301 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

I'm going to go with they both sucked-equally-. If Bioware intends to bring back vehicles, be it the Mako or the Hammerhead, do it right or not at all. As it is, I feel like banging my head against the wall any time I'm forced to play through one of these sequences.

I also hope Bioware chooses to avoid planetary exploration unless they want to make things more interesting. Exploring dead/lifeless planets is not fun precisely because they are 'dead and lifeless'.

[Mick301981]

Il Divo wrote...

I'm going to go with they both sucked-equally-. If Bioware intends to bring back vehicles, be it the Mako or the Hammerhead, do it right or not at all. As it is, I feel like banging my head against the wall any time I'm forced to play through one of these sequences.

I also hope Bioware chooses to avoid planetary exploration unless they want to make things more interesting. Exploring dead/lifeless planets is not fun precisely because they are 'dead and lifeless'.

Didn't mind driving the Mako, never used the Hammerhead.

100% agree with the bolded part.

[Terror_K]

Perhaps they weren't exactly "fun" as such, but they did make the universe feel vast, empty and real, and without them ME2 just... didn't. It just made everywhere feel small and cramped and full. The UNC worlds at least gave the Mass Effect universe scope and made it feel more than just a game. They were never exactly about fun or being action-packed, content-filled exciting experiences. In fact, it was because they weren't that they worked, IMO. It was about the subtlety and and the fact that you could just go out there into the unknown rather than being restricted to only "interesting" areas. It's the nothingness the "boringness" of them that makes them great.

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't want to explore places like that, simply don't. They were always optional anyway. No reasons those of us who enjoy it should miss out on something like that just because somebody doesn't like it when its completely optional and doesn't have to be done.

Modifié par Terror_K, 07 avril 2011 - 01:18 .

[Xewaka]

Il Divo wrote...
I also hope Bioware chooses to avoid planetary exploration unless they want to make things more interesting. Exploring dead/lifeless planets is not fun precisely because they are 'dead and lifeless'.

I disagree. Dead and lifeless can be very lively.

[Powgow]

I enjoyed the mako more than the hammerhead. The mako felt more as a vehicle (one with featherlight steering), and make was just a piece of paper on the wind.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

Perhaps they weren't exactly "fun" as such, but they did make the universe feel vast, empty and real, and without them ME2 just... didn't. It just made everywhere feel small and cramped and full. The UNC worlds at least gave the Mass Effect universe scope and made it feel more than just a game. They were never exactly about fun or being action-packed, content-filled exciting experiences. In fact, it was because they weren't that they worked, IMO. It was about the subtlety and and the fact that you could just go out there into the unknown rather than being restricted to only "interesting" areas. It's the nothingness the "boringness" of them that makes them great.

And it's what makes them so not worth having, imo. This is why I find this argument rather funny. I don't play video games to 'do nothing'. Exploration requires something to be explored. Mass Effect's approach did not make the universe feel vast; it made every planet a chore to get through. Take any TES game as a good example of exploration done right.

"Hey, here's a random side quest!"
"Hey, here's an unexplored ruin!"
"Hey, here's an ancient artifect!"
"Hey, here's an Easter egg!"

Mass Effect's 'exploration' is rather generic and reduced to:  

1) a single base/colony per planet.
2) random deposits of Omni-gel/Medals/Writings which have no use beyond xp.

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't want to explore places like that, simply don't. They were always optional anyway. No reasons those of us who enjoy it should miss out on something like that just because somebody doesn't like it when its completely optional and doesn't have to be done.

When almost every single side quest (a huge aspect of RPGs) is tied to me having to visit the exact same four corner map, then it has impacted my enjoyment of the game. Mass Effect was the first Bioware game to introduce side quests which I did found lackluster.

I enjoy doing side quests which don't require that I spend more time reaching the quest location than completing the quest itself. I'd rather have Bioware develop content that I will enjoy, experience, and pay money for, rather than being told it's 'optional'.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 avril 2011 - 02:38 .

[Il Divo]

Xewaka wrote...

I disagree. Dead and lifeless can be very lively.

When done right, perhaps. When done wrong? Well, Mass Effect is the result.

This doesn't mean that Bioware can't keep those planets feeling 'empty', but they still have to provide content of some kind. Whether it deals with Shepard helping to colonize a planet, or whatever, there needs to be something more to the experience.

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

I'd rather have Bioware develop content that I will enjoy, experience, and pay money for, rather than being told it's 'optional'.

Ironically, so would I. And I enjoyed the uncharted worlds in ME1 and missed them from ME2, because if nothing else the complete lack of them (combined with smaller, linear areas overall) made the universe feel small and fake. The same rule applies to both of us, and yet you seem to feel I should miss out because what I enjoy about the game isn't what you enjoy. I'd personally rather be immersed in the Mass Effect universe than just have every single factor be a tight little bit of gameplay.

I'll fully admit that, yes... perhaps there could have been more variation to the places and what we did and found there. Something a bit more special than just clearing out mercs, Geth and/or Cerberus experiments gone wrong. But there's no reason that the whole planet has to be this tiny, linear and overly designed location for that. On top of that, what's the point of exploration if it's so quick and easy to get to what you want/need to? The journey is part of the experience. If you can find the object within mere seconds by barely traveling across the place at all, exploration is meaningless.

[Sparda Stonerule]

The Uncharted Worlds in ME 1 would have be alright if there was ever anything cool or interesting on them. Like some artifact you could take to your ship and research. Maybe Shepard could have some kind of display room where interesting objects can be stored. I really hated the Uncharted worlds for re used content. I don't even mean the bases either.

Every uncharted world had the EXACT SAME box area to explore. It was always the same size and there were never little branching paths away from the "red zone". Every single uncharted world had one AND ONLY ONE anomaly to salvage. Then every single planet had 0, 2, or 3 minerals to survey. Added to that they had a random assortment of League of One Medallions, Salarian ID tags, Turian Insignias, Asari Writings, and Prothean Data disks. Then I guess there was the base layouts which were all the same 3 designs and the same spaceship design. People may feel this makes the Universe feel real, however it makes it feel incredibly fake because of how samey everything feels.

Anyway I don't mind if both vehicles come back or if neither come back. Because if only one comes back the forums will be annoyed and complain. Well... actually the forums will be annoyed and complain about ME 3 no matter what. So... I guess the vehicle situation doesn't really matter because someone somewhere will be upset.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

Ironically, so would I. And I enjoyed the uncharted worlds in ME1 and missed them from ME2, because if nothing else the complete lack of them (combined with smaller, linear areas overall) made the universe feel small and fake. The same rule applies to both of us, and yet you seem to feel I should miss out because what I enjoy about the game isn't what you enjoy. I'd personally rather be immersed in the Mass Effect universe than just have every single factor be a tight little bit of gameplay.

Not so. The same rules do apply against me as well. You enjoyed uncharted worlds. Ergo, you should argue for it, because it will increase your enjoyment of Mass Effect 3. I did not enjoy them, so logically I argue for their removal, in which place other content (which I might enjoy) could potentially be implemented.

The misinterpretation is that you feel because content is 'optional', therefore I should be ok with its implementation.

Hypothetical: Imagine 15% of resources go towards developing ME side quests/worlds (which I don't enjoy, but is optional), versus 85% towards the rest of the game (which I did enjoy).

Yes, that content is 'optional', but I'm forced to either experience 15% less of the game, or endure the full experience which I will enjoy less. if in its place Bioware chooses to use that last 15% and implement content which I do enjoy, I will move for a shift in focus. All we can do is each argue for what we want Mass Effect 3 to bring and pray to whatever Gods we may have that Bioware sees it our way.  

On top of that, what's the point of exploration if it's so quick and easy to get to what you want/need to? The journey is part of the experience. If you can find the object within mere seconds by barely traveling across the place at all, exploration is meaningless.

But exploration is always an analysis of effort-reward output. I played Morrowind, so I know exactly what you mean. Often times, npcs would give misleading information, which meant it would be up to you to find whatever location/artifact they were referring to. But once I found the location, there was a sense of accomplishment, and there could be a potential reward associated with it.

That's Mass Effect's issue: exploration as a concept is fine, but there has to be sufficient motivation for me to do so. I knew that Mass Effect didn't have anything beyond the single merc base/mining tunnel on each planet, which killed that sense of discovery which actual exploration can bring.  

Edit: Another addition which would make uncharted planets more enjoyable is to make them feel like planets. As it was, being on Luna felt little different than Noveria, aside from scenery. A great improvement would be to remove sound depending on what planet Shepard is on, or to allow gravity to affect his movement/run speed. But that's just me.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 avril 2011 - 03:25 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...


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..

Uh, I don't have the "mad skillz" or perfect math skills to jump over the rockets despite how slow they ar, is what I was referring to (i.e. "You must jump over this rocket when it's at a certain distance, otherwise you'll get hit if you jump too early or too late."). I find the idea of jumping over rockets to be superfluous to the point that jumping over it is outright impractical unless you're that 2% of the fanbase that can do so.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 07 avril 2011 - 03:44 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Not so. The same rules do apply against me as well. You enjoyed uncharted worlds. Ergo, you should argue for it, because it will increase your enjoyment of Mass Effect 3. I did not enjoy them, so logically I argue for their removal, in which place other content (which I might enjoy) could potentially be implemented.

The misinterpretation is that you feel because content is 'optional', therefore I should be ok with its implementation.

Hypothetical: Imagine 15% of resources go towards developing ME side quests/worlds (which I don't enjoy, but is optional), versus 85% towards the rest of the game (which I did enjoy).

Yes, that content is 'optional', but I'm forced to either experience 15% less of the game, or endure the full experience which I will enjoy less. if in its place Bioware chooses to use that last 15% and implement content which I do enjoy, I will move for a shift in focus. All we can do is each argue for what we want Mass Effect 3 to bring and pray to whatever Gods we may have that Bioware sees it our way.  

I can certainly understand that, since that's basically my biggest beef and argument against multi-player in ME3: that beyond the fact I don't really care about it or want it, it will no doubt take resources, time and money that could be better spent elsewhere no matter how good it's implemented.

The thing is, I personally feel I need ME3 to have uncharted worlds again, or something very similar to them. They don't have to take the same form, but I feel I need something that feels vast and empty and brings back the feeling the UNC planets gave me in ME1. I need at least some locations in Mass Effect to not feel small, inhabited, linear and fake. I need to experience that seemingly never-ending stretch of epic desolate emptiness and wonder that those planets gave me that was utterly missing from ME2. I want to feel like I'm exploring the universe and not just playing a level in a game.

I should take solace perhaps in Mac Walters recent comment about ME3 having "big, big levels" but even that'll be meaningless if they all feel linear and I meet a familiar face every twenty steps or so. Even that'll be meaningless if it seems like a big playground for a vehicle or overwrought setpiece. I want that lonely, vast nothingness back in some form, somehow. Even if just a little. I feel the Mass Effect universe has slipped away from me somewhat with ME2 due to various factors, and I want what made me get into it in the first place to come back again.

And I'd really love for things like gravity and sound to come into things too actually (the final section of Arrival did well in the latter department, IMO). As well as lighting, visibility, etc. So long as it feels natural and not just gimmicky that is.

[Dragoonlordz]

Imho the way I see it, they should of alowed the bay in ship to fit both the Mako and Hammerhead, so you could choose which one to use.

[Destroy Raiden_]

I just can't see how hopper and the mako will both work on the same planet unless there are huge gaps the mako can't access and will have to go down into the cavern and go around that section just to end up where hopper Mobile does by hopping and zooming.

Like say there is a river of lava if the mako wants over it'll have to find a bridge a few miles away while hopper can just gun and jump over the river or from land mass to land mass in a make shift bridge sort of fashion until they make it to the other side but that'd be alot of work for non essential uncharted worlds and I'd rather have the vast land mass of ME to explore but with varied terrain to use with my mako rather then drive that hopper around on a very small linear world were they have tons of invisible walls and the way the ledges are stack are basically arrows saying leap here to not die. I want to make my own way in the worlds as one poster said its getting to the event, quest, base, or minerals that is half the fun it's challenging to see a ping on your radar and try to navigate through sheer mountains, deep valleys, or bumpy plains to get were you need to go.

[Massively Accelerated]

Xewaka wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
I also hope Bioware chooses to avoid planetary exploration unless they want to make things more interesting. Exploring dead/lifeless planets is not fun precisely because they are 'dead and lifeless'.

I disagree. Dead and lifeless can be very lively.

Not to mention more realistic and believable.  I think it's far more likely we'd be exploring "dead and lifeless" planets than the other way around.

[Dragoonlordz]

Il Divo wrote...

I also hope Bioware chooses to avoid planetary exploration unless they want to make things more interesting. Exploring dead/lifeless planets is not fun precisely because they are 'dead and lifeless'.

How do you know they dead and lifeless till you go down and explore to find out.

[Terror_K]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Imho the way I see it, they should
of alowed the bay in ship to fit both the Mako and Hammerhead, so you
could choose which one to use.

Actually, you could. The SR2 has enough room for all three. And if you look, even with the Kodiak and the Hammerhead in the bay, there's another set of empty vehicle clamps on the roof.

Destroy Raiden wrote...

I just can't see how hopper and the mako will both work on the same planet unless there are huge gaps the mako can't access and will have to go down into the cavern and go around that section just to end up where hopper Mobile does by hopping and zooming.

Like say there is a river of lava if the mako wants over it'll have to find a bridge a few miles away while hopper can just gun and jump over the river or from land mass to land mass in a make shift bridge sort of fashion until they make it to the other side but that'd be alot of work for non essential uncharted worlds and I'd rather have the vast land mass of ME to explore but with varied terrain to use with my mako rather then drive that hopper around on a very small linear world were they have tons of invisible walls and the way the ledges are stack are basically arrows saying leap here to not die. I want to make my own way in the worlds as one poster said its getting to the event, quest, base, or minerals that is half the fun it's challenging to see a ping on your radar and try to navigate through sheer mountains, deep valleys, or bumpy plains to get were you need to go.

Exactly. Those silly Frogger-esque lava hoppy sections were the most contrived and gamey parts of the Hammerhead levels. Those and convenient boost-vents. No more, BioWare... please!

Modifié par Terror_K, 08 avril 2011 - 12:28 .

[Paulinius]

I don't understand the Mako or the Hammerhead. If I were a professional military organization, I would use something than can traverse great distances quickly and can carry a wide range of ordnances, like the gunship in ME2.

[Shirosaki17]

The Mako was better than the hammerhead. People complained about traversing the random planets and instead of fixing it so you didn't have to do that or make levels around the Mako, they just scrapped it and put the Hammerhead in that they had to make levels around.

That being said, I don't think the Mako would be as good as it was in ME1 In ME2 they've made it so all weapon fire curves towards you. So you wouldn't be able to jump out of the way because a colossus shot would just curve upward and hit you regardless. You'd have to somehow outrun all the weapon fire and I'm not sure it's possible. It still seemed like the hammerhead could still catch fire when being fired upon at full speed.

The aiming problem could have been fixed by simply raising the turret slightly so you could point downward a bit.

Modifié par Shirosaki17, 08 avril 2011 - 03:31 .

[LPPrince]

By the way, I've yet to actually see someone on the forum(till now) say that they couldn't use the Mako's thrusters to jump over enemy projectile attacks.

It was easy as HELL for me and for all people I know personally who've played ME1.

I find it utterly unfathomable that someone could possibly be that uncoordinated.

Do note however that if any of you reading this do indeed have the problem of not being able to jump over said projectiles, I am not trying to insult you.

I just...........I can't. I can't put it together. It was just so EASY.

Modifié par LPPrince, 08 avril 2011 - 03:37 .

[Dave666]

Massively Accelerated wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
I also hope Bioware chooses to avoid planetary exploration unless they want to make things more interesting. Exploring dead/lifeless planets is not fun precisely because they are 'dead and lifeless'.

I disagree. Dead and lifeless can be very lively.

Not to mention more realistic and believable.  I think it's far more likely we'd be exploring "dead and lifeless" planets than the other way around.

Agreed! I can think of at least two missions in ME:2 where I had serious WTF moments.  The Quarian rescue and the cerberus operative missions, what? Did someone go to earth and bring back some trees and grass with them?  Its an alien planet!!!

[Murmillos]

Il Divo wrote...
Mass Effect's 'exploration' is rather generic and reduced to:  

1) a single base/colony per planet.
2) random deposits of Omni-gel/Medals/Writings which have no use beyond xp.

Granted, ME1 was very rough game with a lot of incomplete ideas, not fully thought out or planned out sections.

The UNC missions are a great example of something that had a lot of potential, but because maybe due to time & budget limitations, they felt a little weak.

But the point being; those items could have been improved on and been made greater, but there was zero need to cut them out. But as I've always said and will keep on saying, the attitude displayed by the developers between ME1 and ME2 paramounts to nothing more then a grown ups versions of a temper tantrum.

There was thousand of people voicing the same improvements:
Drop the number of UNC worlds in half if needed - BUT improve the maps - add more must avoid terrain like lava or deep water. Buttes, mesas, plateaus where sorely missing. More maps with multiple goals/locations [BDTS/Luna], tighten the handling of the Mako up a lot. Make some maps with ["Hammerhead"] missions more akin to the opening of Virmire, or Therum, or even canyon like runs in style of Ilos's final run.

ME2 could have had ME1 maps, but done "better", not cut out like the whole concept was bad and didn't work.

[AlanC9]

Massively Accelerated wrote...
Not to mention more realistic and believable.  I think it's far more likely we'd be exploring "dead and lifeless" planets than the other way around.

Sure, there are a lot of craphole planets in the ME universe. But craphole planets with a reason for Shepard to land on them?

[AlanC9]

Murmillos wrote...
ME2 could have had ME1 maps, but done "better", not cut out like the whole concept was bad and didn't work.

Not cut like the concept was bad -- cut like the concept wasn't worth implementing. Not quite the same thing.

[Murmillos]

AlanC9 wrote...

Murmillos wrote...
ME2 could have had ME1 maps, but done "better", not cut out like the whole concept was bad and didn't work.

Not cut like the concept was bad -- cut like the concept wasn't worth implementing. Not quite the same thing.

But the thing is, they did implement them as the N7 "missions" and the Hammerhead "missions". So the concept of them must have been strong enough to include them, just not the manner many of us liked.