305 réponses à ce sujet

[Captain_Obvious_au]

Xewaka wrote...

I'd rather have them give the Mako nitro boosters for acceleration and jumping. You can't have a land fighting vehicle with a fixed turret. It's just wrong.

To be fair, yes you can.

[Destroy Raiden_]

Tanks are fairly stationary ie they only go which ever way the nose or rear end is facing the Mako mimics this also its main gun mimics the tanks main gun I felt like I was in a real machine a military machine with the Hammerhead I'm stuck in some kids science project its not stealthy at all its armor is useless and I hate bouncing like a rabbit from yards away about the only positive I've got for the hammerhead hovercraft is its fast thats it if I have to choose between fast and no armor and slow with loads of armor and decent cannons I'm going with slow I'd rather be running fort nox then stuck outside with a vest

[wizardryforever]

Destroy Raiden wrote...

Tanks are fairly stationary ie they only go which ever way the nose or rear end is facing the Mako mimics this also its main gun mimics the tanks main gun I felt like I was in a real machine a military machine with the Hammerhead I'm stuck in some kids science project its not stealthy at all its armor is useless and I hate bouncing like a rabbit from yards away about the only positive I've got for the hammerhead hovercraft is its fast thats it if I have to choose between fast and no armor and slow with loads of armor and decent cannons I'm going with slow I'd rather be running fort nox then stuck outside with a vest

That's hardly a proper analogy.  Think of it like a boxing match.  Who wins, the boxer who is strong but not fast, or the boxer who is fast but not as strong?  The fast one wins everytime, as long as they know what they're doing.

[Terror_K]

wizardryforever wrote...

That's hardly a proper analogy.  Think of it like a boxing match.  Who wins, the boxer who is strong but not fast, or the boxer who is fast but not as strong?  The fast one wins everytime, as long as they know what they're doing.

Neither is that, because the context is completely wrong. If The Mako and The Hammerhead were to go toe-to-toe in a fight, I'd wager the Mako would win. It's weapons alone pretty much hit within a second of being fired, and all it would take is one cannon shot and a short burst from the machine gun and The Hammhead would be toast, while The Mako could strafe circles around The Hammerhead's slow missiles and probably even take a dozen of them before its shields were dropped.

If these were racing vehicles then yes, The Hammerhead would win. But they're not: they're exploration vehicles with combat capabilities. The Hammerhead is like sending a Formula One car with a missle launcher on it into a warzone as opposed to sending a tank (i.e. The Mako). Using the Hammerhead as an exploration vehicle makes as much sense as having the Enterprise from Star Trek: TNG as an Akira class ship instead of a Galaxy class one.

[cachx]

Terror_K wrote...
...If The Mako and The Hammerhead were to go toe-to-toe in a fight

I think I said  this before on another thread, but if the two were to fight the Hammer just need to hide behind a hill, jump and fire homing missiles. While the Mako tries to pursue, it will eventually trip on a poorly placed pebble, jump in the air, do 14 somersauts, land on his back, and explode.

Also, it makes sense to send the nimbler vehicle for exploration. Just look at every scouting unit... in the history of time.

Still having said that, the hammer angers me more, not because it's the worst, but because it just needs very few details to be  great and Bioware refuses to fix them even when they have had two chances to do so in DLC.

[Lumikki]

In my opinion what I have sayed few times here before. I like Mako more because it seem to more real to me than Hammerhead for Mass Effect serie. When I drive hammerhead I get feeling like I'm playing some arcade shooter game, what isn't the feel what I should get in Mass Effect serie. Mostly because Mass Effect serie is so cinematic impression related. It's little like in ME2 the mining minerals by scanning planets, did not really fit in the game, it feeled like seperated gameplay. Now in ME1 Mako also feeled little like seperated, but mostly because the fractal planet design. In other ways it seem to fit well in Mass Effect series. If we look Mako in main story related missions.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 octobre 2010 - 05:41 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

One thing that was amusing about the whole Mako physics and horrible planet design was when you drove off the top of a tall hill in the Mako and fell 500 meters spinning like crazy.

[Sidney]

Terror_K wrote...

Neither is that, because the context is completely wrong. If The Mako and The Hammerhead were to go toe-to-toe in a fight, I'd wager the Mako would win. It's weapons alone pretty much hit within a second of being fired, and all it would take is one cannon shot and a short burst from the machine gun and The Hammhead would be toast, while The Mako could strafe circles around The Hammerhead's slow missiles and probably even take a dozen of them before its shields were dropped.

Yeah that's why tanks fare so well vs helicopters in the real world.

[Sidney]

Domar wrote...

I found Mako far more realistic and much less frustrating than the Hammerhead. Nobody would ever design in reality a vehicle that performs like the Hammerhead does in ME2 (you know, crash-bouncing into and off the ground all the time - suddenly turning ME2 into some sort of arcade game). With the Mako and the planet designs, ME1 emulates the fact that when exploring unknown planets in space, one would sometimes encounter vast territories and physical obstacles too difficult to overcome. For the ME2, however, the game developpers apparently decided to trade away realism and the feeling of planet exploration for different gameplay.

Realism? You'd use a vehicle that can't scale cliffs, cross rivers or craters/gorges for planetary exploration in reality? Maybe in 1969 you would but I suspect centuries into the future you might want something a bit more flexible. Your recommendation to scout around the Grand Canyon is what? A Hummer or a Helicopter?

As for boucning around, please, if the MAKO did what it does everyone in it would be dead of whiplash. The physics of the MAKO were a joke because it NEVER felt like a heavy armored vehicle, it felt like the buggy from Moon Patrol.

The biggest svaing grace over the Hammerhead is that the weaponry on it is better and makes more sense - the Hammerhead missles home but often not really on what you want them to.

[vashts1985]

Sidney wrote...

Yeah that's why tanks fare so well vs helicopters in the real world.

i guess its a good thing were talking about the hammerhead and not a helicopter.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

Sidney wrote...

Realism? You'd use a vehicle that can't scale cliffs, cross rivers or craters/gorges for planetary exploration in reality?

To clarify, are you talking about the Mako or Hammerhead? Because honestly it describes both of them.

[Embrosil]

I am really enjoying my Mako rides in ME1. In about 85% it is fine, while the rest 15% are a nightmare. But it is because of the terrain, not because of Mako. I have not tried Hammerhead though. I read posts here and saw videos on Youtube and no, thanks. If I wanted to play an arcade shooter, I would have installed a different game. It seems they made Hammerhead just for the sake to have some vehicle. I really hope that in ME3 we will get planet exploration back. It is 1000 times better than running through narrow corridors on every single mission. I think that a MAKO with hovering gear instead of wheels would be the best combination.But to be honest, I killed enemies in MAKO only in my first game. Since I had realized that it gives less XP, I always got out of MAKO and did it myself (real nigtmare at lower levels on insanity, but still fun).

Modifié par Embrosil, 06 octobre 2010 - 07:17 .

[Funker Shepard]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

So I'm playing ME1 and whilst driving around in the Mako, all of the old negatives float up as I'm bouncing down the side of a moutain after spending the last 10 minutes trying to get up it in vain.

But I then start thinking, whilst driving along a more-or-less flat section 'hang on, the Mako is actually a lot of fun to drive. Maybe it's not the Mako that was the problem, but the planet design?' I'm wondering what everyone else thinks - was the Mako undone by poor terrain design, or was it just a bad vehicle?

From past threads, I'd say that a relatively large chunk of people think that the Mako was fundamentally sound, but planet design was the real issue. I also belong in this group.

In fact, as is, I'd take the Mako and ME1 level design over the Hammerhead and its ME2 levels any day of the week. The lava platforming and ESPECIALLY the immersion destroying 'try to hold the hovercraft over the yellow circle while it inexplicably won't stay still' mechanic absolutely ruin to me what is an already mediocre (at best) vehicle...

[mattahraw]

My opinion, as i've stated in other threads, is that the Mako sections gave the main story and the ME world a real feel of size and scope. The physics and xbox controls of the vehicle itself were a little wonky, but nothing unmanageable. ME2 lost more than it gained by cutting vehicles out of the main game, and i'm super glad the Hammerhead and X3M shuttle chase through illium were added post-release.

[Sidney]

vashts1985 wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Yeah that's why tanks fare so well vs helicopters in the real world.

i guess its a good thing were talking about the hammerhead and not a helicopter.

Same effect in terms of pop n' shoot, lighter armor, slower weapon delivery times and all that that people were talking about.

[Sidney]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...
To clarify, are you talking about the Mako or Hammerhead? Because honestly it describes both of them.

The Hammerhead could at least have a shot at going over all of these things. It is still a bad design with the limited fly range and lift capability it has it is just a better design than the MAKO as a vehicle for planetary surface travel. Put another way, are there any MAKO missions you could not complete in the Hammerhead, no. Are there Hammerhead missions you could not complete in the MAKO - absolutely.

They're both terrible in their own way and neither really seems all that useful at what they are supposed to do but the Hammerhead has slightly more marginal utility.

[Terror_K]

Sidney wrote...
Put another way, are there any MAKO missions you could not complete in the Hammerhead, no. Are there Hammerhead missions you could not complete in the MAKO - absolutely.

There are plenty of missions The Hammerhead couldn't do. Aside from those where the mountains would be too jaggy and steep since The Hammerhead can't climb anything with a gradient more than about 40 degrees or so (and simply jumping wouldn't work), there are several missions where its engines would freeze up if it were there more than a couple of minutes.

The only reason The Mako can't do some of the Hammerhead missions is because the Hammerhead ones are so contrived and artificial; clearly designed to be action-oriented platformy sections that bear little to no semblance of a real environment. Even The Hammerhead would be screwed in those lava levels if it weren't for the oh-so-convenient Frogger-esque sections of perpetual flat debris floating down the lava rivers. The ME1 UNC worlds are actually designed to resemble what 95%+ of non gas-based planets out there in the universe are like, hence why The Mako suits them as an exploration vehicle.

[Sidney]

Terror_K wrote...

There are plenty of missions The Hammerhead couldn't do. Aside from those where the mountains would be too jaggy and steep since The Hammerhead can't climb anything with a gradient more than about 40 degrees or so (and simply jumping wouldn't work), there are several missions where its engines would freeze up if it were there more than a couple of minutes.

The only reason The Mako can't do some of the Hammerhead missions is because the Hammerhead ones are so contrived and artificial; clearly designed to be action-oriented platformy sections that bear little to no semblance of a real environment. Even The Hammerhead would be screwed in those lava levels if it weren't for the oh-so-convenient Frogger-esque sections of perpetual flat debris floating down the lava rivers. The ME1 UNC worlds are actually designed to resemble what 95%+ of non gas-based planets out there in the universe are like, hence why The Mako suits them as an exploration vehicle.

No, the Hammerhead can "climb" a lot of things you might not think it can climb by hopping up bit by bit. So unless it is a sheer wall the MAKO can't mount either it'll go up a lot of things.

They are "contrived" levels but I hardly think that rivers, canyons and cliffs are so wildly unrealistic (the former on garden worlds obviously) that they are out of place. I mean the UCW are contrived so you never set down on the wrong side of the Valles Marineris in the same way.

The Hammerhead does suck because of the limited lift/flight thing but any lift/flight is a huge edge over the MAKO in terms of flexibility. If the thing could just at least stay airborn it'd make even more sense.

Modifié par Sidney, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:17 .

[Domar]

Sidney wrote...

Domar wrote...

I found Mako far more realistic and much less frustrating than the Hammerhead. Nobody would ever design in reality a vehicle that performs like the Hammerhead does in ME2 (you know, crash-bouncing into and off the ground all the time - suddenly turning ME2 into some sort of arcade game). With the Mako and the planet designs, ME1 emulates the fact that when exploring unknown planets in space, one would sometimes encounter vast territories and physical obstacles too difficult to overcome. For the ME2, however, the game developpers apparently decided to trade away realism and the feeling of planet exploration for different gameplay.

Realism? You'd use a vehicle that can't scale cliffs, cross rivers or craters/gorges for planetary exploration in reality? Maybe in 1969 you would but I suspect centuries into the future you might want something a bit more flexible. Your recommendation to scout around the Grand Canyon is what? A Hummer or a Helicopter?

As for boucning around, please, if the MAKO did what it does everyone in it would be dead of whiplash. The physics of the MAKO were a joke because it NEVER felt like a heavy armored vehicle, it felt like the buggy from Moon Patrol.

The biggest svaing grace over the Hammerhead is that the weaponry on it is better and makes more sense - the Hammerhead missles home but often not really on what you want them to.

If you're saying that the most ideal type of vehicle for planetory exploration would be a small properly flying aircraft, I agree, of course. But, as Captain Obvious and others noted, the Hammerhead does not fit into this category and couldn't overcome many more obstacles on the ground than the Mako. When it comes to the extremely bumpy in-game road for the Mako at times, that's mostly due to our willingness to drive the vehicle at full speed over cliffs and such, just to save time, in a way we wouldn't normally being doing in reality. You can usually avoid that kind of ride in the Mako. With the Hammerhead, the crash-bouncing seems unavoidable, unless the terrain is completely flat and you refrain from trying to ascend in any way.

In situations where the terrain is very rough, the in-game info has something to say about the wheeled vehicle: "The Mako is powered by a sealed hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell, and includes a small element zero. While not large enough to nullify the vehicle's mass, the core can reduce it enough to be safely air-dropped. When used in conjuction with thrusters, it also allows the Mako to extricate itself from difficult terrain". So, as far as game story logic goes, the mass of the passengers' bodies must thereby be reduced to the same extent as well, giving a safe ride through any kind of terrain. Admittedly, in the ME2 galaxy, they could have used the same technology in the Hammerhead, altough I don't recall the game info says they do.

In any case in reality, where we could build the Mako or the Hammerhead without the near-zero mass technology,  no-one would settle for the physics of the latter, but prefer the old-fashioned way of the former.

Modifié par Domar, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:25 .

[nekhbet]

I never had problems with the Mako, and I'd even say I missed it in ME2. Hammerhead just doesn't have the same feeling to it.

[wizardryforever]

Terror_K wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

That's hardly a proper analogy.  Think of it like a boxing match.  Who wins, the boxer who is strong but not fast, or the boxer who is fast but not as strong?  The fast one wins everytime, as long as they know what they're doing.

Neither is that, because the context is completely wrong. If The Mako and The Hammerhead were to go toe-to-toe in a fight, I'd wager the Mako would win. It's weapons alone pretty much hit within a second of being fired, and all it would take is one cannon shot and a short burst from the machine gun and The Hammhead would be toast, while The Mako could strafe circles around The Hammerhead's slow missiles and probably even take a dozen of them before its shields were dropped.

If these were racing vehicles then yes, The Hammerhead would win. But they're not: they're exploration vehicles with combat capabilities. The Hammerhead is like sending a Formula One car with a missle launcher on it into a warzone as opposed to sending a tank (i.e. The Mako). Using the Hammerhead as an exploration vehicle makes as much sense as having the Enterprise from Star Trek: TNG as an Akira class ship instead of a Galaxy class one.

The weapons may be instantaneous, but the person inside trying to aim is not.  By the time they aim and fire, the Hammerhead has moved and is still pelting them with missiles that they're far too slow to avoid.  Any competent Hammerhead driver is going to be in constant, unpredictable motion when in combat, and since the Hammerhead can move in any direction without any problems, it would be extremely difficult to pinpoint it in order to hit it.  As for strafing in the Mako, what people don't seem to realize is that in order to do it, you have to be driving sideways, ie not watching where you're going while you shoot.  The Mako is also limited in that it has to turn itself around to move in a specific direction, the Hammerhead does not.  Aside from boosting, the Hammerhead moves at the same speed in all directions, and that speed is still faster than the Mako.  The Hammerhead would handle the Mako the same way it handles Geth Collosi, by flying circles (figuratively) around them and pelting them with missiles while the Collosus can't react fast enough to do much damage.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 06 octobre 2010 - 03:04 .

[Sidney]

Domar wrote...

If you're saying that the most ideal type of vehicle for planetory exploration would be a small properly flying aircraft, I agree, of course. But, as Captain Obvious and others noted, the Hammerhead does not fit into this category and couldn't overcome many more obstacles on the ground than the Mako.

Flying is better and all I'm saying is that the Hammerhead offers only marginal gains over the MAKO in terms of exploration capability because it has a really stupid mechanism for flying that won't let it stay airborn consistently. I think we agree about that based on your comments. My point would be that marginal gains are still gains so it does make more sense.

[Vanguard Alpha]

The problem was in no way the Mako, as far as my gaming experience went. The problem was the over use by lasy devlopers of mountains, I mean really, did every other planetside mission require us to constantly climb over mountains and eventually either stall or the mako would "bounce" off in a completely un desired direction...

[Onix Sunstone]

I realy loved the Mako was gutted when it was not in ME2, I dont like the hammerhead much at all.

[KotOREffecT]

I've said it a million times in these tiresome Mako Vs Hammerhead topics and ill say it again, the mako is a bit overrated. Sure I liked it alot when ME 1 was out, esp the Virmire and Ilos part, and doing mako tricks and getting into Geth Colossus wrestling matches were fun. And the landscapes were very nice looking and open. The mako however didn't have the best controls, it felt clunky at times, and you could easly get raped trying to get the turret situated during a heavy fight. Not to mention how long it took to omnigel the damaged mako, esp during a fight would get annoying.

The Hammerhead was way more fun and exciting. From the boosters, to just cruising around. It felt more smoove, and action packed, from gliding off a ramp into the mid air while engaging eneimies. It just needs a better sheild system and more weapons and it is leaps better than the Mako. Esp if we get things like Hammerhead on Hammerhead fights and races and chases in new DLC or ME 3, they could do some really cool things with that.

The Mako in the end is just more boring compared to the Hammerhead, is a good veichle, "technically" a better vehicle, just not as fun as the HH dispite its flaws. If that wasn't the case it wouldnt have been cut out, I remember all the hate the Mako used to get, now its like an all of a sudden nostalgia love fest it seems.

Maybe they should just bring back both veichles for ME 3 to their fullest potential to please everyone and to have more choices to choose from.

Modifié par KotOREffecT, 06 octobre 2010 - 07:51 .