297 réponses à ce sujet

[HealthyGiraffe]

I hated the Mako sections - they felt like filler and weren't polished enough. I'm glad they are gone!

[wright1978]

I was a bit in love with the mako as it reminded me of the Big Trak i had when i was young. Apart from that Nostalgia though it wasn't that great a part of the game.

[Lunatic LK47]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Yeah, Halo's Warthog had better driving controls than the Mako (i.e. Up on analog stick= Always drive forward, Down= always reverse."). The fact that "any direction=forward" is as stupid as saying "It's perfectly fine for your car to randomly reverse when making U-Turns despite the fact your transmission is set on 'Drive.'"

The Mako is a tank with a free turret. The Warthog is not. Halo's Scorpion tank would be a better comparison (and it can also go forward when the analog stick is being held down, which makes it as stupid as the Mako apparently).

Uh, no, the controls are still problematic. Strafing meant the vehicle will always "Drive forward regardless of direction", and something called tactical retreats are cumbersome just because the car's body assumed that pressing up on the Analog stick while swerving the turret 180 degrees= Drive in reverse. Warthog never had that problem since up= Drive forward ALL THE TIME, and Down= Reverse ALL THE TIME.

Edit: I really think many of the people who rag on the Mako have just been indoctrinated into using the Warthog in Halo multiplayer (or similar designs). The Hammerhead is like Bioware's version of the Ghost, which could be why a lot of people think it's easier to handle.

At least the Ghost is more wieldy than any of the Tanks. At least I won't have problems with doing emergency U-Turns unlike the ****fest that are the Scorpion and Mako.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 27 avril 2011 - 06:56 .

[Lunatic LK47]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Mr. MannlyMan

No need to be such a Mako apologist.

There were plenty of times when I wasn't even that much above the target, yet I still couldn't hit.

As for the close-range combat, in pretty much every game with tanks, when you shoot someone at close range, at least they're hit. You're not supposed to be that close, but the gun works all the same. When you're too close with the Mako and you fire the cannon, you can actually see it explode close to the enemy, but it inflicts *no damage*. It's like there is an invisible barrier around the Mako that nulls damage.

As for the handling, that's ridiculous. Any decent game with vehicles will have more intuitive controls than that.

If you like the Mako that's fine. Just don't pretend it's not flawed all the way to hell, or try to blame the players.

Free beer for you.

[AngelicMachinery]

The make makes me sad... It spends most of its runs on its back.

[JeffZero]

Topic creator appears to have an avatar of the USS Defiant.

Topic creator is thus awesome.

[Mr.House]

HealthyGiraffe wrote...

I hated the Mako sections - they felt like filler and weren't polished enough. I'm glad they are gone!

The MAKO section of Illos, Virmire and Therum where epic.

[Daryst]

The mako wasn't that bad to drive. I know games that were made for you to drive cars and sucked more.

The biggest problem with the make was the terrain they decided to use it on. I had no problems with the main missions on Feros or Illos, they were much more pollished then the side quest planets you could land on. Those were just random generated landscapes with nothing in them. And the mountains on those worls were unreal and that was the biggest problem in my opinion.

[Lunatic LK47]

Mr.House wrote...

HealthyGiraffe wrote...

I hated the Mako sections - they felt like filler and weren't polished enough. I'm glad they are gone!

The MAKO section of Illos, Virmire and Therum where epic.

Too bad wonky physics and questionable controls prevented the epicness of the scope.

[JeffZero]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

HealthyGiraffe wrote...

I hated the Mako sections - they felt like filler and weren't polished enough. I'm glad they are gone!

The MAKO section of Illos, Virmire and Therum where epic.

Too bad wonky physics and questionable controls prevented the epicness of the scope.

Yet I still enjoyed those moments quite a bit. Perhaps it's my limited exposure to better engines for these sorts of gameplay mechanics but I still felt the greatness -- especially on Ilos.

[Seboist]

The whole concept behind the Mako was good but the execution was underwhelming to put it mildly. Apart from rubber ball physics there were copy and pasted worlds with steep mountains and buildings with the same interior.

One thing that always got me, why the hell do I have to "hack" a damn mineral stash in order to claim it? It's just a damn pile of rocks!

[JeffZero]

Seboist wrote...
One thing that always got me, why the hell do I have to "hack" a damn mineral stash in order to claim it? It's just damn pile of rocks!

Yeahhh... I... I don't... I don't have the foggiest... I mean, I...

Reapers!

[ohbobsagetpiss]

 Driving wasn't too bad with the mako. It was trying to kill enemies that was pain. Aiming just didn't make any sense to me. It often shot above where you aim, totally missing target.

[Gabey5]

there is no pleasing you people, "we hate the elevators", "we love the elevators", we love the mako", "we hate the mako".
bioware can't win

[Seboist]

JeffZero wrote...

Seboist wrote...
One thing that always got me, why the hell do I have to "hack" a damn mineral stash in order to claim it? It's just damn pile of rocks!

Yeahhh... I... I don't... I don't have the foggiest... I mean, I...

Reapers!

Reapers don't want people stealing their gold. It makes sense now.

[Kusy]

I like how people ignore that the only well desinged maps for Mass Effect 1 were those that you played in Mako... the mountain route on Noveria was incredible, Feros highways were great, Therum was nicely done (tho it had more potential), Sewer run on Ilos was one of the most memorable sequences from the whole game.

Mission oriented Mako maps were the same tier as Citadel or Noveria labs, they were polished and great. ALL maps that were not important to missions in ME1 were crap, not only the unfortunate heightmap levels for Mako, I don't think I have to make you all remember howe every mercenary base and science bunker looked exacly the same?

I also belive that Mako should make a return in ME3, as well as the uncharted worlds. The only thing BioWare has to fix is making the mapgen moreadvanced (if minecraft can...) or even handmodel the uncharted worlds. Mako was the shizzles.

[Jebel Krong]

neither of the graound vehicles has ever worked in either mass effect game. the games would still have had a sense of exploration with a similar to mass effect 2 system of exploration on foot in more directed (linear but not as linear as Mass effect 2's) environments. the problem with mass effect 1 was that the UNCs were the only areas that really gave you any sense of freedom, all the main worlds were even more linear than Mass Effect 2's, hence why people like the idea of them more than the execution.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Mr. MannlyMan

No need to be such a Mako apologist.

There were plenty of times when I wasn't even that much above the target, yet I still couldn't hit.

As for the close-range combat, in pretty much every game with tanks, when you shoot someone at close range, at least they're hit. You're not supposed to be that close, but the gun works all the same. When you're too close with the Mako and you fire the cannon, you can actually see it explode close to the enemy, but it inflicts *no damage*. It's like there is an invisible barrier around the Mako that nulls damage.

As for the handling, that's ridiculous. Any decent game with vehicles will have more intuitive controls than that.

If you like the Mako that's fine. Just don't pretend it's not flawed all the way to hell, or try to blame the players.

I do blame the players, just like I blame the RPG fanatics who hated ME's focus on TPS combat because they weren't "equipped" to handle it (and I draw that parallel because, honestly, you lot sound just as bad).

The squadmate AI is what I would call 'deeply flawed'. The Mako physics were ok (especially, if you avoided the crappy parts of the terrain instead of bee-lining over mountains). The Mako controls were standard for tanks on console. The Mako handling was just a matter of getting used to the sensitivity and movement of the vehicle (and, honestly, it could have been better). Bugs (being thrown around a level because I bumped into a canister) were pretty rare in my case.

The people who claim the Mako was deeply flawed honestly don't know what 'DEEPLY FLAWED' design is. The jeeps in Far Cry: Instincts were 'deeply flawed'. The Mako was imperfect.

When you're too close with the Mako and you fire the cannon, you can
actually see it explode close to the enemy, but it inflicts *no damage*.
It's like there is an invisible barrier around the Mako that nulls
damage.

That would only happen if the enemy was within your collision barrier (ie. extreme closeup). That's only happened to me once, but I wouldn't call that a design flaw. Seriously, that's a nitpick.

[Babli]

Mako was fine. Sure it could use more tweeks but the main problem was terrain on planets.

But remeber driving Mako on Ilos? One of the best parts in the game.

[Sinnerous]

I liked going on the Mako and going through the planet for material than that crappy Mine Scanner, that was just slow torcher.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

JeffZero wrote...

Topic creator appears to have an avatar of the USS Defiant.

Topic creator is thus awesome.

Indded it is, and indeed I am :happy:

In regards to the Mako, I'd agree that it needed more work. Afterall the issue with the controls is well defined, and I've had some absolutely bizarre bugs with the Mako. A few times I've gotten into it on a planet, both UNC and Plot, and the Mako has started flying whilst spinning around...

Having said that, it really gave scope to the mission planets - Feros, Noveria, Virmire and most of all Ilos really benefited from the Mako being there. With Noveria in particular it really felt like it was a long and dangerous trek to get there, it showed that these worlds are large, your objectives aren't always right next to each other.

I'm not debating whether the physics or controls needed to be better, I think most would agree they needed improvement. The vehicle itself though added to the atmosphere of the game and gave it that sense of epicness that ME2 lacks.

[Kusy]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...
That would only happen if the enemy was within your collision barrier (ie. extreme closeup). That's only happened to me once, but I wouldn't call that a design flaw. Seriously, that's a nitpick. 

I have never experienced this, my strategy with armatures and bigger geth (when I still used the Mako for combat) was to crash in them headfirst and then fire the main gun in them, and it always worked.

As Mannly said, the handling was fine as long as you were not dumb enough to try and climb a 90 degree wall with the tank, it seems kind of logical that if the mountain is too steep you try to find a route up that will be less demanding.

Never had a problem with controlls, never had any bugs. Played the game 12 times + on PC.

Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 27 avril 2011 - 10:46 .

[mx3ze]

lolwut666 wrote...

The problem is that the handling of the Mako was very bad, and the worlds were mostly the same. The aim was also bad.

So it was a great feature that was badly implemented.

That is why pc gaming is superior, handling and aiming with the mako = a 2 years old child could do it !

[CroGamer002]

Babli wrote...

Mako was fine. Sure it could use more tweeks but the main problem was terrain on planets.

But remeber driving Mako on Ilos? One of the best parts in the game.

Even on Ilos, Mako was annoying.

[Kusy]

mx3ze wrote...
That is why pc gaming is superior, handling and aiming with the mako = a 2 years old child could do it !

Shooters on consoles... lol.