138 réponses à ce sujet

[Onix Sunstone]

Mako was realy nice imo & I didnt like hammrhead must at all as said to weak & the location were like a platform game I like open spaces.

[Shepard the Leper]

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

Really!?! One of the more facepalm-worthy moments in ME2 combat mechanics is preferred over vehicles? That's one of the combat elements in ME2 (along with than no enemy snipers and no crouch) that annoys me every time I play. I'm forced to land at the front door of every single enemy base and give up the element of surprise. Not only is that the stupidest thing to do but the simple fact that all enemy bases were so poorly defended that makes landing in the front door a viable tactic (instead of getting blown out of the sky) is so mind-numbingly ridiculous. It's just another example of making ME2 easier than ME1.

I just can't bear to deal with
an entire ME game that is another monotonous corridor shooter. The Only
real issues I ever had with the Mako and exploration was:
Terrain
Static AI
The Mako being too bouncy

All problems that could be dealt with.

You have a rather odd way of looking at gameplay mechanics.

The problem with the Mako (and Hammerhead) is they ruin gameplay completely. The moment you step into the vehicle your class becomes irrelevant, your squadmates become irrelevant, all your (squadmates) powers become irrelevant, all weapons become irrelevant. When inside a vehicle, your options have been reduced to almost nothing. All you can do is aim the canon and shoot. That isn't Mass Effect you're playing, it's more like Space Invaders.

The same issue was present when fighting at long range in ME1 (only the sniper rifles are useful).

The monotonous corridor shooter, which you dislike, provides the player with dozens of different abilities and tactics they can use to take out the enemy. That's, by definition, a much better and creative way to approach combat than stepping into a vehicle with only one gun (having 50 options available >>> having only one option).

The only way to make vehicles worthwhile is when they add options in combat. Vehicles in the Battlefield series add depth to combat. Tanks and aircraft add a new dimension and require different tactics when you're in one yourself, or when you face one (or more). I don't see how something like that can be incorporated into the ME series. That would require massive maps and dozens of enemies and allies fighting each other simultaneous. ME Multiplayer might benefit but I'm not interested in MP anyways and I doubt the engine can handle those numbers.

Oh, and exploration is about visiting new places and meeting new characters. A tedius and boring drive to the place you want to go to is not exploration - that's a pain.

Modifié par Shepard the Leper, 25 septembre 2011 - 11:19 .

[CottonBALL]

Completely agree with the above post ^^^^^^^

Also, Mako + Tuchanka's Tomka =

[Shepard the Leper]

The HH parts in Overlord and the LotSB car-chase are nice and add some variation. That's cool.

I doubt massive vehicle based battles will be in ME3 (except in cutscenes); could be cool but it would change gameplay into RTS instead of an action game (I doubt that will happen). I'm not against vehicles per se, but the way they are implemented in ME thus far doesn't benefit gameplay (options) at all. I'm always for new options but not when those options limit what you can do already.

[Juha81FIN]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

Really!?! One of the more facepalm-worthy moments in ME2 combat mechanics is preferred over vehicles? That's one of the combat elements in ME2 (along with than no enemy snipers and no crouch) that annoys me every time I play. I'm forced to land at the front door of every single enemy base and give up the element of surprise. Not only is that the stupidest thing to do but the simple fact that all enemy bases were so poorly defended that makes landing in the front door a viable tactic (instead of getting blown out of the sky) is so mind-numbingly ridiculous. It's just another example of making ME2 easier than ME1.

I just can't bear to deal with
an entire ME game that is another monotonous corridor shooter. The Only
real issues I ever had with the Mako and exploration was:
Terrain
Static AI
The Mako being too bouncy

All problems that could be dealt with.

You have a rather odd way of looking at gameplay mechanics.

The problem with the Mako (and Hammerhead) is they ruin gameplay completely. The moment you step into the vehicle your class becomes irrelevant, your squadmates become irrelevant, all your (squadmates) powers become irrelevant, all weapons become irrelevant. When inside a vehicle, your options have been reduced to almost nothing. All you can do is aim the canon and shoot. That isn't Mass Effect you're playing, it's more like Space Invaders.

The same issue was present when fighting at long range in ME1 (only the sniper rifles are useful).

The monotonous corridor shooter, which you dislike, provides the player with dozens of different abilities and tactics they can use to take out the enemy. That's, by definition, a much better and creative way to approach combat than stepping into a vehicle with only one gun (having 50 options available >>> having only one option).

The only way to make vehicles worthwhile is when they add options in combat. Vehicles in the Battlefield series add depth to combat. Tanks and aircraft add a new dimension and require different tactics when you're in one yourself, or when you face one (or more). I don't see how something like that can be incorporated into the ME series. That would require massive maps and dozens of enemies and allies fighting each other simultaneous. ME Multiplayer might benefit but I'm not interested in MP anyways and I doubt the engine can handle those numbers.

Oh, and exploration is about visiting new places and meeting new characters. A tedius and boring drive to the place you want to go to is not exploration - that's a pain.

It comes down to level design. With Mako you had always option to step out of it which didn't limit player options and most of time you're traveling longer distancies that would take too long by foot, but Hammerhead had completely different level design along with it and you could never step out of it.

[CrazyRah]

Ah the Mako, how i missed you in ME2. I prefer the Mako over the Hammerhead all the time

[Azbeszt]

jasonsantanna wrote...

There are a lot of exploration forums , this one seems to favor exploration which I am for.
I personally liked the Mako or the HH , I agree with those who favor being able to exit for combat if that choice is given which is another reason I like the ME1 Mako missions, I was kind of bummed out that ME2 only allowed you to land on planets with N7 missions directly at the point of battle, HH missions , meh . . .
So here is my thought or idea and I have mentioned this in other threads .
Give us all 3 vehicles , with the ability to upgrade them


Vehicles:

Shuttle : used for direct deployment where there is little or no battle involved
If there is battle you can drop the squad in a area safe but near the mission area, the squad when then enter the mission on foot.( No defenses or weapons, may be upgraded with lite shielding and better rocket boosters)
Hammerhead: used for stealth , can be deployed into battle ,able to be used in aquatic missions , battles and missions that require a shuttle like transport with weapons ( can be upgraded with shielding and lite to medium armor, rocket ammo may also be upgraded from standard to more advanced rockets)


Mako: used as an all terrain vehicle , for heavy battle missions and extreme conditions explorations ( outfitted with rockets, heavy guns , jump rockets , med to heavy shielding and armor, all able to be upgrade )

I think this would cover everyone , those who like to explore and battle in vehicle , those who don't want to and those who want to have stealth and speed of the HH.
Each would give you the ability to exit at the players discretion.

I want to fly the shuttle..

[Ariadnee]

As much as I like the Mako and prefer it over the Hammerhead, poor Garrus is going to be spending a lot of time fixing that thing.
"Can it wait for a bit? I'm in the middle of rebuilding the Mako after your god-awful driving"

[Haventh]

Ricinator wrote...

will the mako be making a return with AMAZING HANDLING and i just want to be able to drive on the planets agin like me1 anyone withme there?

OR do you want to drive around with the hammerhead with me1 type spaces
OR mako with me2 o gawd its to hard to say spaces

any input on anything exploration go for it

I want the hammerhead instead of the mako. And i definatly don't want those boring planets like in ME 1. I think, with planet design (at least side quests and such) ME 2 was a step in the right direction.   At first in ME 1 i liked the Mako, but the controls were a bit tedious then there were those annoying mountains, and the worlds pretty much looked similar except they had mountains at different locaitons and different colors on the terrain.

I would much rather explore planets with civilisation or planets that have rich animals over worlds that are empty.

Modifié par Haventh, 25 septembre 2011 - 06:04 .

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

Really!?! One of the more facepalm-worthy moments in ME2 combat mechanics is preferred over vehicles? That's one of the combat elements in ME2 (along with than no enemy snipers and no crouch) that annoys me every time I play. I'm forced to land at the front door of every single enemy base and give up the element of surprise. Not only is that the stupidest thing to do but the simple fact that all enemy bases were so poorly defended that makes landing in the front door a viable tactic (instead of getting blown out of the sky) is so mind-numbingly ridiculous. It's just another example of making ME2 easier than ME1.

I just can't bear to deal with
an entire ME game that is another monotonous corridor shooter. The Only
real issues I ever had with the Mako and exploration was:
Terrain
Static AI
The Mako being too bouncy

All problems that could be dealt with.

You have a rather odd way of looking at gameplay mechanics.

The problem with the Mako (and Hammerhead) is they ruin gameplay completely. The moment you step into the vehicle your class becomes irrelevant, your squadmates become irrelevant, all your (squadmates) powers become irrelevant, all weapons become irrelevant. When inside a vehicle, your options have been reduced to almost nothing. All you can do is aim the canon and shoot. That isn't Mass Effect you're playing, it's more like Space Invaders.

The same issue was present when fighting at long range in ME1 (only the sniper rifles are useful).

The monotonous corridor shooter, which you dislike, provides the player with dozens of different abilities and tactics they can use to take out the enemy. That's, by definition, a much better and creative way to approach combat than stepping into a vehicle with only one gun (having 50 options available >>> having only one option).

The only way to make vehicles worthwhile is when they add options in combat. Vehicles in the Battlefield series add depth to combat. Tanks and aircraft add a new dimension and require different tactics when you're in one yourself, or when you face one (or more). I don't see how something like that can be incorporated into the ME series. That would require massive maps and dozens of enemies and allies fighting each other simultaneous. ME Multiplayer might benefit but I'm not interested in MP anyways and I doubt the engine can handle those numbers.

Oh, and exploration is about visiting new places and meeting new characters. A tedius and boring drive to the place you want to go to is not exploration - that's a pain.

Not really. I just prefer more varied gameplay. ME2 suffers because of less combat options. Your description of how the Mako or Long ranged combat limits you makes almost completely no sense. The only thing I agree with is that you squad is useless in vehicle combat. Something that could have been fixed by given them mounted weapons to man.  I actually facepalmed at the bolded section. Seriously, you do realize that sniper are supposed to be the best way to engage enemies at long range. That's why they put scopes on sniper rifles. But on the whole you point here doesn't make sense because you are given the option to use the Mako in combat but you can get out and engage enemies on foot if that how you wanted to do it. (and use the Mako as a taxi to combat)

Having the Mako was (possibly) intended to A) Give you an advantage over infantry units. Help you deal with threats that infantry units can't deal with. Whether or not it succeeded in it goals is subjective. I think that it worked but it could have been improved greatly. Having non-static AI or squadmates that contribute to vehicle combat or better terrain are all reasonable options. Again your point of Vehicles much like you sniper quote doesn't make much sense. In combat/exploration you need some sort vehicle that provides protection from the environment and from hostile forces.

Why a Force (fire team, squad, battalion or otherwise) would go into an unknown environment without vehicle support doesn't make sense to me either.  

The Corridor shooting in ME2 regardless of what class you chose can be played the same way basically because biotic/tech powers are handicapped and thus you have to shoot you way through corridors. It was scarcely nuanced at all. Referring to your sniper rifle as a sniper rifle was rendered meaningless. (it was a scoped battle rifle at best) If you honestly think that there were any real substantive options or any nuanced gameplay in ME2 then we must've played different games. There was none.

While I agree that Battlefield is a good example of pretty solid vehicle combat I would say Halo was better example.

[Gambit5150]

I think that in Me2 thre was some hype about a vehicle that did nothing. I got to look down at the cargo bay and there was as much dead space .... This is an idea, and do not fear copying Halo, or Killzone, but do not be afraid of vehicles. This does two things to the Normandy. One is that it will allow you to view and access the bay. Two it will allow you to make adjustments when they need to be made, not as in ME 1 where it was field only, but bay adjustments. Overlooking your repairs will have merit, and a crew to assist will be welcome. A small vehilce that recons those planets might need to and could be in order. I fireburst that scans and plunges is not real satisfying when I can send my team in to retrieve. There is no resource scare, so why not give a pilot a sidemission? Arm him as well, and possibly another NPC?.....

[Gambit5150]

Cargo bays open up, and they close. If I walk down my ship a salute is fine and welcome. This is my bay, my cargo, and if I want to repair ship and work on it, it might mean more to me than repairing my soundsystem and tweaking armor. Adding this bay will allow or would allow tweaking my vehicle. In other words, my opinion, I can tweek a shuttle, arm it, and it will get me there if all that is permitted, but if I can take shuttle, that hovers, fires, transports, and frees, then I have a vehicle. Side vehicle, but a reliable one

[jasonsantanna]

For me the overall options. ME1/Mako exploration had on combat was very open fight on foot or fight in vehicle , if I didn't have enough omni gel to repair I would hop out before it blew up and fought on foot , hell on one play thur on Feros on the highway area my Mako got stuck , a glitch , it was hanging off the guard well wall and I couldn't back up off it so I played thur on foot, the HH missions were not as forgiving