was and is WAY MORE FUN than planet scanning. Move the cursor up and down until the retard alarm goes off!! lol
That's pathetic. I personally believe that Bioware took it out because some people couldn't articulate their opinions about something. I liked the mako, i hated the terrain. I've seen this opinion reflected by many of the people at this forum. It isn't my fault that they can't distinguish between mako hate and terrain hate in their own minds, but I have to live with the consequences. Your point is meaningless because we don't know the motivations of Bioware for excluding the mako or whether they knew the difference between what people were saying and what they meant. Because we don't know their motivations, we can't use their actions as proof. Thus your point is again meaningless.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Prove it? There's no Mako in ME2. There's your proof.GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Anyone who resorts to stating the other person is wrong and doesn't back it up is stupid and has lost an argument. You think I'm wrong? Prove it.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
^I just want to make sure you understand you're still completely and utterly totally indisputably wrong about the Mako being better for exploration and exploration not being a huge P.I.T.A. in the first game.
No one disagrees with the first part, the second part is is wrong and that's not debateable, especially not in comparison to the Mako.GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Ok, but my main point was that the Hammerhead isn't a good combat vehicle and it isn't a good exploration vehicle.
I couldn't of said it better myself, and I like the Mako.Dave of Canada wrote...
Upgrade the planets, add more open worlds and upgrade the Hammerhead's combat capability and nobody would miss the Mako except for sheer nostalgia.
Also should give you the ability to leave the Hammerhead, too.
kraidy1117 wrote...
TheLostGenius wrote...
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Prove it? There's no Mako in ME2. There's your proof.GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Anyone who resorts to stating the other person is wrong and doesn't back it up is stupid and has lost an argument. You think I'm wrong? Prove it.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
^I just want to make sure you understand you're still completely and utterly totally indisputably wrong about the Mako being better for exploration and exploration not being a huge P.I.T.A. in the first game.
ME2 is a dumbed down iteriation with some super facets to ME1. We lost planetary exploration which was a big blow. We lost any semblance to a real RPG with any level of customization taht isn't completely superficial, we have a streamlined third person LINEAR shooter where you get to chose the order of missions. The only real advancement that ME2 has over the first is a more dynamic group of character, and stellar character development and voice acting.
Everything else about ME2 besides the improved shooting and deeper character development = ME1 is better.
Seriously, whats a more ferocious nemesis species? Geth or "mutated Protheans". That part almost made be barf with not-so-interesting plot "revelation".
So because it does not have an inventory system it's not an RPG. GTFO of here. The powers in ME2 where alot better in ME2 and not to mention you can customize your armor. You can still explore the galaxy and this time they all have unique places! ME2 is much as a RPG then ME was, hell ME2 was more of an RPG then alot of RPG games out right now.
. It's a very fun game. Just not as impactful as the first.
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
That's pathetic. I personally believe that Bioware took it out because some people couldn't articulate their opinions about something. I liked the mako, i hated the terrain. I've seen this opinion reflected by many of the people at this forum. It isn't my fault that they can't distinguish between mako hate and terrain hate in their own minds, but I have to live with the consequences. Your point is meaningless because we don't know the motivations of Bioware for excluding the mako or whether they knew the difference between what people were saying and what they meant. Because we don't know their motivations, we can't use their actions as proof. Thus your point is again meaningless.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Prove it? There's no Mako in ME2. There's your proof.GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Anyone who resorts to stating the other person is wrong and doesn't back it up is stupid and has lost an argument. You think I'm wrong? Prove it.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
^I just want to make sure you understand you're still completely and utterly totally indisputably wrong about the Mako being better for exploration and exploration not being a huge P.I.T.A. in the first game.
How in the hell does terrain make a vehicle control like crap? Seriously, if you have an opinion think it through before stating it. The Mako didn't suck, the terrain sucked. Spend ten seconds thinking about why you were frustrated with a part before coming on a forum and influencing a company's decisions.kraidy1117 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
You do realize you used an exception to prove a rule, don't you?kraidy1117 wrote...
TheLostGenius wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
Zulu_DFA wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
TheLostGenius wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
This. Hammerhead is fantastic for exploring, not combat. Bucky sometimes you are a gem here.
That is an oxymoronic statement. There is no exploration on the hammerhead missions. They are 100% linear.
Put the Hammerhead on an old MAKO level, you will see a huge diffrence.
Yeah, in favor of the Mako.
You could aim precisely. You could run over enemies. You cound drive around them and fire at them simultaneously. You could absorb a ton of enemy fire. You could get off the Mako and kill enemies on foot.
All you can do with Hammerhead is jump higher and, that could be easily implemented with the very original Mako.
Are you kidding me? The MAKO controled like a big pile of crap. The Hammerhead is fluid, handels well and is fast, you can also run over people in the Hammerhead, I have done it....
All they need to do is add a second gun, make the shields stronger, give a health bar and the The Hammerhead will be perfect for both combat and exploring.
Except for craggy mountain areas, the Mako had a really nice feel to it, like an actual planetary ROVER. Felt authentic. Trying to drive up sheer surfaces was a little annoying, but the planet scapes more than made up for that. (Also a lot of missions didn't require traveling through mountains, and every main quest item had a somewhat even path to get to it.
I have one planet for you, a planet that back on the old forums people hated with a passion, a planet i dread and one that proves the MAKo is a pile of junk. Nodacrux
Realy? I just named one of the planets that made the MAKO control like crap. I can list many other planets.
kraidy1117 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
That's pathetic. I personally believe that Bioware took it out because some people couldn't articulate their opinions about something. I liked the mako, i hated the terrain. I've seen this opinion reflected by many of the people at this forum. It isn't my fault that they can't distinguish between mako hate and terrain hate in their own minds, but I have to live with the consequences. Your point is meaningless because we don't know the motivations of Bioware for excluding the mako or whether they knew the difference between what people were saying and what they meant. Because we don't know their motivations, we can't use their actions as proof. Thus your point is again meaningless.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Prove it? There's no Mako in ME2. There's your proof.GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Anyone who resorts to stating the other person is wrong and doesn't back it up is stupid and has lost an argument. You think I'm wrong? Prove it.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
^I just want to make sure you understand you're still completely and utterly totally indisputably wrong about the Mako being better for exploration and exploration not being a huge P.I.T.A. in the first game.
Wrong, they took it out because only a minority liked it, majority hated the MAKO. Want proof? Read reviews, by gamers and reviewrs, hell I wish the old forums where still there, then I could go back and show you alot of the hate threads for the MAKO. Face it, you are a minority who liked the MAKO. Bioware can't pleease everyone.
TheLostGenius wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
TheLostGenius wrote...
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Prove it? There's no Mako in ME2. There's your proof.GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Anyone who resorts to stating the other person is wrong and doesn't back it up is stupid and has lost an argument. You think I'm wrong? Prove it.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
^I just want to make sure you understand you're still completely and utterly totally indisputably wrong about the Mako being better for exploration and exploration not being a huge P.I.T.A. in the first game.
ME2 is a dumbed down iteriation with some super facets to ME1. We lost planetary exploration which was a big blow. We lost any semblance to a real RPG with any level of customization taht isn't completely superficial, we have a streamlined third person LINEAR shooter where you get to chose the order of missions. The only real advancement that ME2 has over the first is a more dynamic group of character, and stellar character development and voice acting.
Everything else about ME2 besides the improved shooting and deeper character development = ME1 is better.
Seriously, whats a more ferocious nemesis species? Geth or "mutated Protheans". That part almost made be barf with not-so-interesting plot "revelation".
So because it does not have an inventory system it's not an RPG. GTFO of here. The powers in ME2 where alot better in ME2 and not to mention you can customize your armor. You can still explore the galaxy and this time they all have unique places! ME2 is much as a RPG then ME was, hell ME2 was more of an RPG then alot of RPG games out right now.
Thats nuts. You can superficially customize your armor with extremely minor enhancements. Variety and possiblity is more exciting than have one or two "upgrades" to a weapon that does almost exactly the same thing. The RPG abilities were also dumbed down as were the physics engine. Blast a troop of ultra dangerous Geth Prime with a Singularity and watch as all the Geth and debris swirl around in the maelstorm while you carefully tear them to pieces. Can a singularity even pick up any debris or large objects? It can't even surpass a shield. ME2 = NERFED RPG, OPTIMIZED THIRD PERSON SHOOTER.
KotOREffecT wrote...
I couldn't of said it better myself, and I like the Mako.Dave of Canada wrote...
Upgrade the planets, add more open worlds and upgrade the Hammerhead's combat capability and nobody would miss the Mako except for sheer nostalgia.
Also should give you the ability to leave the Hammerhead, too.
The Hammerhead is where its at and the haters know it!
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
That's pathetic. I personally believe that Bioware took it out because some people couldn't articulate their opinions about something. I liked the mako, i hated the terrain. I've seen this opinion reflected by many of the people at this forum. It isn't my fault that they can't distinguish between mako hate and terrain hate in their own minds, but I have to live with the consequences. Your point is meaningless because we don't know the motivations of Bioware for excluding the mako or whether they knew the difference between what people were saying and what they meant. Because we don't know their motivations, we can't use their actions as proof. Thus your point is again meaningless.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Prove it? There's no Mako in ME2. There's your proof.GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Anyone who resorts to stating the other person is wrong and doesn't back it up is stupid and has lost an argument. You think I'm wrong? Prove it.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
^I just want to make sure you understand you're still completely and utterly totally indisputably wrong about the Mako being better for exploration and exploration not being a huge P.I.T.A. in the first game.
Wrong, they took it out because only a minority liked it, majority hated the MAKO. Want proof? Read reviews, by gamers and reviewrs, hell I wish the old forums where still there, then I could go back and show you alot of the hate threads for the MAKO. Face it, you are a minority who liked the MAKO. Bioware can't pleease everyone.
They didn't hate the MAKO they hated the TERRAIN they were forced to drive it on. As a vehicle it was great, the terrain they gave us sucked. Stop grouping a vehicle with the terrain it was driven on, they are two totally different things.
Modifié par Bucky_McLachlan, 28 mars 2010 - 02:22 .
Zulu_DFA wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
TheLostGenius wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
This. Hammerhead is fantastic for exploring, not combat. Bucky sometimes you are a gem here.
That is an oxymoronic statement. There is no exploration on the hammerhead missions. They are 100% linear.
Put the Hammerhead on an old MAKO level, you will see a huge diffrence.
Yeah, in favor of the Mako.
You could aim precisely. You could run over enemies. You cound drive around them and fire at them simultaneously. You could absorb a ton of enemy fire. You could get off the Mako and kill enemies on foot.
All you can do with Hammerhead is jump higher and, that could be easily implemented with the very original Mako.
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Ya the only thing that really made an impact in the first game was it's story. Gameplay wise it did not influence the gaming industry in any way shape or form, in fact it was really seen to be lacking as far as gameplay is concerned, and that's why Mass Effect 2 is so much different (and better).
Modifié par kraidy1117, 28 mars 2010 - 02:24 .
kraidy1117 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
That's pathetic. I personally believe that Bioware took it out because some people couldn't articulate their opinions about something. I liked the mako, i hated the terrain. I've seen this opinion reflected by many of the people at this forum. It isn't my fault that they can't distinguish between mako hate and terrain hate in their own minds, but I have to live with the consequences. Your point is meaningless because we don't know the motivations of Bioware for excluding the mako or whether they knew the difference between what people were saying and what they meant. Because we don't know their motivations, we can't use their actions as proof. Thus your point is again meaningless.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Prove it? There's no Mako in ME2. There's your proof.GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Anyone who resorts to stating the other person is wrong and doesn't back it up is stupid and has lost an argument. You think I'm wrong? Prove it.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
^I just want to make sure you understand you're still completely and utterly totally indisputably wrong about the Mako being better for exploration and exploration not being a huge P.I.T.A. in the first game.
Wrong, they took it out because only a minority liked it, majority hated the MAKO. Want proof? Read reviews, by gamers and reviewrs, hell I wish the old forums where still there, then I could go back and show you alot of the hate threads for the MAKO. Face it, you are a minority who liked the MAKO. Bioware can't pleease everyone.
They didn't hate the MAKO they hated the TERRAIN they were forced to drive it on. As a vehicle it was great, the terrain they gave us sucked. Stop grouping a vehicle with the terrain it was driven on, they are two totally different things.
Um again you are wrong. MAKO was citted for it's poor handling. Which is true. It was slow, had a long ass shield recharge time that was a pain on insainity, half the time your shots would not even hit your target if you where on an angle even if aimed at it. The MAKO was borining and not fun. Just because you don't think so does not make your opinion better then mine, Bucky or any of the other MAKO haters. Get used to it.
kraidy1117 wrote...
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Ya the only thing that really made an impact in the first game was it's story. Gameplay wise it did not influence the gaming industry in any way shape or form, in fact it was really seen to be lacking as far as gameplay is concerned, and that's why Mass Effect 2 is so much different (and better).
Well I was one of the few who did not like the story because I kinda felt it was too much of H.P lovecraft short storie rip off, but hey each to there own.
Exactly. And maybe some people should check out the official Hammerhead reviews around the net, they are all pretty much positive, stating how the HH is smooth and controls way better and is a natural evolution to the Mako. It just needs better sheilding and more weapons and it will be gold in ME 3.kraidy1117 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
That's pathetic. I personally believe that Bioware took it out because some people couldn't articulate their opinions about something. I liked the mako, i hated the terrain. I've seen this opinion reflected by many of the people at this forum. It isn't my fault that they can't distinguish between mako hate and terrain hate in their own minds, but I have to live with the consequences. Your point is meaningless because we don't know the motivations of Bioware for excluding the mako or whether they knew the difference between what people were saying and what they meant. Because we don't know their motivations, we can't use their actions as proof. Thus your point is again meaningless.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Prove it? There's no Mako in ME2. There's your proof.GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Anyone who resorts to stating the other person is wrong and doesn't back it up is stupid and has lost an argument. You think I'm wrong? Prove it.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
^I just want to make sure you understand you're still completely and utterly totally indisputably wrong about the Mako being better for exploration and exploration not being a huge P.I.T.A. in the first game.
Wrong, they took it out because only a minority liked it, majority hated the MAKO. Want proof? Read reviews, by gamers and reviewrs, hell I wish the old forums where still there, then I could go back and show you alot of the hate threads for the MAKO. Face it, you are a minority who liked the MAKO. Bioware can't pleease everyone.
Modifié par KotOREffecT, 28 mars 2010 - 02:33 .
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
That's pathetic. I personally believe that Bioware took it out because some people couldn't articulate their opinions about something. I liked the mako, i hated the terrain. I've seen this opinion reflected by many of the people at this forum. It isn't my fault that they can't distinguish between mako hate and terrain hate in their own minds, but I have to live with the consequences. Your point is meaningless because we don't know the motivations of Bioware for excluding the mako or whether they knew the difference between what people were saying and what they meant. Because we don't know their motivations, we can't use their actions as proof. Thus your point is again meaningless.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Prove it? There's no Mako in ME2. There's your proof.GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Anyone who resorts to stating the other person is wrong and doesn't back it up is stupid and has lost an argument. You think I'm wrong? Prove it.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
^I just want to make sure you understand you're still completely and utterly totally indisputably wrong about the Mako being better for exploration and exploration not being a huge P.I.T.A. in the first game.
Wrong, they took it out because only a minority liked it, majority hated the MAKO. Want proof? Read reviews, by gamers and reviewrs, hell I wish the old forums where still there, then I could go back and show you alot of the hate threads for the MAKO. Face it, you are a minority who liked the MAKO. Bioware can't pleease everyone.
They didn't hate the MAKO they hated the TERRAIN they were forced to drive it on. As a vehicle it was great, the terrain they gave us sucked. Stop grouping a vehicle with the terrain it was driven on, they are two totally different things.
Um again you are wrong. MAKO was citted for it's poor handling. Which is true. It was slow, had a long ass shield recharge time that was a pain on insainity, half the time your shots would not even hit your target if you where on an angle even if aimed at it. The MAKO was borining and not fun. Just because you don't think so does not make your opinion better then mine, Bucky or any of the other MAKO haters. Get used to it.
Anyone who said it had bad handling doesn't know how to drive a warthog, they drive almost identically. Just adjust the camera angle, that's all it took. On PC it was even easier. The inability to hit targets is again due to terrain, not the mako. I'll give you the shield recharge time facet, that was a pain.
TheLostGenius wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Ya the only thing that really made an impact in the first game was it's story. Gameplay wise it did not influence the gaming industry in any way shape or form, in fact it was really seen to be lacking as far as gameplay is concerned, and that's why Mass Effect 2 is so much different (and better).
Well I was one of the few who did not like the story because I kinda felt it was too much of H.P lovecraft short storie rip off, but hey each to there own.
Thats redundant. Nowadays there is no such thing as an original science fiction idea.
TheLostGenius wrote...
Thats redundant. Nowadays there is no such thing as an original science fiction idea.
Eh I'm not too fond of it either, I think it's a great universe that was better explored in the second game...but it's nothing like an H.P. Lovecraft story, the plot and tonality are not even kind of similar. The Reapers pay slight homage to Cthulhu, but LOTS of stories out there pay homage in the same way.kraidy1117 wrote...
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Ya the only thing that really made an impact in the first game was it's story. Gameplay wise it did not influence the gaming industry in any way shape or form, in fact it was really seen to be lacking as far as gameplay is concerned, and that's why Mass Effect 2 is so much different (and better).
Well I was one of the few who did not like the story because I kinda felt it was too much of H.P lovecraft short storie rip off, but hey each to there own.
Modifié par Bucky_McLachlan, 28 mars 2010 - 02:34 .
Dave of Canada wrote...
TheLostGenius wrote...
Thats redundant. Nowadays there is no such thing as an original science fiction idea.
There's no such thing as original storyline ideas anymore, you could blend it in and make them unique but they all fall into cliches. Bioware is just really good at making them interesting, even though if you look at it - all their games are similar plotwise (except for ME2 being an exception).
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Eh I'm not too fond of it either, I think it's a great universe that was better explored in the second game...but it's nothing like an H.P. Lovecraft story, the plot and tonality are not even kind of similar. The Reapers pay slight homage to Cthulhu, but LOTS of stories out there pay homage in the same way.kraidy1117 wrote...
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Ya the only thing that really made an impact in the first game was it's story. Gameplay wise it did not influence the gaming industry in any way shape or form, in fact it was really seen to be lacking as far as gameplay is concerned, and that's why Mass Effect 2 is so much different (and better).
Well I was one of the few who did not like the story because I kinda felt it was too much of H.P lovecraft short storie rip off, but hey each to there own.
Besides, Lovecraft's stories are so ingrained in popular culture at this point saying anything is a rip off is just silly, just as it is when people complain about people ripping off J.R.R. Tolkien. It's like calling people out for ripping off Shakespeare.
kraidy1117 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
That's pathetic. I personally believe that Bioware took it out because some people couldn't articulate their opinions about something. I liked the mako, i hated the terrain. I've seen this opinion reflected by many of the people at this forum. It isn't my fault that they can't distinguish between mako hate and terrain hate in their own minds, but I have to live with the consequences. Your point is meaningless because we don't know the motivations of Bioware for excluding the mako or whether they knew the difference between what people were saying and what they meant. Because we don't know their motivations, we can't use their actions as proof. Thus your point is again meaningless.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Prove it? There's no Mako in ME2. There's your proof.GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Anyone who resorts to stating the other person is wrong and doesn't back it up is stupid and has lost an argument. You think I'm wrong? Prove it.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
^I just want to make sure you understand you're still completely and utterly totally indisputably wrong about the Mako being better for exploration and exploration not being a huge P.I.T.A. in the first game.
Wrong, they took it out because only a minority liked it, majority hated the MAKO. Want proof? Read reviews, by gamers and reviewrs, hell I wish the old forums where still there, then I could go back and show you alot of the hate threads for the MAKO. Face it, you are a minority who liked the MAKO. Bioware can't pleease everyone.
They didn't hate the MAKO they hated the TERRAIN they were forced to drive it on. As a vehicle it was great, the terrain they gave us sucked. Stop grouping a vehicle with the terrain it was driven on, they are two totally different things.
Um again you are wrong. MAKO was citted for it's poor handling. Which is true. It was slow, had a long ass shield recharge time that was a pain on insainity, half the time your shots would not even hit your target if you where on an angle even if aimed at it. The MAKO was borining and not fun. Just because you don't think so does not make your opinion better then mine, Bucky or any of the other MAKO haters. Get used to it.
Anyone who said it had bad handling doesn't know how to drive a warthog, they drive almost identically. Just adjust the camera angle, that's all it took. On PC it was even easier. The inability to hit targets is again due to terrain, not the mako. I'll give you the shield recharge time facet, that was a pain.
Thats so full of **** and you know it. I can drive the Warthog just fine, why? Because it handels well! The MAKO does not. When will the MAKo lovers just admit that the MAKO could have been alot better and it's out because not alot of people liked it.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
