85 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

If it's so easy, then go ahead and do it. And if my argument is so "****** poor" then point out why rather than just saying "it is, just coz I said!"

I already did. Quite obviously in fact.

Where then? I don't see any posts from you that do that in any way, shape or form, nor do I see any decent counterpoints to the ones I (and others) have made as to how The Hammerhead is made of fail. Go ahead... convince me and others who feel the same or similar that The Hammerhead is a good, realistic vehicle that would make sense and is a more logical choice than The Mako as an exploration vehicle.

All you've basically said is, "I think The Hammerhead is better cause its more fun, and The Mako is just fail cause I think it is!" with no reasoning at all. If you're seriously going to defend The Hammerhead, you need more than just a counter-opinion with no real reasoning beyond personal preference.

[Terror_K]

@Bennyjammin79

No. I offered logical reasoning using application and specific examples as to why the Mako mostly worked and why the Hammerhead mostly didn't beyond my own preferences. All you did was make a derogatory and immature remark about ME1 fans, then point to a game that isn't even Mass Effect at all and call it a joke. That's hardly logical or valid reasoning as to why The Hammerhead is a more realistic and better suited vehicle.

Yes, I may initially have made remarks about The Hammerhead's failings without foundation initially, but at least when I was called upon it I gave several direct reasons as to why I felt that way (e.g. the weak armour and lack of decent shields, traveling too fast, its inadequate weaponry, its inability to climb proper realistic terrain, its inability to rotate its turret, the fact its engines can't take extreme temperatures, etc.) and gave several reasons why The Mako is a better, more realistic vehicle (e.g. it can take a hit, has decent armour and shields, has better weaponry, is equipped and well-designed to travel on the type of terrain its made for, is basically a cross between existing space exploration vehicles and existing military ones, the fact it can traverse and survive in extreme temperatures, etc.)

Modifié par Terror_K, 10 janvier 2011 - 09:17 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Avilia wrote...

Driving the Mako caused me to invent new and improved swear words. Apart from that it wasn't too bad. The Hammerhead is much easier to control, and as long as you stay at range, lasts a fight okay.

Oh yeah, the lack of HUD was annoying - no way of seeing how much damage its taking...good idea there o.O

Ding ding ding. The Hammerhead at least controls the way I expected it to. I just agree that it needed thicker armor.

[Terror_K]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

 In short Terror: You're suggesting that I have no counterpoints to your argument. An argument that I'm not having nor attempting to counter. Since I've done little more than use your words, I guess that shows the poor quality of your case; which was my intent from the beginning. The fact the you tried to suggest that I was using opinion as the basis for a compelling argument is comically ironic, thanks for that.

Hahaha. All you've done is shown that you can't counter what I said by constantly dodging the main issue and failing to defend your statement. You claim that anybody can make the same claims I did for theopposite side of things, and yet you can't.  You keep saying that my argument is "****** poor" and that the quality of my case is poor, and yet you can't refute it directly.

All that you've proven is that you can't even live up to your own claims, so you've basically dug your own grave in this argument and you can't even see it. I'm sure even the other anti-Mako posters in this thread are face-palming in embarassment that you're on their side in this case in a "Dude! You're not helping our case!" kind of way.

Modifié par Terror_K, 10 janvier 2011 - 09:58 .

[Aimi]

Having fun, you two?

To me, the Mako didn't feel as though it belonged in 2183. It was so...retro, and a little disconcerting. Messed up immersion for me quite a bit: here we are with FTL, infinite-ammo infantry weapons, the obvious existence of skycars on the Citadel skyline, but we're stuck with an Iraq War-surplus Stryker that travels infuriatingly slowly for the massive amount of the game that we're spending on exploring planets. The vehicle concept was fundamentally flawed, in my opinion, unlike the Hammerhead, which has the virtues of being faster, more in line with the rest of the universe's tech, faster, cooler-looking, and faster. Hammerhead's problems were more of the "level design is kind of meh (as opposed to very frustrating, as they were with the Mako and it's eighty-degree inclines)", "weapon loadout is kinda dumb", "can't stand up to more than a couple of seconds of sustained fire from a single light infantry rifle", and "annoying VI voice that was trying too hard to sell some bad jokes". You can fix all of those things without going back to the drawing board for the vehicle's design.

Modifié par daqs, 10 janvier 2011 - 10:13 .

[Lunatic LK47]

daqs wrote...

Having fun, you two?

To me, the Mako didn't feel as though it belonged in 2183. It was so...retro, and a little disconcerting. Messed up immersion for me quite a bit: here we are with FTL, infinite-ammo infantry weapons, the obvious existence of skycars on the Citadel skyline, but we're stuck with an Iraq War-surplus Stryker that travels infuriatingly slowly for the massive amount of the game that we're spending on exploring planets. The vehicle concept was fundamentally flawed, in my opinion, unlike the Hammerhead, which has the virtues of being faster, more in line with the rest of the universe's tech, faster, cooler-looking, and faster. Hammerhead's problems were more of the "level design is kind of meh (as opposed to very frustrating, as they were with the Mako and it's eighty-degree inclines)", "weapon loadout is kinda dumb", "can't stand up to more than a couple of seconds of sustained fire from a single light infantry rifle", and "annoying VI voice that was trying too hard to sell some bad jokes". You can fix all of those things without going back to the drawing board for the vehicle's design.

Finally, someone with a voice of reason. One thing to add is the Mako also had very wonky physics where it could be upside down at random times.

[Theodoro]

For me, the Hammerhead was a perfect step forward after the ridiculous Mako. It was fast and mobile, and the levels designed for the vehicle in Mass Effect 2 were phenomenal, both in landscape and scenery. It was not overpowered like the Mako, either. I support bringing the M-44 back in Mass Effect 3.

[Terror_K]

daqs wrote...

Having fun, you two?

To me, the Mako didn't feel as though it belonged in 2183. It was so...retro, and a little disconcerting. Messed up immersion for me quite a bit: here we are with FTL, infinite-ammo infantry weapons, the obvious existence of skycars on the Citadel skyline, but we're stuck with an Iraq War-surplus Stryker that travels infuriatingly slowly for the massive amount of the game that we're spending on exploring planets. The vehicle concept was fundamentally flawed, in my opinion, unlike the Hammerhead, which has the virtues of being faster, more in line with the rest of the universe's tech, faster, cooler-looking, and faster. Hammerhead's problems were more of the "level design is kind of meh (as opposed to very frustrating, as they were with the Mako and it's eighty-degree inclines)", "weapon loadout is kinda dumb", "can't stand up to more than a couple of seconds of sustained fire from a single light infantry rifle", and "annoying VI voice that was trying too hard to sell some bad jokes". You can fix all of those things without going back to the drawing board for the vehicle's design.

Hey, at least you make a decent case and argument for it. I don't necessarilly agree with it (though you do raise a couple of points I do agree with), but it's a good case nonetheless.

I actually liked the retro-ness of The Mako to be honest. It really did have the look and style of a classic sci-fi vehicle from the period Mass Effect is more influenced by. The Hammerhead had somewhat of a similar design, but to me looked a little too... I dunno... Modern Hollywood, for lake of a better term. Looked a little too "style over substance" and like they were going for sleekness over practicality, and that it didn't quite fit in with the rest of the Mass Effect universe. One design feature --for instance-- I never quite got was why it had a gap at the front in the centre rather than than having a smoother, filled-in front like The Mako did. I actually preferred a few of the earlier designs that can be seen in the ME2 art book and Geoff Keighley's pre-E3 behind the scenes look at ME2. It seems more like the design team went "let's make a cool, flashy vehicle for the gamey game stuff" rather than "let's make a vehicle that fits in with the rest of the universe!"

The Mako was admittedly slow, but The Hammerhead was too fast for what is supposed to be an exploration vehicle. I'd say recklessly so. The Hammerhead seems more like it was designed for racing than it was for exploration. You say you felt it felt more in-line with the rest of the universe, but I just don't agree there (as I just said above at the end of the last paragraph). I can see what you're saying technically, but I don't think the attributes you mention suit an exploration vehicle designed to deal with the dangerous unknown. If The Hammerhead wasn't intended to be an exploration vehicle I could see where you're coming from, but it just seems too weak, too ill-equipped, too reckless and even too zippy. Again, what's the point of exploration if you go so fast you've seen everything in under a minute and you're just as likely to accidentally run into, destroy or completely miss important things from zipping around like a lunatic. There's a reason they don't send Ferarri's and Lambourghini's out as all-terrain, military vehicles.

On top of it all, despite its speed and appearance it actually seems more advanced than The Hammerhead. It's better armoured, has the internal mass effect field to "reduce" its weight and counter g-forces, has more advanced weaponry (actual mass effect-based machine guns and a badass cannon as opposed to missiles), has kinetic barriers, can take a greater range of temperatures, etc.

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

Really Terror, you're starting to get annoying. You've done nothing but spout your opinion and claimed it as just reason. When I mimicked you, you said that opinion is not a valid basis for an argument. Which is exactly my point and you made it for me!

But, again, I didn't just state my opinion but cited several reasons behind it. I listed reasons why I felt both vehicles worked and/or didn't work. That's the difference.

Modifié par Terror_K, 10 janvier 2011 - 11:10 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Terror_K wrote...

There's a reason they don't send Ferarri's and Lambourghini's out as all-terrain, military vehicles.

You do know that the U.S. military had motorcycles, Quad-Bikes, and Dune Buggies for Navy SEALs to use for their reconnaisance duties, right? One could argue that the Hammerhead is the futuristic version of that, technical hardware issues aside. Regarding the Mako, for a vehicle that is well-armored, why the hell is it prone to rolling over like a toy RC car after hitting a tiny little pothole, and what's the use for having hover-jets?

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 10 janvier 2011 - 11:00 .

[Terror_K]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

There's a reason they don't send Ferarri's and Lambourghini's out as all-terrain, military vehicles.

You do know that the U.S. military had motorcycles, Quad-Bikes, and Dune Buggies for Navy SEALs to use for their reconnaisance duties, right? One could argue that the Hammerhead is the futuristic version of that, technical hardware issues aside. Regarding the Mako, for a vehicle that is well-armored, why the hell is it prone to rolling over like a toy RC car after hitting a tiny little pothole, and what's the use for having hover-jets?

A little tweak of the suspension would fix that, although I think you exaggerate there. I never had that many issues with The Mako in that regard, though I will admit it did happen now and then. The jump jets are basically for that: jumping, and also helping slow its descent when its being air-dropped.

Regarding your first point, that would be a fair enough comment if that's what The Hammerhead was designed for, but it wasn't. It's supposed to be an exploration vehicle, but it just doesn't suit it.

To use a Star Trek example if The Hammerhead was a class of ship it'd be like you're basically sending an Akira class ship to do the job of a Galaxy class vessel. Starfleet knew that deep space exploration had to be done by ships that were capable of it. The same logic should apply here too.

[Lunatic LK47]

Terror_K wrote...

To use a Star Trek example if The Hammerhead was a class of ship it'd be like you're basically sending an Akira class ship to do the job of a Galaxy class vessel. Starfleet knew that deep space exploration had to be done by ships that were capable of it. The same logic should apply here too.

Terror, I am not a Star Trek person, so can you please explain to me the difference between the two classes? The dedicated wikis are really not that helpful.

[Grumpy-Mcfart]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

To use a Star Trek example if The Hammerhead was a class of ship it'd be like you're basically sending an Akira class ship to do the job of a Galaxy class vessel. Starfleet knew that deep space exploration had to be done by ships that were capable of it. The same logic should apply here too.

Terror, I am not a Star Trek person, so can you please explain to me the difference between the two classes? The dedicated wikis are really not that helpful.

as I understand it the difference is "scout craft" vs "heavy cruiser"

Modifié par Grumpy-Mcfart, 10 janvier 2011 - 12:39 .

[Raizo]

The Hammerhead was very under-whelming. Like most people I did my fair share of complaining about the Mako in ME1 but I always stressed my main issues were terrain related ( the Mako works fine in Noveria, Ilos and Virmire ). Bioware addresses the Mako problem by throwing out the baby with the bath water.

As for the Hammerhead, I hate the crap shields, I hate the fact that I can't zoom in on targets when I am attacking them, I hate the fact I can't get out of it and explore on foot, I hate the fact that I can't save my game while I'm stuck in it ( and of course I can't get out so I can't save untill I complete whatever mission I am doing ).

[morrie23]

I hate the silly moving all over the place thing the Hammerhead does when your extracting resources.



And the bits in Overlord when you jump from rock to rock in the lava stream? Please, don't do that again BioWare.

[heretica]

morrie23 wrote...

I hate the silly moving all over the place thing the Hammerhead does when your extracting resources.

And the bits in Overlord when you jump from rock to rock in the lava stream? Please, don't do that again BioWare.

Yeah, I dislike all the moving. It made me fail more than once andI had to start all over. Not a big problem.
On the other hand, I liked the lava bits

[Torhagen]

Mako would have needed some tweaking instead we got the hammerhead

the thing that annoys me about the hammerhead apart from the previously mentioned is that EDI is seemingly not linked it

[Terror_K]

Grumpy-Mcfart wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

To use a Star Trek example if The Hammerhead was a class of ship it'd be like you're basically sending an Akira class ship to do the job of a Galaxy class vessel. Starfleet knew that deep space exploration had to be done by ships that were capable of it. The same logic should apply here too.

Terror, I am not a Star Trek person, so can you please explain to me the difference between the two classes? The dedicated wikis are really not that helpful.

as I understand it the difference is "scout craft" vs "heavy cruiser"

Sort of. Starfleet vessels had different types of vessels suited for different uses.

The Galaxy class was considered an "explorer type" vessel, meaning it was specifically equipped for deep space exploration and coming across the unknown. While not strictly a full-on military warship, it still had the firepower and defenses to hold its own against the unforseen, as well as the equipment to help navigate deep space (better sensors and scanners, scientific equipment, etc).

The Akira class is considered a crusier. It's fairly well equipped to fight in small battles, but isn't really designed for deep space exploration. And in larger conflicts (such as The Borg attacking Earth and the Dominion War) the Akira class were often seen going up in flames and being blown to pieces. They're smaller and zippier, but not really designed for traversing the unknown and being out there by themselves for too long.

[Ill Logic]

To me exploration gameplay is about traversing difficult terrain, doing an expedition in an unknown world and finding out things.To give the illusion of exploration the traversing has to take time, there is value in it. There has to be places which are harder to reach than others and there has to be player freedom to decide where to go next.



One of my gripes with the Hammerhead is that it is simply too fast for those maps. Zipping from one end to another makes the map feel small. Instead of being on a uncharted world it feels like you are in a terrarium. The feeling of exploration isn't there. It's just a themepark.



Many seem to think that because terrain won't cause any problems to a jumping hovercraft, it is a better exploration vehicle, but look what Bioware did. They had to make the craft sink into pools of all sorts of liquids and create totally cheezy platform challenges simply to make the terrain challenging again - as it is a key feature of exploration gameplay.



It is pretty stupid to complain about difficult terrain in an exploration game sequence, when it is a key feature of it. I don't know about you, but I rather have my terrain challenges feel more natural. Those floating rocks in a lava stream challenges in Overlord belong to Crash Bandicoot game, not to a scifi rpg.



It is ok not to like Exploration gameplay, you may still like vehicular combat - or not. But if you are creating a exploration gameplay sequences to your game it needs to feel like exploring.

[james1976]

EDIT - didn't mean to double post.  Hit quote instead of edit by mistake.

Modifié par james1976, 10 janvier 2011 - 04:27 .

[james1976]

I miss the Mako. The Hammerhead was annoying to me. Heck, there's enough room in the cargo bay for the Shuttle, Mako, and Hammerhead.  If there were worlds you could land on more like in ME1, you could choose.

Modifié par james1976, 10 janvier 2011 - 04:27 .