216 réponses à ce sujet

[Halfdan The Menace]

GraciousCat wrote...

ModestmeNTaLmogul wrote...

ModestmeNTaLmogul wrote...

I want the M35 Mako back and a new tracked tank,maybe a futuristic hybrid of the Canadian tank (I forgot the name) + American M1 Abrams + Russian T-90.Put a 125mm tank gun,a coaxial 20mm Gatling gun and a pintle-mounted machine gun manned by one of your squadmates.

It should look like this;

That looks mighty familiar...

Probably because the design is similiar like the Halo's Scorpion,most fictional future tanks have 4 separated tracks.

[ZLurps]

I just finished ME1 (third time) and imported my Shepard to ME2. I'm doing my second ME2 play through with Firewalker and Overlord DLC missions involving Hammerhead installed. I just finished those missions again last night. My gaming platform is PC.



In ME1 I got sometimes killed by Thresher Maws and turrets because I fought them on foot for XP. If I had used the Mako, it were been a cake walk. I explored all the planets available using Mako in ME1. I used Mako to get my squad in good positions to snipe etc. Not once my Mako blew up.



In ME2 played all the missions where you use the Hammerhead and not once it blew up. Once I took a wrong direction on a mission and Hammerhead location was reset.



I think both vehicles are very easy to drive. I hope Mako would have a little bit more top speed and Hammerhead a little bit more shields but I don't see there is anything fundamentally wrong with either vehicle.

Mako is exploration vehicle that also doubles (triples?) as APC (Armored Personnel Carrier) with machine gun and light tank with a mean cannon. Hammerhead is APC with light defense and offense but really, really fast if you use boost. For me the best feature of Hammerhead is how fast it can be.



At least on PC, I can't help but feel... uh. If someone drives Mako like it's a hover tank yeah, terrain can feel challenging. If someone takes Hammerhead to the combat like it were a heavy tank, yeah, combat may feel challenging.

I wonder if people at BioWare feel that fixing these problem may be challenging.



Whatever happens I hope there are drivable vehicles like Mako and/or Hammerhead in ME3. I also wish vehicles are left like they are.

If something is done, maybe level design could be made more bit easier to drive and more variable?

Say, we have a small planet without any atmosphere, like earths moon. There is a location where we need to go but there are some mean AA batteries too so shuttle isn't option, so let's use Mako.

Then we have similar kind of scenario on green planet with lot of swamps, or on a desert planet with driftsand. These type of terrains are not suitable for even light tanks or APC's but hovercraft can manage those without problems, so lets use Hammerhead.



If I needed to choose between Mako or Hammerhead I would take Mako. For me it was fun to play, physics model was IMO really great and it's very versatile.

[spacehamsterZH]

egg_killer wrote...

The way I see it, the best mix is having a hover-tank like the hammerhead to cover handling issues, and some decent weaponry (maybe upgradeable?) and shielding like the original Mako.

This.

I would also like this opportunity to somewhat pointlessly repost this:

[Sidney]

expanding panic wrote...

Hell no!!! The Mako sucks!!!! Drop me so where close to where the mission is and let me walk up to where I have to be. I dont want to have to drive 100 miles to get there.

Yep, no idea why the "drop zone" was where it was with the MAKO other than as a way to force you to play Moon Patrol with the dumb thing. The physics on it were awful, it bounced around totally unlike an armored vehicle. The weapons systems on it stunk and 95% of what you did in it was boring - finding rocks, probes and medallions.

The Hammerhead doesn't resolve all of those issues. It makes a ton more sense as a exploration vehicle since it can defeat some of the obstacles the MAKO could not - rivers of lava and cliffs would be enders for the MAKO - but obviously it is still lousy becuse it doesn't fly, how to say this, consistently. The guided missile on it are anything but guided. It is a marginal gain over the MAKO but I suspect a lot of my perception on that is that I wasn't in the #$%^&# thing as much as the MAKO.

In the end, the ME series isn't about exploration, nor should it be. Sheppard has a job to do so let's focus on that. Frankly, if the time and effort poured into vehicles and building maps and planets could build another plot mission I'd trade everything about the MAKO for another Virmire type mission or the Hammerhead for another Shadowbroker.

[CARL_DF90]

Meh. The Mako was crap. Was not sorry to see it go. Awful handling, slow as heck, and not very maneuverable. The Hammerhead also has its problems (like the paper thin armor) which could be fixed with some upgrades. I won't shed a tear for the Mako's permanent death.

[ZachForrest]

If you enjoyed bouncing around desolate planets with terrain that may as well have been generated by algorithm, i suggest you seek help. You may be mentally ill.

Modifié par ZachForrest, 29 janvier 2011 - 02:24 .

[Chaos Gate]

ZachForrest wrote...

If you enjoyed bouncing around desolate planets with terrain that may as well have been generated by algorithm, i suggest you seek help. You may be mentally ill.

If you'd rather inch your way across a poorly rendered depiction of a planet for 15 minutes or longer, repeatedly firing off dozens of probes in order to find the merest shreds of resources, then you should be in a strait jacket.

I really liked the Mako. I liked its wacky physics, because it felt so arcadey, and so fun. Couple this with some heavy duty incendiary action on long range targets, the joy of stumbling upon an ancient relic, undiscovered corpse or cache of resources, and random duels with thresher maws, and I found the Mako sequences a complete joy. I never had a problem with them, could never understand how others could have a problem with them, and in all honesty, put down the incessant whining to geeks wanting to rant and rage over trivialities, as they so often do, and trying to achieve this by wielding their e-penis impotently across internet forums.

Sidney wrote...
In the end, the ME series isn't about exploration, nor should it be.

Bull****.

I'd suggest that, if you don't think Mass Effect is at least in part about exploration, then you haven't really played Mass Effect at all.

Sure, Shep's got a job to do. But on the way, he charts new worlds, encounters new races, and goes where no man has gone before. The far reaches of the universe that were so magnificently brought to life in the first game was what made ME1 so memorable, and provided it with so much of its poignancy and charm. Tearing this element out of the sequel left it feeling gutted, empty, and ultimately unsatisfying. Not the game I wanted to play.

Modifié par Chaos Gate, 29 janvier 2011 - 02:46 .

[Sidney]

Chaos Gate wrote...

Sidney wrote...
In the end, the ME series isn't about exploration, nor should it be.

Bull****.

I'd suggest that, if you don't think Mass Effect is at least in part about exploration, then you haven't really played Mass Effect at all.

Sure, Shep's got a job to do. But on the way, he charts new worlds, encounters new races, and goes where no man has gone before. The far reaches of the universe that were so magnificently brought to life in the first game was what made ME1 so memorable, and provided it with so much of its poignancy and charm. Tearing this element out of the sequel left it feeling gutted, empty, and ultimately unsatisfying. Not the game I wanted to play.

So you think crawling across world looking for rocks and downed probles is central to what makes ME good? In that case ME was also a gambling simulator because of whatever that crappy gambling game was. I remember the UCW for sure, because I spent inexpliacly more time doing that than anything actually fun.

[Flamewielder]

The Mako survived re-entry in more or less one piece... that's pretty sturdy construction.

But I think both vehicles complement each other rather well. The physics of the Mako was a little too out there for me, so something more conventional would be welcome: a) make some terrain impassable for it, b)give both vehicles their own separate tactical advantages/disadvantages and let the player choose what vehicle he'll use for each mission:

Mako: ground vehicle, limited by terrain, sturdy, good armor (but heavy) and good shields. Highly powerful main gun requiring accurate aim. Light anti-personnel machine gun for suppressive fire.
Hammerhead: airborne vehicle, unnaffected by terrain, fragile, weak armor (but light and agile) and decent shields, moderately powerful all-purpose self-guided (F&F) missiles.

I think they complement each-other quite well. Just give us more stuff to find so we don't wander around uselessly for too long (ME1's real problem in my opinion). Exploration is good, aimless wandering is not.

Modifié par Flamewielder, 29 janvier 2011 - 03:08 .

[ZachForrest]

Chaos Gate wrote...

ZachForrest wrote...

If you enjoyed bouncing around desolate planets with terrain that may as well have been generated by algorithm, i suggest you seek help. You may be mentally ill.

If you'd rather inch your way across a poorly rendered depiction of a planet for 15 minutes or longer, repeatedly firing off dozens of probes in order to find the merest shreds of resources, then you should be in a strait jacket.

I really liked the Mako. I liked its wacky physics, because it felt so arcadey, and so fun. Couple this with some heavy duty incendiary action on long range targets, the joy of stumbling upon an ancient relic, undiscovered corpse or cache of resources, and random duels with thresher maws, and I found the Mako sequences a complete joy. I never had a problem with them, could never understand how others could have a problem with them, and in all honesty, put down the incessant whining to geeks wanting to rant and rage over trivialities, as they so often do, and trying to achieve this by wielding their e-penis impotently across internet forums.

Sidney wrote...
In the end, the ME series isn't about exploration, nor should it be.

Bull****.

I'd suggest that, if you don't think Mass Effect is at least in part about exploration, then you haven't really played Mass Effect at all.

Sure, Shep's got a job to do. But on the way, he charts new worlds, encounters new races, and goes where no man has gone before. The far reaches of the universe that were so magnificently brought to life in the first game was what made ME1 so memorable, and provided it with so much of its poignancy and charm. Tearing this element out of the sequel left it feeling gutted, empty, and ultimately unsatisfying. Not the game I wanted to play.

you may be mentally ill.

You don't find anything interesting. Just the same objects that have no value over an over again. If the relics actually meant something....

I would say ME has very little do to with exploration seeing as your basically railroaded along the plot/side quests. See Bethesda for actual exploration.

There are places men will never set foot, partly due to the fact there's **** all there

Modifié par ZachForrest, 29 janvier 2011 - 03:10 .

[JeffZero]

I support Mass Effect pulling a poignant Star Trek and giving the franchise brilliant exploration. (And it's no one has gone before, thanks; you can play as a female Shepard, after all!) That said, I certainly didn't get the same feeling after doing all of ME1's assignments that I find myself feeling after watching a classic episode of one of the Trek shows.

Anyway, unless the Mako can accelerate at awesome speeds and jump really high, I won't be too impressed. Yeah, I'm a Hammerhead fan. To quote another John Shepard -- this one spelled with two p's and a television action hero -- "I like ferris wheels, college football and things that go over 200 miles per hour."

[Lumikki]

I like Mako more, it feeled more like real vehicle. Hammerhead other hand feeled like some arcade shooter game. Like shoot everyting, jump platform to other, collect bananas by driving over of them. In Mako you feeled the ground under you, it affected you driving. Also if you collected something, you got out of vehicles to do it. So, there was shooting everyting, but at least there wasn't this platform jumping. In simpleway sayed, it's difference between simulation of vehicles and arcade shooting mini game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 janvier 2011 - 03:43 .

[Ghost Warrior]

egg_killer wrote...

The way I see it, the best mix is having a hover-tank like the hammerhead to cover handling issues, and some decent weaponry (maybe upgradeable?) and shielding like the original Mako.

But in ME1 the biggest issue with the Mako was the environments u were given to drive round in. It was just annoying using the Mako outside of a Main Story Mission.

So like, Mako-Hammerhead hybrid

This

[Mecha Tengu]

I want a mobile suit...



just sayin

[Evil Johnny 666]

SirOccam wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

This. I think most people miss the appeal and point of the Mako. It wasn't designed solely for getting minerals or going to a mission's site, it was designed as an exploration vehicle. Am I the only one to find that quite some planet looked awesome? Awesome skies, cool geography (depends, but there were cool ones), nice, different climates, a lot of them were unique. It was like an awesome part of the sci-fi experience. It's as if no one cares about the sci-fi... OF COURSE it wasn't perfect, but that doesn't mean Bioware shouldn't improved. Instead of improving on it for ME2, and then improving again on it for ME3 and then get something incredibly awesome, we're not even sure to get it in ME3 as well as Bioware dropped the ball for ME2. What is more part of an authentic sci-fi experience, planet scanning or planet exploration? I'd be dammed if it wasn't the latter. I'm starting to wonder if anyone cares about half of what Mass Effect is about.

Well it sure wasn't about the Mako. I really don't see how "planet exploration" is somehow more true to the Sci-Fi genre than "planet scanning." They're both pretty standard fare in Sci-Fi. But actually I'd say it's much more common to scan a planet than it is to drop down in a vehicle and drive around on impossibly steep mountains for a few hours. When's the last time you saw a group of characters decide to go down to a planet and just drive around aimlessly for a while? Can you imagine Picard ordering an away team to take a wheeled vehicle down and drive around and see what's on top of various mountains? No, he'd just ask Data and he'd have his answer in a couple of moments.

It's Sci-Fi, but it's still a story. And Mass Effect is actually a pretty tight one, dramatically speaking. It's not meant to be a free-roaming sandbox game. I don't understand why "exploration" should play much of a role at all. You're on a ridiculously important mission to save the galaxy; why take the time to just drive around and see the sights?

But in a more general sense, I don't understand this "you don't like the same things I do, therefore I care about the franchise and you just want to ruin it" thing. You see removing the Mako as "dropping the ball," and I see it as a big step forward. It's the same thing with lots of the changes they made, like ammo clips for example. It's okay to dislike some changes, but it's all subjective. People need to realize that their opinions are not necessarily the "right" ones.

Then tell me why all the side quests. Or why ME1 even employed this with even more side quests. Take out everything but the main mission, and you're left with an unusually interactive shooter.

I think you missed my point, it's about taking advantage of the RPG and sci-fi. Why make such a huge universe if you only use most as a simple background with no interaction? With ME2, we saw less side quests in relation to the game universe, and we saw planet scanning instead of exploration. What does planet scanning brings? Nothing. What does planet exploration brings? The ability to explore a wide variety of different planets, making some like what fans of sci-fi would want to see, try to insert those cool sci-fi moments here and there, freedom. I don't know, numerous times I've come across somewhere with a pretty sweet landscape, a base hidden somewhere nice, giving the whole mission more information. No one felt great roving over the moon? No one thought some planets had really cool sun and such? Like with Luna, sometimes you were not on a planet, sometimes the sky, geography, etc.. was different. You just need to put a little more things there, tweak the Mako and get more interesting missions, at least in design. It's all about viewing the star map, and actually be able to land somewhere and be able to explore, not just one planet per system that you are confined to a very small place which is mostly interior. It's about the world feeling bigger and giving you more freedom. If you don't care about this, just skip it.

[Evil Johnny 666]

ZachForrest wrote...

you may be mentally ill.

You don't find anything interesting. Just the same objects that have no value over an over again. If the relics actually meant something....

I would say ME has very little do to with exploration seeing as your basically railroaded along the plot/side quests. See Bethesda for actual exploration.

There are places men will never set foot, partly due to the fact there's **** all there

Dude, shut it. Who the hell are you tu insult someone like this over his opinion on internet forums. Sure makes you look like your opinion is more legit... NOT. All you come across is as a fool, a dick.

[BassChamber]

At the end, it is a matter of opinions.



Some people like driving a slow ass truck thru bland enviroments just to find some useless items.



I dont.



The question is: what do most of people like?



I bet most people dont like Mako nor HH rides, sorry. The meat is in other different ME aspects.

[ZachForrest]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

ZachForrest wrote...

you may be mentally ill.

You don't find anything interesting. Just the same objects that have no value over an over again. If the relics actually meant something....

I would say ME has very little do to with exploration seeing as your basically railroaded along the plot/side quests. See Bethesda for actual exploration.

There are places men will never set foot, partly due to the fact there's **** all there

Dude, shut it. Who the hell are you tu insult someone like this over his opinion on internet forums. Sure makes you look like your opinion is more legit... NOT. All you come across is as a fool, a dick.

sorry mother

[ZLurps]

BassChamber wrote...

At the end, it is a matter of opinions.

Some people like driving a slow ass truck thru bland enviroments just to find some useless items.

I dont.

The question is: what do most of people like?

I bet most people dont like Mako nor HH rides, sorry. The meat is in other different ME aspects.

There are for example very popular Call of Duty and Medal of Honor games that cover pipeline shooter genre. I don't see much point for BioWare to trying to compete with those franchises, sorry.

Modifié par ZLurps, 29 janvier 2011 - 04:47 .

[SirOccam]

mangeo wrote...

What are you even talking about man?
Alot of people i talk to wouldnt even consider Mass Effect 2 as a respectable edition
to the , "Greatest story ever told"..Half of it? you mean the only part that matters..(so far at least)

And how does that make you a "true" Mass Effect fan? What is so great about only liking the first one and thinking the second is garbage? Wouldn't a "true" Mass Effect fan like both of them?

You clearly want to feel superior, hence this elitist attitude. I'm just saying it makes no sense. Looking down your nose at the so-called "Halo crowd" and Mass Effect 2 doesn't make you cooler by comparison.

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Then tell me why all the side quests. Or why ME1 even employed this with even more side quests. Take out everything but the main mission, and you're left with an unusually interactive shooter.

I never said there should be nothing but the main plot line. I just took issue with your assertion that exploration deserves to be a big part of the game. I don't understand why that is. It's not what Mass Effect is about. It's about saving the galaxy, not sightseeing. That doesn't mean there can't be diversions here and there, but you're making it sound like that's a core tenet of the game (and the genre as a whole). Even in Star Trek they didn't "explore strange new worlds" by just driving around aimlessly.

[Evil Johnny 666]

SirOccam wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Then tell me why all the side quests. Or why ME1 even employed this with even more side quests. Take out everything but the main mission, and you're left with an unusually interactive shooter.

I never said there should be nothing but the main plot line. I just took issue with your assertion that exploration deserves to be a big part of the game. I don't understand why that is. It's not what Mass Effect is about. It's about saving the galaxy, not sightseeing. That doesn't mean there can't be diversions here and there, but you're making it sound like that's a core tenet of the game (and the genre as a whole). Even in Star Trek they didn't "explore strange new worlds" by just driving around aimlessly.

If it's only about saving the galaxy, they could've done so without creating such an expansive universe, do something like Halo. In each ME game, the game takes you to plenty of different places of the galaxy! That's all you do, missions take you somewhere different all the time, if that's not exploring a galaxy, I don't know what it is. So why would planet exploration be so out of place? It isn't, that's why it was put in ME1 in the first place, they only took it out because of criticism.

[BassChamber]

ZLurps wrote...

BassChamber wrote...

At the end, it is a matter of opinions.

Some people like driving a slow ass truck thru bland enviroments just to find some useless items.

I dont.

The question is: what do most of people like?

I bet most people dont like Mako nor HH rides, sorry. The meat is in other different ME aspects.

There are for example very popular Call of Duty and Medal of Honor games that cover pipeline shooter genre. I don't see much point for BioWare to trying to compete with those franchises, sorry.

Are you saying ME without Mako/HH exploration would turn into a generic FPS??

:blink:

BTW, I am not against side quest and exploration. I am against how poorly exploration was added to ME1/ME2 expansion.

If Bioware finds a fun way to implement exploration, i will be happy.

But no more Mako, please.

Modifié par BassChamber, 29 janvier 2011 - 05:50 .

[ZachForrest]

Going to 'different places' an explorer does not make.



If you get so excited about driving around an asteroid, driving into town must be absolutely earth shattering.

[Evil Johnny 666]

ZachForrest wrote...

Going to 'different places' an explorer does not make.

If you get so excited about driving around an asteroid, driving into town must be absolutely earth shattering.

Gotta be one of the worst trash comments I read here. You're insulting your own intelligence:pinched:

I think you're purposefully missing the point or something.

Of course not, it doesn't make exploration per se, but that's pretty much the basic. It's not just different places, it's very different places. If there isn't a certain degree of exploration when going across all the galaxy, then... I mean, it's half the step to exploration. It's not "going to school, going to the job, going to a friend's place is exploration"... But you're telling me that if I get to the States the summer, as well as France, that I'm not travelling or exploring a tiny bit? Exploring the galaxy is first and foremost going to the colonized areas, it's part of the whole thing.

Mass Effect is already about travelling throughout the galaxy to very different places, why exploring uncharted planets would be out of place? Still haven't answered this, you just said a stupid comment instead. It's just a logical step.

PS: I love driving to and in NEW places, with different architechture/geography/whatnot. I like travelling, like many people. And I'm not saying it was perfect in ME1, I'm not saying it couldn't be improved, but it was a step in the right direction. If you didn't like it, maybe they could manage a version which you like.

[Sidney]

Exploration in and of itself isn't all that - I don't think you can create a consistently interesting exploration game. Take the top of the line exploration based game right now, FNV. There are 100 locations and most of them are boring useless "Campgrounds", "Gas Stations" and "Mines" - what are known as filler. The problem is that you can't do justice to a storyline at that many places. Way, way too much of your exploration is "rewarded" with a pile of scrap metal and squirrel on a stick from a empty building or trailer. Toss in that to get to said boring locations you must amble across a long stretch of mostly empty highway or countryside. There's a reason you fast travel in the game and really many of the "points of interest" are just there as fast travel anchors.



ME1's exploration was similar, you have a planet, 4-5 locations. 1 actual "interesting" encounter and then 2 rocks,, a downed probe and a turian insignia. The latter 4 suck and the one good encounter - the reason you were on the planet takes way too long to get to.



The stuff, between the stuff isn't any fun. DAO takes you to lost caravan you don't have to walk across a big stretch of nothing happening Ferelden to get to it and ME2 allows me to skip empty plains and an improbable geological formation to get where I need to be. It works.