Terror_K wrote...
The fact that it flies isn't an issue.
Then shut up about the "rule of cool," because you make it sound like that's exactly why you hate it so much.
The fact that it is weaker both offensively and defensively, has engines that freeze up at temperatures that aren't even that low, that it can't rotate its turrent or climb steep angles and that it has impractical, backwards, inefficient armaments (slow missiles vs. insta-hit mass effect weapons) is. The Mako is basically a cross between an actual exploration rover and a military all-terrain vehicle, so it really is "space exploration meets military hardware" in every sense. The Hammerhead is just a gamey little arcade thing that's clearly designed for the game and not for the world its set in.
Weaker defensively? Debatable. It's less durable, but unquestionably better at not actually taking hits, assuming you know how to drive the damn thing. Rotating the turret is also a slightly moot point when the vehicle is capable of omni-directional movement anyway. At least the Hammerhead is capable of firing DOWNWARDS, which the Mako was not--and yes, that actually did present a disadvantage at times, given that it impaired your ability to fight from any position that was not either completely
flat or inclined downward towards an enemy--a slight uphill incline renders you impotent.
The "insta-hit mass effect weapon" was good, yes, but trying to argue that a manually-aimed cannon is unquestionably superior to a homing missile is a bit silly. There's a strength, and there's a weakness. Most of the weakness in the homing missile was, again, more of a gameplay issue than a practical one (the idea works just fine; it's the goddamn gameplay design that screws it up, as with the armor). From an objective standpoint, a homing missile makes up for its lack of speed, and considering that the Hammerhead is built for moving swiftly and weaving around attacks rather than sitting in one place
enduring attacks long enough to line up a shot, it's a weapon fitting the design of the vehicle.
The problem isn't so much that it is, but what it is. If it were supposed to perform a different function than what it is, then fine... but it's not. It's the replacement vehicle that doesn't meet the standards. It's sending a formula one car to do the job of a tank. It's sending a cruise ship to be an aircraft carrier. It's sending a 747 to do the job of a stealth bomber. That's the problem. Not that it flies.
Assuming that the Hammerhead was designed (from the standpoint of the Cerberus folks who designed it) to perform all of the same tasks as the Mako, you would be right. This is not a logical assumption, therefore your point fails.
Retour en haut
). I personally hope for the more cohesive approach - it doesn't really make sense for everything to be in walking distance, it keeps reminding me of the barriers of the level I'm currently in. The expansiveness you managed in ME1 really helped immersion.
