301 réponses à ce sujet

[Quole]

no, I like the hammerhead more.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

The one thing I didn't like about the mako, were those little rocket propulsions... what was their purpose exactly? Defnitley not for gaining levitation, that's for sure..

The jump thrusters were for dodging attacks, silly. So much easier to jump over missiles than to roll slowly out of the way. Also, firing the jump thrusters while rolling down a sheer rock wall is epic. Suicidal, but epic.

[Lunatic LK47]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Uh... the UNC worlds ARE realistic.

 
Until you realize that they're all the same, even the supposedly "hospitable" ones, and that there's never a mountain higher than "absolutely freaking microscopic by mountain standards." Then the immersion factor kinda dies out a bit.

Oh, and the prefaaaaaabulous "colonies" and "laboratories" and whatever else those three buildings were trying to be. (God, but at least DA2 gave its copy/pasted areas a passing attempt at character...)

Agreed


 

Virmire, Noveria, and whatever-planet-Liara-was-on are the only planets that had sufficiently varried terrain to not appear copy/pasted, and there's no way you're convincing me that the only form of life I'm encountering on a colony world is a whole lot of grass texture and possibly a nest or two of pyjaks.

I really found this to be weird as well. I'm just as surprised that Thresher Maws and Shifty-Looking Cows are the only other fauna every other planet.

"Tamed" and "smoothed out?" Pardon? The whole "lack of wheels" thing would make it more drivable on rough terrain, not to mention the higher jump-thrust. In fact, the only time the Hammerhead had trouble on any of the terrain the game threw at it was when the terrain wasn't programmed to be driven on, which you could tell without thinking was an issue with stage design. (There's even a completely flat, man-made landing pad at one point that acts like it's a mass of jagged rocks if you try to manually land on it, it's really quite sad.)

Gamey or not, the landscapes the Hammerhead traverses are a lot less welcoming to vehicles than anything the Mako had to put up with.

This. I found the Hammerhead's mobility to be more practical than the Mako. BTW, Special Forces personnel use Dune Buggies and Quad-Bikes for mobility purposes and covert operations if they find using helicopters to be too much of a risk.

[Lunatic LK47]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

The jump thrusters were for dodging attacks, silly. So much easier to jump over missiles than to roll slowly out of the way. Also, firing the jump thrusters while rolling down a sheer rock wall is epic. Suicidal, but epic.

Too bad the jump thrusters are only good for people that can summon bullet-time in real life.

[MutoidMan]

Make like Doc Brown and get the Mako a hover conversion; it's only $39,999.95, after all!

[Herr Sovereign]

Why not combine the two? Have it so that it has two modes of travel: The aerial fashion and the wheel fashion. Each has its own distinct advantages and disadvantages. This could make for some interesting platforming scenarios!

[Destroy Raiden_]

^ I would hate that reminds me of old scifi shows that had the car it levitated for a moment the wheels turned out and then boom thrusters appeared and way it went. No thanks I like all my wheels on the ground.

[Malanek]

The Mako was slow and tedious. Level design obvuiously didn't help but it wasn't a good vehicle anyway. It's shields took way too long to recharge as well, encouraging the player to just sit there. The Hammerhead was poor as well, although it solved mobility it was so weak that the best tactics were to just sit out of enemy range and blast them. If you are not prepared to put the time and effort into refining vehicle play, don't put them in the game. The quality of them is so much lower than normal gameplay it isn't funny.

If they did want to put vehicles in I would suggest that the hammerhead is a better base. The shields need to be much more resiliant against normal arms fire. Weapons like rocket launchers and geth collosus plasma blasts can be much more damaging because you can dodge them. The range must be reduced to less than enemies range. The hammerhead would then need a range of powers (on a cooldown) to make things interesting. Being upgradeable could be fun as well.

[AlanC9]

I pretty much agree with Malanek's post. The problem with the Hammerhead isn't that it's hard for a competent player to win with it. The problem is that good Hammerhead tactics are kind of, well, dull. You get behind cover or out of range and then fire until the radar's clear. Even if you're in range of heavy weapons, they can't hit a moving target so unless your fingers slip off the keys or you forget about dangerous terrain you're perfectly safe.

Good Mako tactics are pretty dull too -- not very different from Hammerhead tactics, actually. Get to extreme range, turn the vehicle crosswise to the enemy, and then go back-and-forth to dodge while blowing everything up with the cannon. Or just use the jump jets if you have good timing -- I personally prefer going back-and-forth since you can't really fail with it as long as you don't back over a cliff or something.

[javierabegazo]

So I saw this video about the Mako today and I'm pretty sure I was laughing my ___ off for the entirety of the video, laughing at the poor gamer who had experienced this glitch because I had the same glitch, laughing at the helpless frustration

YouTube - Mass Effect - Critical Mission Failure


Regardless of all pitfalls of the Mako, I STILL really miss scenes like this in a Mass Effect game


Or




or

[dreadpiratesnugglecakes]

The problem wasn't so much the mako as the level design; it was just kind of tedious tooling along over the planet; construct some levels like they did for the hammerhead and I wouldn't mind the mako making a come back at all. It made me sad to see it all busted up in ME2. I rolled that thing down I don't know how many mountains and I never lost a wheel..

[javierabegazo]

dreadpiratesnugglecakes wrote...

The problem wasn't so much the mako as the level design; it was just kind of tedious tooling along over the planet; construct some levels like they did for the hammerhead and I wouldn't mind the mako making a come back at all. It made me sad to see it all busted up in ME2. I rolled that thing down I don't know how many mountains and I never lost a wheel..

I do have one question concerning that Normandy Crash Site DLC:


How in hell is the Mako there if it got utterly destroyed after being shot through the Mu Relay and made a crash landing at the Presidium in the Citadel at the last chapter of Mass Effect 1?

[mattahraw]

javierabegazo wrote...

dreadpiratesnugglecakes wrote...

The problem wasn't so much the mako as the level design; it was just kind of tedious tooling along over the planet; construct some levels like they did for the hammerhead and I wouldn't mind the mako making a come back at all. It made me sad to see it all busted up in ME2. I rolled that thing down I don't know how many mountains and I never lost a wheel..

I do have one question concerning that Normandy Crash Site DLC:


How in hell is the Mako there if it got utterly destroyed after being shot through the Mu Relay and made a crash landing at the Presidium in the Citadel at the last chapter of Mass Effect 1?

Repaired/replaced? The evolution comic book series show it's not an exclusive piece of hardware

[Notanything]

javierabegazo wrote...

dreadpiratesnugglecakes wrote...

The problem wasn't so much the mako as the level design; it was just kind of tedious tooling along over the planet; construct some levels like they did for the hammerhead and I wouldn't mind the mako making a come back at all. It made me sad to see it all busted up in ME2. I rolled that thing down I don't know how many mountains and I never lost a wheel..

I do have one question concerning that Normandy Crash Site DLC:


How in hell is the Mako there if it got utterly destroyed after being shot through the Mu Relay and made a crash landing at the Presidium in the Citadel at the last chapter of Mass Effect 1?

As mentioned above, it was probably replaced.  But I recall seeing it only turned over after being sent through that relay, not completely obliterated, so it can also be assumed they recovered it after the attack on the citadel.  Perhaps it's not the same one at all.

[Bluko]

javierabegazo wrote...

So I saw this video about the Mako today and I'm pretty sure I was laughing my ___ off for the entirety of the video, laughing at the poor gamer who had experienced this glitch because I had the same glitch, laughing at the helpless frustration

YouTube - Mass Effect - Critical Mission Failure


Regardless of all pitfalls of the Mako, I STILL really miss scenes like this in a Mass Effect game

Heh I've seen that video before, perty funny right stuff right there. Be awesome to see a mash up of that with the Merc scream glitch. This usuaully gets shown in "Mako Threads" I think to make a point about glitches. That said I don't think I've ever had the Mako glitch out on me. Only real bad glitch I ran into on ME1 was where'd I get stuck on some non-traversable terrain (like at the Noveria port) and couldn't move. Save and reload seem to fix it though.

The more I think about it though, the less likely it seems we'll see return on large open ended worlds. See there's a very big design hurtle that ME2 essentially created: cover. That's ME2's biggest problem. You have to have cover everywhere otherwise the game isn't playable. Simply put the fact that ME2 makes it so you are now required to use cover to fight effectively has made it a slightly weaker game. I know a lot of people praise it, but frankly I find it very limiting in terms of what you can do in-game. That's one of those reasons I like ME1 a little better, cause I can run out in the open with a Shotgun should I choose. And it's not like you were home free to run around like a fool, since a sniper shot or a rocket can always take you out. That's another thing ME2 has no enemy snipers (that I can recall).

I hope for Bioware's sake this isn't the case in ME3. Cause like seriously the dude you showed for the teaser is using a sniper rifle. I mean yeah  I'm sure Shepard and crew will be able to snipe. But without snipers I gotta say most of the Merc bands seem to be rather "derp" when it comes to weapon deployment. Yet they all have rocket launchers ready to take out infantry?

*Ahem* anyways where was I? But  yeah it's going to take more work on Bioware's part to make larger environments again, cause they if they do they have to add cover where it's needed, but make it look "natural". ME2's rock formations may have just been walls since there's nothing natural looking about them. Honestly I think the Hammerhead is going to be the way of things. Even if they did bring back the Mako, I doubt they'd let you freely exit it again. Just makes the level design that much harder and seeing how they're "rushing" to get the game out this year there just isn't time to do that, certainly not now.

As much as I liked the free roam aspect of ME1, I wouldn't begrudge Bioware for making it work in principle like the Hammerhead levels. It's a small price to pay if it means the vehicle missions are more interesting.

[atheelogos]

javierabegazo wrote...

So I saw this video about the Mako today and I'm pretty sure I was laughing my ___ off for the entirety of the video, laughing at the poor gamer who had experienced this glitch because I had the same glitch, laughing at the helpless frustration

YouTube - Mass Effect - Critical Mission Failure


Regardless of all pitfalls of the Mako, I STILL really miss scenes like this in a Mass Effect game


Or




or

oh lord I haven't laughed that hard in a long time thank you for posting that! LOL:O:lol:

[Vena_86]

dreadpiratesnugglecakes wrote...

The problem wasn't so much the mako as the level design; it was just kind of tedious tooling along over the planet; construct some levels like they did for the hammerhead and I wouldn't mind the mako making a come back at all. It made me sad to see it all busted up in ME2. I rolled that thing down I don't know how many mountains and I never lost a wheel..

It's the opposite with me. I hate the hammerhead missions level design, including overlord. It is extremely restrictive with invisible barriers and fake looking distanc backgrounds. At no point did I actually feel like I was exploring the surface of a far away planet, which is a big part of the scifi adventure. The levels feel fabricated for arcade gameplay. Like levels.
Bring Down the Sky did a good job with it's level design imo. It kept the good parts while eliminating some of the main complaints. Why did they not stick with that formular and improved the vehicle controls?

Furthermore the scale feels wrong. This particular thing is not that glaring in Overlord, but it just feels like the hammerhead is not bigger than Shepard but rather a shrunken mini toy that glides through a world, designed for giants.

The point has been completely missed with the hammerhead in my opinion. I wish the Mako thrusters would have worked as the hammerhead jump in ME2, but other than that everything, including the level design (not the visuals) works against the immersive experience the Mako gameplay atleast provided to some extend.
Obviously, leaving the vehicle when ever I choose is a big deal as well.

[Terror_K]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Uh... the UNC worlds ARE realistic.

 
Until you realize that they're all the same, even the supposedly "hospitable" ones, and that there's never a mountain higher than "absolutely freaking microscopic by mountain standards." Then the immersion factor kinda dies out a bit.

I feel there was enough variation in textures and skyboxes to make them immersive and interesting. All I know is when I'm on a UNC world in ME1 I really do feel like I'm out there in space, exploring real places and that they really do feel genuine. The devs could have literally made them the same, but there was at least some effort put in to giving them all a unique look be it ground, skybox or both, as well as different terrain structures and things like heat, cold and toxin hazards. There's still a few with some decent mountains, and while there is admittedly nothing on the scale of Olympus Mons by any means, we are landing on a very small section of a planet and not seeing the whole thing.

In either case, they feel real to me and pulled me into the universe, and I miss them from ME2 which overall feels too cramped and occupied and rarely vast and epic. It took a car chase in a DLC to make Illium actually feel large. And the places I went in The Hammerhead never felt real in any way to me... it just felt like a little playground built purposefully for the vehicle. It was too manufactured and fake.

I will note the one exception though: the main hub area in Overlord. That's about the only place that actually felt real and vast, though it also felt alive. We need more dead and barren places though, and not ones that just feel like little gamey playpens for a naff vehicle.

Oh, and the prefaaaaaabulous "colonies" and "laboratories" and whatever else those three buildings were trying to be. (God, but at least DA2 gave its copy/pasted areas a passing attempt at character...)

I actually found the DA2 repeated areas to be far worse, because they literally were the same places right down to the minute details. At least ME1 changed some crates around here and there, etc. all DA2 did was cut off a few passages now and then or have you enter through another way initially.

That aside, there was a reason given for this from one of the devs shortly after ME1 came out. I can't remember if it's anywhere in the codex, but the explanation made sense: all these buildings were prefabs, which was why they were largely the same. They're standardised kit constructions build on the cheap so that anybody can just get them and set them up. It's a quick, cheap and easy way of putting possibly temporary structures on worlds that are mostly dead and unihabited. It's not interesting, sure... but it's logical given the universe, so in that sense it doesn't personally break my immersion at all. I do agree that I'd prefer some more original locations, but there's more justification for it than there is for the likes of DA2's exactly the same caves right down to the minecarts, crates and even dead bodies.

[Rurik_Niall]

That only really works with the buildings though, there's no excuse that's going to make me believe every single cave on every single planet is identical right down to the placement of the hatches.

[Murmillos]

Rurik_Niall wrote...

That only really works with the buildings though, there's no excuse that's going to make me believe every single cave on every single planet is identical right down to the placement of the hatches.

Agreed, ME1 did have the same clone-cave issue that DA2 had.. which each cave had the same 'lay-out' there was at least diversity within them. But I still found it funny that the starting ramp down would have an an immediate 90°left hand turn which would have been too small to make given the size of seen mining equipment in the various caves.

While I didn't mind the outside "outposts" being cookie cutter designs, the in the ground structures could have seen some more variety themselves. Instead of going left every time, the first turn is a right, or even straight ahead from the "entrance" room. Also instead of the two rooms at the very back, they could have been attached to the left or right wall.

But even still, even at least they tried to attempt to change the inside layout of all of them. Much better then DA2 pure clone caves/locations. Not a single inch of difference other then random pathway X would not open, and Y or Z would be.
And changing the location of a loot box doesn't count as a difference.

Modifié par Murmillos, 07 avril 2011 - 09:34 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

Terror_K wrote...

I feel there was enough variation in textures and skyboxes to make them immersive and interesting. All I know is when I'm on a UNC world in ME1 I really do feel like I'm out there in space, exploring real places and that they really do feel genuine.

 
The location tends to--there are a few worlds that strike me as needing some actual plant-life or higher mountains, but the general feel is nice, half the time.

The devs could have literally made them the same, but there was at least some effort put in to giving them all a unique look be it ground, skybox or both, as well as different terrain structures and things like heat, cold and toxin hazards.

--which is a very handwave-y sort of difference, considering it's just a meter that tells you how long you can be exposed before your health starts to go, needing no real programming difference between different hazards beyond adjusting a timer. 

I actually found the DA2 repeated areas to be far worse, because they literally were the same places right down to the minute details. At least ME1 changed some crates around here and there, etc. all DA2 did was cut off a few passages now and then or have you enter through another way initially.

You know, of all the things that you can change that would have absolutely no effect on a stock environment, stock crates just about tops the list. Just sayin'.

That aside, there was a reason given for this from one of the devs shortly after ME1 came out. I can't remember if it's anywhere in the codex, but the explanation made sense: all these buildings were prefabs, which was why they were largely the same.

 
They were three rooms with no rhyme or reason to where anything was or what it was supposed to do beyond having a lot of random crates for cover and a few containers to hold random loot items. The Cerberus facilities were some of the few with character to set them apart, and those were far too small and empty to be what they pretended to be.

And it still doesn't do much for that "colony world that was nothing but grass textures and one/two tiny buildings" thing.

So, no, that excuse doesn't really cut the butter. Nice try, though.

They're standardised kit constructions build on the cheap so that anybody can just get them and set them up. It's a quick, cheap and easy way of putting possibly temporary structures on worlds that are mostly dead and unihabited. It's not interesting, sure... but it's logical given the universe, so in that sense it doesn't personally break my immersion at all. I do agree that I'd prefer some more original locations, but there's more justification for it than there is for the likes of DA2's exactly the same caves right down to the minecarts, crates and even dead bodies.

On that note, ME1 recycled mineshafts, too.

[Xewaka]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Rurik_Niall wrote...
If you can't avoid enemy fire you're thinking too much like a soldier and not enough like an infiltrator. The Hammerhead is perfectly capable of both exploration and combat, the Scrappy on the other hand is only capable of combat, and even then only against enemies smaller than a thresher.

I downed every damn threser I found with the MAKO and jumped rockets with it, ignoring/driving over small weapons fire. Every time you speak I'm more convinced you don't know how to properly handle the MAKO.

Pardon ****ing me for not having Ninja Gaiden-caliber reflexes where I can dodge bullets just by leaning my head to the side. Found thrusters to be completely useless both inside and outside of combat. Elitist much?

You misunderstand me. I'm not intending to say that I have uber-mad-skillz (which I have not). I'm simply saying that handling the MAKO wrong is the easiest way to be underwhelmed by it.
The MAKO is intended for long range engagement, where you can see the enemy fire come from a distance and avoid it. Even better, use terrain to your advantage, climbing to mountaintops and raining fiery death from above. I've even used the main cannon turret as a mortar, firing in angle over slopes.
The MAKO is easy to handle, but requires a different frame of mind than foot combat. People don't properly change their attitude when in the MAKO, and thus find it bad.

[Terror_K]

Regarding the locations in ME1 vs. ME2, etc. I have to say that I still feel the best option is to give us a good mix of what we've had with both UNC and N7 worlds, as well as a few locations like Overlord's main hub area. But please... no more like the default Hammerhead ones. Just no.

The main issue with the ME1 ones after all was that there were so many of them, and they felt even more the same because of this. If the overall number of vast, dead worlds was reduced by about a third or so and we had a few more unique bases, then it wouldn't be such an issue, and we'd have some vast, barren, more realistic planets that felt like exploring the unknown rather than a place where dozens of feet have trodden before. Then add some vast, but more alive and pretty places like the Overlord hub world. Finally, some N7 mission style places where it's mostly you and your team on-foot. The main issue with them in ME2 (beyond a lack of overall polish mission wise, with no proper set-ups as silent Shepard and his/her silent squad went around killing things and never meeting anybody interesting on boring world with no proper choices) was that they felt too alive and manufactured, but I feel by immediately bringing back some UNC worlds that feeling wouldn't be as much of a problem since it was largely caused by an absence of barren, vast worlds.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Terror_K wrote...

Regarding the locations in ME1 vs. ME2, etc. I have to say that I still feel the best option is to give us a good mix of what we've had with both UNC and N7 worlds, as well as a few locations like Overlord's main hub area. But please... no more like the default Hammerhead ones. Just no.

Agreed. As "gamey" as they were, those missions weren't terribly interesting in the first place.

The main issue with the ME1 ones after all was that there were so many of them, and they felt even more the same because of this. If the overall number of vast, dead worlds was reduced by about a third or so and we had a few more unique bases, then it wouldn't be such an issue, and we'd have some vast, barren, more realistic planets that felt like exploring the unknown rather than a place where dozens of feet have trodden before. Then add some vast, but more alive and pretty places like the Overlord hub world. Finally, some N7 mission style places where it's mostly you and your team on-foot. The main issue with them in ME2 (beyond a lack of overall polish mission wise, with no proper set-ups as silent Shepard and his/her silent squad went around killing things and never meeting anybody interesting on boring world with no proper choices) was that they felt too alive and manufactured, but I feel by immediately bringing back some UNC worlds that feeling wouldn't be as much of a problem since it was largely caused by an absence of barren, vast worlds.

This is a pretty good compromise, although at this point, if they haven't thought of it themselves, it's not going to happen.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

The jump thrusters were for dodging attacks, silly. So much easier to jump over missiles than to roll slowly out of the way. Also, firing the jump thrusters while rolling down a sheer rock wall is epic. Suicidal, but epic.

Too bad the jump thrusters are only good for people that can summon bullet-time in real life.

You can't use them to dodge bullets, of course. Snipers are still an unparralleled pain in the ass. You can use them to dodge missiles and other slow-moving projectiles quite easily, however--missile turrets and geth armatures, things like that. It's embarrassingly easy and rather amusing to see in action, someone firing a rocket launcher at a tank and the tank just jumping over it...

The practical advantage is that it's easier to keep your aim steady after a stationary hop than it is to keep it steady when you're rolling around, usually.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 07 avril 2011 - 11:55 .