289 réponses à ce sujet

[elitecom]

devSin wrote...

Accuracy? Please. If that's why you like the franchise, then it should also be the reason you hate the MAKO.

There is nothing authentic about the way that abomination behaves. It sees science, and it books it in the opposite direction (right up a 90-degree incline). :-)

Vagueness. Your post is too vague, please emphasize what you mean by the Mako not moving in an "authentic" manner. Also the Mako cannot traverse a 90 degree incline, but I suppose that was written to dramatise your still unexplained point?

[TheRevanchist]

it appears ME3 has gone the way of most other shooters.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Either way it was tediously boring driving in a jalopy that apparently had zero mass and got tossed about like a stuffed animal on a trampoline at the slightest bump.

It didn't, though.  It just required subtlety.  Driving carefully did not produce the results you describe.

No, it does. Shocker, you are wrong about something else. Short of going at rates of speed no one would find acceptable and then veering around anything vaguely bumpish on the ground maybe but at a normal speed hitting any of the frequent small lumps in the ground will catapult you into the air.

But being thrown into the air was a manageable event if you controlled the orientation of your vehicle.  Since only the front wheels did any steering, keeping track of when the rear wheels (individually) were touching the ground allowed very fine control of the Mako.

I didn't say you had to drive slowly.  I said you had to drive carefully.  That you think the two things are the same emplains why you don't understand how to drive the Mako.  The Mako requires you plan two bumps ahead to maintain control.  You don't appear to have been doing that.

As for the extremely bumpy terrain, yes, you had to drive slowly.  And I found that acceptable, because that's what was necessary.  The only other option would be to have terrain that was overly accommodating (like BDtS), and having that everywhere would damage the setting.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

Yes, but the fact that they are an accurate deptiction of badlands in space is why it is a waste of time.

That's exactly why they were not a waste of time.  Having empty worlds that weren't important raelly fleshed out the setting.  If every world in the game is plot-relevant or designed specifically to be exciting or interesting, that's just not a credible universe.

I would love to have more open wasteland in FO3.  I'm the guy who asked for DAO's deep roads to be both bigger and more sparesly populated.

The universe is big and empty.  The game's environments should be too.

[upsettingshorts]

Have you considered that taken together the empty worlds in ME1 and the populated hubs of ME2 portray the Mass Effect universe better than more of one at the expense of the other?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Have you considered that taken together the empty worlds in ME1 and the populated hubs of ME2 portray the Mass Effect universe better than more of one at the expense of the other?

Certianly they do.  But if a game is going to do one at the expense of the other, I think losing the empty worlds hurts the setting more than losing the populated hubs, because there are already other populated worlds.

[Arppis]

NovinhaShepard wrote...

That would be awesome I miss the Mako. Last week, I had the misfortune of dragging my final Shepard's ass through all those Hammerhead missions > Ugh, I hate that thing.

It would be perfect, if the rockets would do more damage and the thing could take a hit.

[CannonO]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Have you considered that taken together the empty worlds in ME1 and the populated hubs of ME2 portray the Mass Effect universe better than more of one at the expense of the other?

Yeah, not sure BioWare cared about the vision that much to leave it intact. Please the shooter market, they must.

[Benchpress610]

Yes Mako

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's exactly why they were not a waste of time.  Having empty worlds that weren't important raelly fleshed out the setting.  If every world in the game is plot-relevant or designed specifically to be exciting or interesting, that's just not a credible universe.

I disagree. If the world has nothing plot relevant then I have no reason to go there. Nothing about the integrity of the setting is lost because the game chooses to focus on locations of actual significance, as long as its importance is laid out. We don't need to visit empty worlds to acknowledge that they exist.

We have great examples of how to design a sand box world. Mass Effect simply isn't one of them.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 février 2012 - 01:04 .

[CannonO]

Il Divo wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's exactly why they were not a waste of time.  Having empty worlds that weren't important raelly fleshed out the setting.  If every world in the game is plot-relevant or designed specifically to be exciting or interesting, that's just not a credible universe.

I disagree. If the world has nothing plot relevant then I have no reason to go there. Nothing about the integrity of the setting is lost because the game chooses to focus on locations of actual significance, as long as its importance is laid out. We don't need to visit empty worlds to acknowledge that they exist.

We have great examples of how to design a sand box world. Mass Effect simply isn't one of them.

Their presence was a significant expansion of what we perceived the the Mass Effect universe to be. It is significant in the vision, whether they were only sidequests or not. Some of love playing sidequests and the open worlds are a great canvas for those that BioWare has chosen to abandon despite many fans requests for the series to maintain its more open opportunities that we bought into in the first game. Mass Effect 3 has sidequests, some of which may be great. I know many of us would love to play some great sidequests on open worlds and get a truer sense of the vision of space, exploration, and atmosphere that was found in the idea of the open worlds in ME1.

[elitecom]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Have you considered that taken together the empty worlds in ME1 and the populated hubs of ME2 portray the Mass Effect universe better than more of one at the expense of the other?

Certianly they do.  But if a game is going to do one at the expense of the other, I think losing the empty worlds hurts the setting more than losing the populated hubs, because there are already other populated worlds.

Well considering how Bioware has added multiplayer and all these different gameplay modes, I really cannot see how they cannot add vehicle exploration with the Mako too.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

I disagree. If the world has nothing plot relevant then I have no reason to go there.

If the game contains nothing that is not plot relevant then I have no reason to play it.

If all I want is to experience the story someone else wrote, there are better ways to do that than playing a game.  If all I get is a story, I'd rather read a book.

[elitecom]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

I disagree. If the world has nothing plot relevant then I have no reason to go there.

If the game contains nothing that is not plot relevant then I have no reason to play it.

If all I want is to experience the story someone else wrote, there are better ways to do that than playing a game.  If all I get is a story, I'd rather read a book.

This is a very good point, hope you don't mind me using it in the future.

Also I do believe an exploration trailer would be quite fitting now. The demo is out and all that, now perhaps a look at some of the gameplay features which have yet to be talked about such as exploration.

[Annihilator27]

I want to use the Mako to escape a exploding a Reaper homeworld to get back to the Normandy.....

[CannonO]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

I disagree. If the world has nothing plot relevant then I have no reason to go there.

If the game contains nothing that is not plot relevant then I have no reason to play it.

If all I want is to experience the story someone else wrote, there are better ways to do that than playing a game.  If all I get is a story, I'd rather read a book.

People who play RPGs for plot feeds only, especially the Mass Effect franchise which is widely known to have exploration integrated into its experience, are in the minority.

[Raddpuppy]

Funny thing is I still own ME1 but I returned ME2 because I feel like they dumbed it down to much. No weapon customization, and no MAKO were my issues. I enjoyed exploring planets with that vehicle even if I didn't get to kill anything with it. It made feel much more emerged in the game than the rediculous scanning. The controls where fine once you figured them out. Take it up as high as you could and snipe. Use the jets in intervals on the way down to land safely and even yourself out. It was just awesome exploring and destroying **** while my ship was in orbit ready to extract me at any moment. To me a sequel is expanding a game that was already amazing not dulling it down for people that won't invest the time to learn as we invested in a proper sequel by purchasing the previous game.

[wizardryforever]

I always find it amusing how people will immediately follow their like for the Mako with their dislike of the Hammerhead.  They'll make claims about how people that hate the Mako just don't know how to drive it, then make the exact same types of complaints that the Mako players had used, about the Hammerhead.  Hypocrisy is high fashion around here it seems.

Look, regardless of your preferences, neither vehicle had everything.  That would be boring.  As a result, neither vehicle accomodated everyone's playstyle.  The Mako was the slow(ish), plodding tank that soaked up damage, but controlled like a brick, comparatively speaking.  The Hammerhead was the fast, agile, fragile IFV that handled intuitively.  Neither were the levels designed well for either vehicle.  The Mako had levels that clearly forgot that it had almost no y-axis to its guns, putting mountains all over the place that made driving and fighting a huge exercise in frustration.  Meanwhile, the Hammerhead had levels that were too tailored to it.  They overused platforms and puzzles, which was somewhat bizarre in a vehicle level. 

I for one prefer the Hammerhead.  It felt more unique, unlike the Mako, which controlled like something of a cross between my car and the tank from Halo.  The Hammerhead was easier to use, more tactically diverse, and overall better designed.  That's just my opinion, obviously.

Anyway, since we've seen Makos and Hammerheads in the trailer, I'd expect them to be in the game somewhere.  Whether or not they're drivable is another matter.

[RoboticWater]

wizardryforever wrote...

I always find it amusing how people will immediately follow their like for the Mako with their dislike of the Hammerhead.  They'll make claims about how people that hate the Mako just don't know how to drive it, then make the exact same types of complaints that the Mako players had used, about the Hammerhead.  Hypocrisy is high fashion around here it seems.

Look, regardless of your preferences, neither vehicle had everything.  That would be boring.  As a result, neither vehicle accomodated everyone's playstyle.  The Mako was the slow(ish), plodding tank that soaked up damage, but controlled like a brick, comparatively speaking.  The Hammerhead was the fast, agile, fragile IFV that handled intuitively.  Neither were the levels designed well for either vehicle.  The Mako had levels that clearly forgot that it had almost no y-axis to its guns, putting mountains all over the place that made driving and fighting a huge exercise in frustration.  Meanwhile, the Hammerhead had levels that were too tailored to it.  They overused platforms and puzzles, which was somewhat bizarre in a vehicle level. 

I for one prefer the Hammerhead.  It felt more unique, unlike the Mako, which controlled like something of a cross between my car and the tank from Halo.  The Hammerhead was easier to use, more tactically diverse, and overall better designed.  That's just my opinion, obviously.

Anyway, since we've seen Makos and Hammerheads in the trailer, I'd expect them to be in the game somewhere.  Whether or not they're drivable is another matter.

This guy...

Knows what he's talking about.

Modifié par BlahDog, 25 février 2012 - 06:22 .

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

I disagree. If the world has nothing plot relevant then I have no reason to go there.

If the game contains nothing that is not plot relevant then I have no reason to play it.

If all I want is to experience the story someone else wrote, there are better ways to do that than playing a game.  If all I get is a story, I'd rather read a book.

Reading a book is not interactive; a game is, which has a huge effect on how you perceive the events of the story.

Cannonlars wrote....

People who play RPGs for plot feeds only, especially the Mass Effect franchise which is widely known to have exploration integrated into its experience, are in the minority.

I'd love to see the statistical evidence to back that claim up. Until then, let's stay away from unsupported assertions. However, consider that Mass Effect is a Bioware franchise, who hadn't done freeform exploration since the original Baldur's Gate. KotOR, Jade Empire, DA:O, amongst others, got by without exploration. Mass Effect can too.

Edit: And just so there is no ambiguity, I am not suggesting that because none of those games had exploration that there may not have been any desire from anyone, but rather the motivation in playing Mass Effect which you imagine may not have been exploration in the first place. Bioware had a long history of interactive narratives at that point. Who's to say why people played Mass Effect?

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 février 2012 - 06:59 .

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's exactly why they were not a waste of time.  Having empty worlds that weren't important raelly fleshed out the setting.  If every world in the game is plot-relevant or designed specifically to be exciting or interesting, that's just not a credible universe.

Just cut exploration altogether and this isn't really a problem. The universe is perfectly credible, since the player only goes to worlds he has reasons to go to. Of course, you think that cutting exploration is a problem in itself.

KotOR worked for me. Not for you, I guess.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 février 2012 - 06:29 .

[wizardryforever]

Il Divo wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

I disagree. If the world has nothing plot relevant then I have no reason to go there.

If the game contains nothing that is not plot relevant then I have no reason to play it.

If all I want is to experience the story someone else wrote, there are better ways to do that than playing a game.  If all I get is a story, I'd rather read a book.

Reading a book is not interactive; a game is, which has a huge effect on how you perceive the events of the story.

Cannonlars wrote....

People who play RPGs for plot feeds only, especially the Mass Effect franchise which is widely known to have exploration integrated into its experience, are in the minority.

I'd love to see the statistical evidence to back that claim up. Until then, let's stay away from unsupported assertions. However, consider that Mass Effect is a Bioware franchise, who hadn't done freeform exploration since the original Baldur's Gate. KotOR, Jade Empire, DA:O, amongst others, got by without exploration. Mass Effect can too.

Well, I did make a poll regarding this sort of thing over a year ago.  Here.  It even seems to support your argument, among the sample that I managed to take from the elusive BSNers, as I watched from the bushes and marveled at their features.

[Il Divo]

wizardryforever wrote...

Well, I did make a poll regarding this sort of thing over a year ago.  Here.  It even seems to support your argument, among the sample that I managed to take from the elusive BSNers, as I watched from the bushes and marveled at their features.

That is interesting, and not entirely unexpected given that Bioware marketing tends to emphasize their role as storytellers, But here we should be a bit careful. I think we should also look into an exact breakdown of how many people consider exploration to be critical to the Mass Effect (or more generally) Bioware experience. That could even tell us who considers exploration to be enjoyable for the ME series, or merely an obstacle in the way of Bioware's interactive storytelling.

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 février 2012 - 06:54 .

[wizardryforever]

Il Divo wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Well, I did make a poll regarding this sort of thing over a year ago.  Here.  It even seems to support your argument, among the sample that I managed to take from the elusive BSNers, as I watched from the bushes and marveled at their features.

That is interesting, and not entirely unexpected given that Bioware marketing tends to emphasize their role as storytellers, But here we should be a bit careful. I think we should also look into an exact breakdown of how many people consider exploration to be critical to the Mass Effect (or more generally) Bioware experience. That could even tell us who considers exploration to be enjoyable for the ME series, or merely an obstacle in the way of Bioware's interactive storytelling.

That sounds like a good idea for a poll.  Perhaps you or I should make one.