289 réponses à ce sujet

[the almighty moo]

if you're goiung by the video, the hammerhead is back too

[Rudy Lis]

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.

Ah, yes, hypocrisy... Ahem.
I had no problems with either of those, but I like Mako. Hammerhead reminds me of older days of Quake multiplayer - "I'm a hammerhead, and I'm okay, I strafe all night and jump all day". No tactics or fun whatsoever - just dodge, jump and spam missiles. What point in that? Plus, I don't get unlimited missles supply, how does that fit mass accelerater weaponry with "practically unlimited ammo"? Minifactoring on board? Well, at least they could place some counter a-la Apaches mission from MoH.

Mako, on the other hand, outside of strangely jumpy suspension, sending him airborne on smallest bump from time to time, was good. What I really disliked in Mako it was turning controls - I used to scheme where pressing "turn left/right" key turns wheels, but not vehicle - unless you push throttle key. Of course, there are tracked vehicles and some wheeled vehicles IRL capable of turning on spot, but Mako behaviour wasn't suggesting that model. It required some time to getting used to this scheme.

Armament elevation angles are quite good - Mako didn't look like it's AAA or mortar/howitzer vehicle, so 85 degree elevation is seems to be excessive. I consider it like BMP-1 variant, not BMP-2.

Since I served in military, I have no problems with pathfidning or driving Mako at steep terrain (mostly via avoiding very steep terrain). If memory serves, there were only three planets with interesting objects in deep recesses, with practically vertical walls, making climbing out of them quite challenging. However, knowing this, those locations could be left as final places to visit, before returning on Normandy, since even flat terrain wasn't necessary for that.

In fact, finding those "long and winding roads" with less steep terrain were fun. Finding proper firing spot to fire from hull down position and calculating pauses between enemies shots was even more fun. Sometimes I was disappointed with lack of "arc" trajectory armament, but proper shot placement was pure fun, because it was based by your skill and luck, not missile guidance.

Regarding mountain climbing, well, with Mako's grippy tires it could practically stick to any "wall" with angles around 80 degrees and could climb them, if their angles were around 70. Need to find protractor for proper angle measurement, but whatever. Driving mountain ridge had some issues, which could be easily neutered by OFP/ArmA alike "slow/cruise/dashing" speed keys. But, since it's a console port, I guess careful tapping of throttle key was one and only alternative. And if you fall, from, say, ridge and sliding down, just relese guddamn throttle (any movement keys), and Mako will glue itself to surface.

Since one and only place where you have to rush is Conduit sprint, it was one and only place where I lost Mako shields. And I think it scripted event, not pure gameplay, since I was able to reduce Colossi numbers from top, before countdown began and I lost those shields regardless of difficulty.

Resume: Mako is good vehicle. Not perfect, but good.
Regarding Hammerhead - I still cannot explain certain logic holes with it and find proper place for it in any ToE I can imagine.

[ManualReplica]

I pray to god that slow mountain scaling heap of junk wont return.
The hammerhead hoverdyne was much smoother and faster to control.

[wizardryforever]

Rudy Lis wrote...

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.

Ah, yes, hypocrisy... Ahem.
I had no problems with either of those, but I like Mako. Hammerhead reminds me of older days of Quake multiplayer - "I'm a hammerhead, and I'm okay, I strafe all night and jump all day". No tactics or fun whatsoever - just dodge, jump and spam missiles. What point in that? Plus, I don't get unlimited missles supply, how does that fit mass accelerater weaponry with "practically unlimited ammo"? Minifactoring on board? Well, at least they could place some counter a-la Apaches mission from MoH.

Mako, on the other hand, outside of strangely jumpy suspension, sending him airborne on smallest bump from time to time, was good. What I really disliked in Mako it was turning controls - I used to scheme where pressing "turn left/right" key turns wheels, but not vehicle - unless you push throttle key. Of course, there are tracked vehicles and some wheeled vehicles IRL capable of turning on spot, but Mako behaviour wasn't suggesting that model. It required some time to getting used to this scheme.

Armament elevation angles are quite good - Mako didn't look like it's AAA or mortar/howitzer vehicle, so 85 degree elevation is seems to be excessive. I consider it like BMP-1 variant, not BMP-2.

Since I served in military, I have no problems with pathfidning or driving Mako at steep terrain (mostly via avoiding very steep terrain). If memory serves, there were only three planets with interesting objects in deep recesses, with practically vertical walls, making climbing out of them quite challenging. However, knowing this, those locations could be left as final places to visit, before returning on Normandy, since even flat terrain wasn't necessary for that.

In fact, finding those "long and winding roads" with less steep terrain were fun. Finding proper firing spot to fire from hull down position and calculating pauses between enemies shots was even more fun. Sometimes I was disappointed with lack of "arc" trajectory armament, but proper shot placement was pure fun, because it was based by your skill and luck, not missile guidance.

Regarding mountain climbing, well, with Mako's grippy tires it could practically stick to any "wall" with angles around 80 degrees and could climb them, if their angles were around 70. Need to find protractor for proper angle measurement, but whatever. Driving mountain ridge had some issues, which could be easily neutered by OFP/ArmA alike "slow/cruise/dashing" speed keys. But, since it's a console port, I guess careful tapping of throttle key was one and only alternative. And if you fall, from, say, ridge and sliding down, just relese guddamn throttle (any movement keys), and Mako will glue itself to surface.

Since one and only place where you have to rush is Conduit sprint, it was one and only place where I lost Mako shields. And I think it scripted event, not pure gameplay, since I was able to reduce Colossi numbers from top, before countdown began and I lost those shields regardless of difficulty.

Resume: Mako is good vehicle. Not perfect, but good.
Regarding Hammerhead - I still cannot explain certain logic holes with it and find proper place for it in any ToE I can imagine.

I was hesitant to quote this whole wall of text, but I wanted to address everything here.  Let's start with the first paragraph (since splicing your post is too annoying).  What you seem to forget here is that the Mako was no better, and in many ways worse than the Hammerhead in regards to limitations.  And I fail to see how something that moves faster, jumps higher and shoots faster is somehow less tactical.  If anything it is more tactical, since you have the options of hit-and-run, strafe and shoot, and ramming.  Granted, the Mako had all of those options as well, but because it was slower and clunkier, it didn't do it as well.  And that's not even counting the jumping, which greatly adds variety to both attack and escape.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that you should have omni-directionality in a wheeled vehicle.  That's just my main gripe with wheeled vehicles in games.  Omni-directionality is awesome, and while there isn't yet a viable real life vehicle that does it reliably, it works well in games.  And since it isn't something we have in real life, it's less "cliche" (though I hate to use that word).

As for the firing angle, that was my main dish with the Mako.  I could handle the wonky physics and the wooden handling, but the firing angle thing made me grit my teeth in frustration.  It wouldn't be near as much of a problem if the reticule turned red or otherwise indicated that the target in your sights would not get hit if you were to shoot just then.  Too many times have I lined up a shot and had it sail way over the target's head, despite us both being on relatively flat ground, and not moving.  It didn't require you to be on a mountainside, though those were abundant, just a slight increase in the slope of the road was enough.  It was hugely annoying and not fun to miss constantly because of the omni-present inclines.  Just design the vehicle such that its weapons can handle inclines, or remove inclines from your levels.  The former seems more workable to me.

And yes, while I haven't served in the military (yet, as I ship off to the Navy boot camp in September), I also had no problem finding my way around mountains.  But there were plenty of locations where there were mountains all over the map, and you had to either tediously drive around the whole map to get around them, or tediously try to climb them.  It was a matter of picking your favorite tedium.

Call me crazy, but I think that if you never ever lose your shields in your vehicle, then you either aren't playing on a tough enough difficulty, you're being too defensive with the vehicle, or the vehicle or levels are badly designed.  The fact that you can't simply rush in guns-blazing and mow everything down without a sweat is what makes the Hammerhead fun.  Now obviously, in real life, you'd choose the more powerful one who could do that.  But in a game, overkill is really not fun at all.

But yeah, neither vehicle is perfect, nor should they be.  It just seems that as far as implementation goes, the Hammerhead wins out as far as I'm concerned.  But likely Bioware has looked at all this ruckus about vehicles and wisely decided to not touch it with a ten foot pole.

[DxWill103]

I only want the Mako back under 2 conditions

-We only get to drive it over dull, boring, rocky terrain for hours on end
-and if our shields go down, we have to sit there for 5 minutes waiting for them to recharge

otherwise no thanks.

(c wut i did thar)

[Haventh]

DxWill103 wrote...

I only want the Mako back under 2 conditions

-We only get to drive it over dull, boring, rocky, bugged, annoying, frustrating, agonizing, mind hurting terrain for hours on end
-and if our shields go down, we have to sit there for 5 minutes waiting for them to recharge

otherwise no thanks.

(c wut i did thar)

Fixed it for you.

[Rudy Lis]

wizardryforever wrote...

 I was hesitant to quote this whole wall of text, but I wanted to address everything here.  Let's start with the first paragraph (since splicing your post is too annoying). 

There is another word for that - lazyness. Nothing wrong with it. I'm subject to it as well.

wizardryforever wrote...

What you seem to forget here is that the Mako was no better, and in many ways worse than the Hammerhead in regards to limitations.  And I fail to see how something that moves faster, jumps higher and shoots faster is somehow less tactical. If anything it is more tactical, since you have the options of hit-and-run, strafe and shoot, and ramming. Granted, the Mako had all of those options as well, but because it was slower and clunkier, it didn't do it as well. And that's not even counting the jumping, which greatly adds variety to both attack and escape.

Because it dies faster? 
Explain me this, if fast is so good, why US tankers uparmor their Shermans with sandbags, pieces of tracks? Why not replace armor with drywall and move FASTAH?
I suppose we all know the answer - we all want to live. Fast moving is impressive on maneuvers or parades. It's good when it's fun, not when your life depends on it. 7.62 may be slow round, but no one can't run faster.

Hammerhead behaves like it's scale model, not real vehicle. It moves like it has no inertia - speeding up fast, slows down fast, change direction fast. Add barrel roll and Banshee from Halo will fade away. Almost. In recent video Hammerhead behaves more realistically, it least it tilts forward, like helicopter, to move forward and it doesn't sped up instantly. Maybe not as fun to play, but at least it no longer resembles RC model.

wizardryforever wrote...

I don't think anyone was suggesting that you should have omni-directionality in a wheeled vehicle.  That's just my main gripe with wheeled vehicles in games.  Omni-directionality is awesome, and while there isn't yet a viable real life vehicle that does it reliably, it works well in games.  And since it isn't something we have in real life, it's less "cliche" (though I hate to use that word).

We have omni-directional vehicles. Helicopters and VTOL aircrafts. They can fly sideways or backwards, maybe not as successfull and fast as frontal flight, with worsened controls and possibly increased fuel consuption, but they still capable to do that. Not as fast as Hammerhead, of course.

Personally, I think that Hammerhead should have similar behaviour - sooner or later it's tailfins should start to turn it, should you move sideways long enough, unless you're in vacuum (and if you in vacuum, how the hell that thing is flying?). Of course, maybe there are some compensating ducts, hard to say.

And I disagree with cliche. It behaves exactly as "non-realistic cybersport disciplines" like Quake. Fast, multidirectional and jumpy. Add rocketjump and quad-damage ...

wizardryforever wrote...

As for the firing angle, that was my main dish with the Mako.  I could handle the wonky physics and the wooden handling, but the firing angle thing made me grit my teeth in frustration.  It wouldn't be near as much of a problem if the reticule turned red or otherwise indicated that the target in your sights would not get hit if you were to shoot just then.  Too many times have I lined up a shot and had it sail way over the target's head, despite us both being on relatively flat ground, and not moving.  It didn't require you to be on a mountainside, though those were abundant, just a slight increase in the slope of the road was enough.  It was hugely annoying and not fun to miss constantly because of the omni-present inclines.  Just design the vehicle such that its weapons can handle inclines, or remove inclines from your levels.  The former seems more workable to me.

That's why I like ME1 weaponry and projectile velocities. You missed? Your fault (less so if your firearms are I-grade, not X-grade, preferably from Rosenkov). If you aimed carefully, then you will hit your target - they won't dodge, since all your shots are instant hits. Or nearly instant hits, haven't filmed gameplay with high speed camera.
I suppose that is the reason why your enemies have only machineguns with mass accelerators, while their main kick weapon either slow rockets or plasma bolts (or whatever they are). Because should they have your cannon, it would be overkill for you.
Of course, firing on the move is much more complicated, but that's why they teach you to shoot from short stops or use cover while you reloading - MG fire won't harm you that much due innate spread and if you will find some cover, your shields will recharge with ease.

wizardryforever wrote...

And yes, while I haven't served in the military (yet, as I ship off to the Navy boot camp in September), I also had no problem finding my way around mountains.  But there were plenty of locations where there were mountains all over the map, and you had to either tediously drive around the whole map to get around them, or tediously try to climb them.  It was a matter of picking your favorite tedium.

You don't have to dodge every mountain in game, ascent about 40-60 degrees were quite easy and fast to climb on. Of course, the flatter the better, but I don't get all the fuss - pointlessly killing people in multiplayer for hours is Ok, spending additional couple of minutes for good peaceful stroll at countryside is bad?.

wizardryforever wrote...

Call me crazy, but I think that if you never ever lose your shields in your vehicle, then you either aren't playing on a tough enough difficulty, you're being too defensive with the vehicle, or the vehicle or levels are badly designed.  The fact that you can't simply rush in guns-blazing and mow everything down without a sweat is what makes the Hammerhead fun.  Now obviously, in real life, you'd choose the more powerful one who could do that.  But in a game, overkill is really not fun at all.

Insanity is not enough? There is more difficult... err, "difficulty"? Most disturbing moment, IIRC, was one of "geth incursion" missions, when you been ambushed by Geth as soon as you left building. So far I cannot remember moments, where you were on the open and pointblank range with enemies. Yes, there were two missions with "it's a trap" moments, but there was enough cover around. Maybe I forgot something, because currently my mind concentrated on work and I don't want to switch it back to games yet.

Yes, I play carefully. Because, gamewise, I wasn't learning in Halo, but in Operation Flashpoint. Old one, from Bohemia, one that ArmA: Cold War Crisis now. You don't have recharging shields there, or chances to repair your vehicle with omni-gel on the go. Yes, technically there were refueling, rearming and repairing trucks, but there were missions when you have no support whatsoever and you have to deal with what you've been given.

There you don't have your range limited at 400 metres - you still could receive "gift" from enemy tank from 1000 metres, or longer (depending on vehicle characteristics, including community made ones). Three gifts - you out of game. Well, maybe 4, if you play on Abrams against T-55. Technically tank could withstand more hits, but it was nearly impossible to move in that smoking tin can - you could crawlbackward faster than damaged tank moved.

In OFP you could have you turret, tracks, engine or cannon (alone or in any combination) damaged. Very funny to have relatively intact tank with gun pointing down, where your only chance to change gun elevation is to use terrain. And if you had one of your tracks damaged, your vehicle start to lean to that direction.

Do not forget about arc trajectories a.k.a. "bullet drop". Point of aim is not equal to point of impact. And ammo is limited.

In OFP you don't have whole control at your fingertips: tank has crew of 3 - commander, gunner and driver. And there was delay between you gave order (if you commander) and your AI crew follow it. If that's not enough - crew will not execute your orders until they finish their sitrep. Just imagine - you carefully and slowly move on crest, just to have your commander's periscope above crest top. You spot say two platoons of enemy infantry and 4 armor. You (your character) starts to report every guddamn target he saw, your gunner starts to report all targets he saw and your driver doing the same. Want to go reverse? Aim and fire? Sorry, let the boys finish. Yes, fire could be override via "manual fire", when you press button and, if weapon is loaded, gun will fire instantly, but you still have to command your gunner what target he should aim at (and mind barrel axis - not to send your shot into berm ahead of you). Driver had no such "direct control". So pause between "Reverse"-BAMM-"Injured!" could be really small. That's if you lucky. If unlucky then it will be "Rever..." BA-BA-BAMM-Kaboom and some "wise man quote" on War with notification "you died".

Not enough? No third person view (it was, on easier difficulty). Only first person view. Through periscopes, sights and whatever you name them. Of course, in any given moment of time you just can pop-out to take a look, but any shot, even from tiny rifle could end your life with one hit (no shield, remember?). Should I mention that crew couldn't heal each other? Yes, there were medics, but sometimes, you had no access to them. And even if they were - they were far and you need time to get there, like any other support. Or them to get to you (not advisable if you in middle of firefight - usually were no replacement for support).

Should I mention "lowered mountaineering capabilities" and generally more realistic speed?

Infantry I mentioned earlier, could carry anti-tank weapon and could use it quite efficiently and projectiles velocities were generally faster. Vehicle relatively realistic inertia made dodging extremely unlikely. And they didn't wear any red painting (well, they were, in Resistance, Alpenflage and Flecktarn, to some extent, but you have to be very close to notice red colour, otherwise they were green-brown spots, without any red triangles at them). And there were trees and bushes, giving them cover and concealment - they see you, but you cannot see them. Couple of AT shots into side or rear (or in front, depending on vehicle) - sorry, you out of game. Yes, differential armor. With weak spots. And AI use all that well, not because on casual he got 50 hp and 5 damage points, while on Insanity 500 hp and 50 and spams his abilities often.

wizardryforever wrote...

But yeah, neither vehicle is perfect, nor should they be.  It just seems that as far as implementation goes, the Hammerhead wins out as far as I'm concerned.  But likely Bioware has looked at all this ruckus about vehicles and wisely decided to not touch it with a ten foot pole.

Hammerhead wins just because in ME2 firearms projectiles velocity was reduced severely - if enemy could dodge bullet at 100 metres, what "hypervelocity" we talking about? It's future or it's airsoft? Should enemies have ME1 era firearms, they'd turn Hammerhead into smoking pile of scrap metal in seconds.

[K_Tabris]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

I want my Mako back ... see signature.

This. This. THIS. 

D:

The Hammerhead missions were pretty cool, but the fragile vehicle we had to use (AKA Hammerhead) sucked.

[wizardryforever]

Rudy Lis wrote...
megasnip

Wow you've got a thing for rambling passive-aggressive walls of text.

Anyway, the main point I was trying to emphasize is that realism doesn't trump fun.  Ever.  I don't care how realistic something is if it simply is not entertaining.  Real world applications stop applying when you consider the following: a) it's a video game, it's set in the future where mass reducing and raising is a simple matter, c) military experience doesn't make you a good game designer.  Obviously "a" is the most important.

I believe you misread the part where I said that shots that were perfectly aimed (as in, you could not be more dead on) according to your targeting reticule, would sail over the target's head.  That's what irks me.  This is something that is not and cannot be attributed to driver error.  That's a result of poor vehicle design, poor interface design, and poor level design.

And when I said vehicles, I meant ground vehicles, not aircraft.  If I meant aircraft I would have said aircraft.

I'll just emphasize it again: It's a video game.  If it's not fun, I don't care how real it is, it's poorly designed.  Unless the idea is to be realistic above all else, which I doubt is the case with an action-adventure space-opera RPG.

[Rudy Lis]

wizardryforever wrote...

Wow you've got a thing for rambling passive-aggressive

Excuse me?

wizardryforever wrote...

walls of text.

Hey, Dragoon, he said "wall". Whaddya think?

wizardryforever wrote...

Anyway, the main point I was trying to emphasize is that realism doesn't trump fun.

  

Well, I think that realism is fun. And popularity of such "simulation" games tells me that there are enough people who share same point of view with me.
Of course, obviously there are much more of those who share your point of view, because "not so realistic" games are quite more popular.

wizardryforever wrote...

Ever.  I don't care how realistic something is if it simply is not entertaining. 

 

And here is main source of our disagreement. Probably only one.

wizardryforever wrote...

Real world applications stop applying when you consider the following: a) it's a video game, it's set in the future where mass reducing and raising is a simple matter, c) military experience doesn't make you a good game designer.  Obviously "a" is the most important.

I'd start from end here, if you don't mind.
c) I never been gamedesigner, so we don't know how bad am I there. But using your logic, I can freely say that Bioware gamedesigners ain't good enough, because I find their decisions "progressively worse".
if there is all that mumbo-jumbo, why not imply it in Mako, making it fast, hovering and multidirectional? Drive core size issues? So maybe there are some raisins behind my ranting regarding Hammerhead unbelievable agility, speed and paper armor?
a) And? If it's video game, that means that developers can do what they want doing "it's video-game" or "we have sci-fi mumbo-jumbo device" barrel rolls every time someone trying to ask "eh, WTF is that, how's that possible"?

wizardryforever wrote...

I believe you misread the part where I said that shots that were perfectly aimed (as in, you could not be more dead on) according to your targeting reticule, would sail over the target's head.  That's what irks me.  This is something that is not and cannot be attributed to driver error.  That's a result of poor vehicle design, poor interface design, and poor level design.

No, I didn't. Could you be so kind to make screenshots, showing your point of aim and point of impact?

Not sure if autoaim works in Mako, but I had certain aiming issues with "on foot" parts of missions, especially in close combat in cramped spaces, when even minimal autoaim ****ed everything up, forcing my Shepard to fire not where reticle points, but somewhere else. One of "**** me sideways" moments in ME1 really.

wizardryforever wrote...

And when I said vehicles, I meant ground vehicles, not aircraft.  If I meant aircraft I would have said aircraft.

They are all vehicles.

wizardryforever wrote...

I'll just emphasize it again: It's a video game.  If it's not fun, I don't care how real it is, it's poorly designed.  Unless the idea is to be realistic above all else, which I doubt is the case with an action-adventure space-opera RPG.

Generally I do not have any disagreements here. But I think that certain degree of realism, at least realistic look, feel and extremely rare substance known as "common sense" are must for any game, based on more or less real world.
Should it be some absurd-based or fantasy-based game - fine. But if you play Sci-fi and wrote something in your codex, please, follow it.

P.S. I will be off for next couple of weeks, and I may not be able to continue our discussion here for some time. So, if this thread will sink among others and you'd like to continue conversation, we could do that via PM.

[_symphony]

MAKO, you can't crush the skulls of your enemies without wheels.

Modifié par _symphony, 27 février 2012 - 05:08 .

[wizardryforever]

_symphony wrote...

MAKO, you can't crush the skulls of your enemies without wheels.

Sure you can, just stave them in with the initial impact.  Especially if you're moving much faster than the Mako.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 27 février 2012 - 05:55 .

[_symphony]

wizardryforever wrote...

_symphony wrote...

MAKO, you can't crush the skulls of your enemies without wheels.

Sure you can, just stave them in with the initial impact.  Especially if you're moving much faster than the Mako.

don't try to get clever, the hammerhead is so weak that driving it so close to the enemy is not the smartest thing to do.

btw, I don't hate the hammerhead but I prefer the mako.

[elitecom]

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.

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. 

Well many people that have quite furiously stated their dislike for Mako and complain about the terrain, something which you yourself have done too, forget that Bioware made paths on almost every planet for the player to traverse without going across that mountain. What all too many players seem to have forgotten is that the quickest way to an anomaly isn't from point A to B, especially when there's a huge mountain in the way. There's a thing called going around. Also when it comes to the lack of y-axis in the gun, maybe you played on the Xbox version but in the PC version the y-axis has been fixed to allow for more than just 90 degrees of movement.

The Hammerhead isn't difficult to drive, but my problem with it is that it isn't an all-terrain vehicle like the Mako, and therefore not suited for exploration. To give you an example of what I mean, when you drive the Hammerhead around and you try to drive over a small bumb in the way, the Hammerhead will crash right into it. It cannot go over it without flying over it. While the Mako would just drive right over that bumb. Hence the Hammerhead isn't an all-terrain vehicle and thus not suited for exploration in the same manner that the Mako is.

[Cosmar]

I would LOVE to have the MAKO back! But in more of a battlefield/military capacity and less of an exploration capacity. That freaking thing could barely navigate a 10 degree slope without flipping over, but it could withstand incredible amounts of punishment, and its freaking machine gun and cannon shredded through everything from geth colossi to thresher maws.

I would LOVE to have a MAKO, hell, an army of MAKOS, on my side against the likes of Brutes and other big meanies...much more than the Hammerhead, which seemed to burst into flames if you coughed on it...