587 réponses à ce sujet

[Grubas]

David7204 wrote...

No. The Mako was driving around on recycled cookie cutter planets looking for rocks that contribute utterly nothing to the story. That is not fun. That is not groundbreaking. That is not awesome. That is nowhere even close to awesome. That is flat boring. The skies were nice, but the vistas and setpeices in ME 2 and ME 3 were far better. And if you don't like the scanning minigame in ME 3, you can easily complete it all in maybe...one hour, at most? Whereas picking up every artifact in ME 1 would take several hours at least.

Be honest.
You really want a game that plays itself. Right?

[Sanunes]

twystedspyder wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Are you freaking kidding me? Having an inventory is a "ground breaking idea"? Having vehicles to drive is a "ground breaking idea"?

That is just monumentally stupid.

No, stuff like the dialogue interrupts, (not present in ME 1) is where the ground breaking ideas come in.

Context, friend.  Context.

No. Having an inventory wasn't groundbreaking.  Don't be silly.  But a game lore that supports weapons that are unique to the setting - Personal weapon systems fully customizable to the user's combat tactics along with effectively unlimmited ammo.  Yes, I'm going to say that was pretty groundbreaking.  For video game rpgs anyway.

The Maco drops?  Exploring solar systems, scanners finding something interesting on a planet, then actually getting out of your ship and exploring that area of the planet?  That's Star Trek level stuff there.  That's awesome.  Again, not perfect in execution, but with a ton of potential.  

ME2 didn't totally forget about this, but the implementation wasn't nearly as ambitious.  Still fun, just nothing exceptional and not nearly as immersive.  ME3 on the other hand?  Scan.  Fuel.  Scan.  War Asset.  Scan.  Run from Reaper icons.  No immersion.  No exploration.  Nothing interesting.  Just a minigame.

Dialogue interrupts weren't exactly groundbreaking in ME2 either.  In fact they were a planned part of the first game that they just couldn't implement in time as is shown in the early gameplay footage.  I already mentioned them as something cool that ME2 added, by the way.

I prefer how items work in Mass Effect 2 and 3 because it makes more sense that a soldier gears up before the mission and doesn't change his armor in a toxic atmosphere.  How many people here complain about the "faces masks" that some characters use instead of a full helmet.

As far as the Mako goes, they tried to re-invent the system with Mass Effect 2, yes it was part of Day 1 DLC, but still they tried and got nothing but people demanding it be the same was as the Mako.

Even look at the elevator, people complain about how great the elevator sequences are in Mass Effect 1, but there is something similar in Mass Effect 3 with the security scanner and people complain about it.  Next time I bet instead of a scanner its just going to be on a different level.

I think a lot of people that are saying that Mass Effect 1 is the superior game are just looking (or remembering) selectivity, for I can pick apart the mechanics of all three games if I want to.

[David7204]

Grubas wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No. The Mako was driving around on recycled cookie cutter planets looking for rocks that contribute utterly nothing to the story. That is not fun. That is not groundbreaking. That is not awesome. That is nowhere even close to awesome. That is flat boring. The skies were nice, but the vistas and setpeices in ME 2 and ME 3 were far better. And if you don't like the scanning minigame in ME 3, you can easily complete it all in maybe...one hour, at most? Whereas picking up every artifact in ME 1 would take several hours at least.

Be honest.
You really want a game that plays itself. Right?

Can you argue without making stupid and baseless comments like that? I don't think the Mako was the best thing ever so therefore I must hate RPGs?

Modifié par David7204, 16 janvier 2013 - 10:13 .

[dreamgazer]

Man, I completely forgot about the scanning mini-game, and the Reapers coming to getcha!

(sigh)

[tanisha__unknown]

Astrogenesis wrote...

I think the point 'that Bioware dumbed down and streamlined the RPG elements to appeal to non RPG customers' is just BS!

In ME3 they added the option to play the game in Action Mode which basically made all the choices for you so that Shooter fans didn't need to engage more than the 2 braincells they only have!

The Action Mode was an insult to RPG fans of the series.

"Hey guys, so after ME2 we decided to make ME3 more streamlined for you, because our amazebalz market research team think this is what you want. But if that's not enough for you, you can press this button, and hey presto, the game basically plays itself!"

Actually a certain time ago there was a post here on BSN which contained a link to a video mady by a researcher in the field of intelligence which stated that playing shooters for some time actually heightens your intelligence.

[TheRealJayDee]

David7204 wrote...

No. The Mako was driving around on recycled cookie cutter planets looking for rocks that contribute utterly nothing to the story. That is not fun. That is not groundbreaking. That is not awesome. That is nowhere even close to awesome. That is flat boring. The skies were nice, but the vistas and setpeices in ME 2 and ME 3 were far better. And if you don't like the scanning minigame in ME 3, you can easily complete it all in maybe...one hour, at most? Whereas picking up every artifact in ME 1 would take several hours at least.

Damn, thanks for finally opening my eyes! Until now I honestly thought the Mako driving was pretty awesome and that I had a lot of fun doing it.

Little did I know...

[David7204]

If you thought the Mako was fun, fine. You have every right to your opinion.

What's not fine is being inconsistent and hypocritical. What's not fine is whining that the scanning missions in ME 3 are lazy writing because they don't affect the story and then praising the rock collecting missions in ME 1 that don't affect the story as the best thing ever.

Modifié par David7204, 16 janvier 2013 - 10:54 .

[Grubas]

David7204 wrote...

Grubas wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No. The Mako was driving around on recycled cookie cutter planets looking for rocks that contribute utterly nothing to the story. That is not fun. That is not groundbreaking. That is not awesome. That is nowhere even close to awesome. That is flat boring. The skies were nice, but the vistas and setpeices in ME 2 and ME 3 were far better. And if you don't like the scanning minigame in ME 3, you can easily complete it all in maybe...one hour, at most? Whereas picking up every artifact in ME 1 would take several hours at least.

Be honest.
You really want a game that plays itself. Right?

Can you argue without making stupid and baseless comments like that? I don't think the Mako was the best thing ever so therefore I must hate RPGs?

Baseless? 
You "forgot" that the cookie cutter planets are limited to optional side missions. Absolutely optional, and not necessary to get the "best ending". 
Unlike ME3. 
And yet! They offer additional content, exploration and even proper side missions. 
Unlike ME3.
In the story important missions the MAKO (together with additional hubworlds) is an essential part of the experience and has unique map design, (skyhighway on feros, the huge catacombs on Ilos...)   And why is this so? Because the MAKO is an essential part of the RPG experience. Your a frickin commander onboard your own ship. Of course you should be able to drive the MAKO yourself.   

What does ME3 offer instead? Nothing. 
In other words, smaller corridor maps with GoW style interaction. 

But this has been mentioned in this thread many times. 

So ME3 has better looks, and fancier design... but aside from cutting features, that could have been easily improved, what did it add to the series? What makes it an immersive RPG?

P.s.: Yes, the probing missions are dull AND necessary.

Modifié par Grubas, 16 janvier 2013 - 10:59 .

[Lunch Box1912]

thefallen2far wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

The first part is a bad arguement. Andy Warhol and DaVincci are artists producing a piece of art. The artists of ME 1 and 2 aren't the same as the artists of 3. Drew and Chris as well as others were the biggest contributors the plotting in the writing in the first 2 and it was obvious it was replaced with people that just weren't as good. That's not an insult, that's just the critique. Michelangelo was the artist who painted most of the sistene chapel, pope Julius was the patron. Now, parts of the sistene chapel was painted by othr artists like perugino and botticelli, but an artist creates the art, not the patron or the company paying for the artist's servces. If the artist is changed out, it's judged independently critiqued seperately. The overall product is judged seperately.

to say ME3 is art in the same context as paintings or novels are if they're the same artists... the company changed the artists, so it's not subject to the same art standard. Bioware can take credit for the art of the earlier games in the same sense the Catholic church can take credit for knowing who to pay for the sistine chapel, but the actual art is from the individual making the art.

You used the example of Davincci and Warhol, imagine the backlash the church would get if Andy Warhol was commissioned to finish the last Supper. that's kinda the same level here. Mac is not Drew. You can't even compare the 2. I'm sure both can be respected in their own right, but if the product is crap because the replacement isn't as good. We're just comparing artists. The product was so much better with the critical, well thought out mind of the artist Drew than the pop-contrivance thematic idea of an idea art of Mac.

It's not meant to be an insult. It's praise of another artist. Perugino is not as good as Michelangelo, that's not an insult, that's just a critique. And if andy warhol was commisioned to modernize the Last Supper, the product is not as good and the audience of Davincci would not want to visit that product. And they'd complain, they'd protest, they'd not to church etc.... basically, the church looses money to do this. That's why the church knows to not do that, it's bad buisness. The church knows it's a company making a product and they don= want to loose buisness.

So as much as you want this "art" arguement to say "anything's good".... it's not. It's a product. Artists creates the art or is commissioned forthe art by the company. The company releases a product. The audence flocks to the art of the product because of the artist. The artist is responsible for generating the audience, the company is responsible for the upkeep of the product for the audience in case the artist goes away. If it's unsatisfying, then the company hired the wrong artist. The "it's our art" rguement reflects badly on tche company for forgetting it's responibility is the product. If you see it as art and someone says "it's crap" the company is seen as making a crappy product, not a "flawed piece" of art, a product that isn't good, and any future products for the company are the same negaetive conotation. That's why most companies don't use the "artistic integrity" arguement. Artists do, and they have to individually deal with those negative connotations. M Night Shyamalan uses artist integrity to defend his bad movies... steven spielburg uses it to defend crystal skull... but the production companies know that it has no dealings with artistic licenses they're responsible cor the product.

As for the second part, ME3 was an RPG by reputation alone at this point. It's fine if that's the direction of the company, but if Call of Duty starts adding more RPG elements than Mass Effect, you can't really clasify it as an RPG. It's an action game. Again, it's not a bad thing. Action games aremore profitable than survival horror games which is why RE6 isn't really a survival horror game, action games are more profitable than RPGs nowadays which is why it moved away fromRPG elements and replaced them with multiplayer, co op and SP action and autodialogue and a linear, shoehorned storyline, linear level up stats for characters, removing the individual character origins to be unimportant or standard and forced themes... at some point you have to realize you're not really making nor are you interested anymore in making RPGs. Saying that your game progressions are less RPG because people have said it for years isn't an arguement if it's true. When GTA San Andreas and Call of Duty are more RPG than your game, it's not BS, you're just whether you care to see it or not.

Again, what thefallen2far wrote

[twystedspyder]

The fact that the scanning minigame was considered the "planetary exploration" in ME3 but could effectively be knocked out in an hour is exactly the problem. At least so far as the subject of this thread is concerned. It's certainly servicable as a discardable minigame, but that's all it is.

The regret is towards the trend of core gameplay concepts that were simply replaced or ignored instead of being improved upon.

For the record. I greatly enjoy the combat in ME3. I get together with friends for a few hours of Multiplayer nearly every week. However, you can no longer be casually exploring the citadel and suddenly get jumped by a group of assassins while staying completely in control of your character all the way through the action. I miss that a lot. That's the sort of unique RPG experience that's regrettably absent from the last two games. That's possibly more of an issue of technical integration over deliberate design choice, though. They decided to go the shooty-shooty/cover/reload route which may have made it next to impossible to recreate the ambient/unexpected combat encounters of the first game. I can't be sure. And again, I enjoy me some pew-pew-pew, but I think that kind of gameplay experience needs to return.

Full on armor swaps on the field are a bit wonky, I agree. I'm all for doing something about that immersion breaker. But Armor and Weapon customization didn't need to be dropped altogether. ME2 could have restrained armor loadout to the Normandy, focused and streamlined the inventory/upgrade system and we'd have been set.

I've heard that some people did not enjoy the Mako exploration. I've never met anyone like that in person, but I do acknowledge that they exist in theory and are therefore welcome to their opinion.

[David7204]

I am almost completely certain that not one single scanning mission is required to get the best ending. You only need 3100 EMS and I achieved about 3850 before DLC. I seriously, seriously doubt that the scanning missions give over 1500 assets. At least half of them don't even give you any assets at all, just credits. And if you have the DLC, I'm completely certain they aren't required. So that argument is rubbish.

The argument that the Mako provides "unique map design" is equally stupid. There have been plenty of great locations to explore on foot. The Mako didn't add that, nor did removing the Mako take them away. In fact, they've gotten a great deal better since ME 1.

In your eagerness to screech "LOLZ GEARZ OF WAR CALL OF DUTY," before doing any actual thinking you seem to have forgotten that vehicle sequences are a great deal more common in shooter games than in RPGs. In fact, I can't really think of a single other RPG that has them. You can be dead certain that if the Mako was absent in ME 1 but present in ME 3 the BSN would be utterly shrieking that BioWare put it in to appeal to shooter fans and a good RPG shouldn't have such a thing.

Modifié par David7204, 16 janvier 2013 - 11:04 .

[elitecom]

Grubas wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Grubas wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No. The Mako was driving around on recycled cookie cutter planets looking for rocks that contribute utterly nothing to the story. That is not fun. That is not groundbreaking. That is not awesome. That is nowhere even close to awesome. That is flat boring. The skies were nice, but the vistas and setpeices in ME 2 and ME 3 were far better. And if you don't like the scanning minigame in ME 3, you can easily complete it all in maybe...one hour, at most? Whereas picking up every artifact in ME 1 would take several hours at least.

Be honest.
You really want a game that plays itself. Right?

Can you argue without making stupid and baseless comments like that? I don't think the Mako was the best thing ever so therefore I must hate RPGs?

Baseless? 
You "forgot" that the cookie cutter planets are limited to optional side missions. Absolutely optional, and not necessary to get the "best ending". 
Unlike ME3. 
And yet! They offer additional content, exploration and even proper side missions. 
Unlike ME3.
In the story important missions the MAKO (together with additional hubworlds) is an essential part of the experience and has unique map design, (skyhighway on feros, the huge catacombs on Ilos...)   And why is this so? Because the MAKO is an essential part of the RPG experience. Your a frickin commander onboard your own ship. Of course you should be able to drive the MAKO yourself.   

What does ME3 offer instead? Nothing. 
In other words, smaller corridor maps with GoW style interaction. 

But this has been mentioned in this thread many times. 

So ME3 has better looks, and fancier design... but aside from cutting features, that could have been easily improved, what did it add to the series? What makes it an immersive RPG?

Spot on! So some people didn't like the sidequests in ME1, then don't do them! You don't have to, unlike in ME3 where you have to do the fetch quests if you want the best ending. I would also say that ME1 clearly has superior design too. I'll take the character models from ME1 any day over the ME3 ones. In ME3 certain features of some characters are just exaggerated to the extreme.

Modifié par elitecom, 16 janvier 2013 - 11:09 .

[xsdob]

Why do people like driving around on copy and paste planets finding copy and paste artifacts and copy and paste buildings? It wasn't fun for me at all, in fact that and gameplay made me dread having to pick up ME1 and made me sell it the first time before hearing good things about ME2.

Obviously it has an appeal to people here, why is beyond my comprehension right now, so I ask, why exactly does a broken exploration and vehicle system seem "fun" to people?

[futurepixels]

I won't quote it again, but damn, thefallen2far, nice post.

[ME859]

Just found out that the team that put together the pew pew fest Retake Omega (Bioware Edmonton) is the same studio thats currently working on Mass Effect 4. Am I right to be concerned?

[Zekka]

David7204 wrote...

No. The Mako was driving around on recycled cookie cutter planets looking for rocks that contribute utterly nothing to the story. That is not fun. That is not groundbreaking. That is not awesome. That is nowhere even close to awesome. That is flat boring. The skies were nice, but the vistas and setpeices in ME 2 and ME 3 were far better. And if you don't like the scanning minigame in ME 3, you can easily complete it all in maybe...one hour, at most? Whereas picking up every artifact in ME 1 would take several hours at least.

Bioware should have improved on these features that didn't work instead of taking them out.

[twystedspyder]

xsdob wrote...

Why do people like driving around on copy and paste planets finding copy and paste artifacts and copy and paste buildings? It wasn't fun for me at all, in fact that and gameplay made me dread having to pick up ME1 and made me sell it the first time before hearing good things about ME2.

Obviously it has an appeal to people here, why is beyond my comprehension right now, so I ask, why exactly does a broken exploration and vehicle system seem "fun" to people?

Because it's not broken.  It just wasn't as good as it could have been.  Needed improvement. 

The fact that you could just go out there into this wide open galaxy to explore random planets was what sold most of us on the Mass Effect franchise in the first place.  Admittedly, some of the Mako-centric combat on those planets wasn't all that exciting.  Then again, some of it was.  Not every drop ended up with an interesting mission and there was at least one that I dread every playthrough, but the fact that you could actually BE a starship captain was what made it exciting.

What was more exciting was the innevitable improvements Bioware was going to make in the sequels now that they got the first game out of the way...

Some examples of what I remember fondly off the top of my head:

- Having a Thresher Maw breach directly beneath the Mako was fun and terrifying every time.

- Coming accross massive forces of Geth and having to survive by the skin of your teeth (and omni gel usage)

- UNC Espianage Probe mission was fun and probably was the first mission were I felt the planet exploration gameplay had real potential - That bastard stole my Mako and tried to blow us up?  Sniper rifle death from above and/or rush to reclaim the Mako road kill.

- Bring Down the Sky was fun.

Not perfect, but worth perfecting. 

Those damn space monkeys, though...

[Iakus]

xsdob wrote...

Why do people like driving around on copy and paste planets finding copy and paste artifacts and copy and paste buildings? It wasn't fun for me at all, in fact that and gameplay made me dread having to pick up ME1 and made me sell it the first time before hearing good things about ME2.

Obviously it has an appeal to people here, why is beyond my comprehension right now, so I ask, why exactly does a broken exploration and vehicle system seem "fun" to people?

Why do people like to run down narrow corridors pwning space zombies?

See, I can make overrly general statements too!

As to exploration, I never found the Mako broken.  I enjoyed driving it, I enjoyed exploring the landscapes?  Could it have been done better?  Sure.  but it was something different to do than runnin' and gunnin'.  

[shodiswe]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I have worked on every game we've made since the end of Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal. EVERY time we make a game, someone complains it isn't as "RPG" as the one previously. NwN wasn't BG, KotOR wasn't NwN, Jade wasn't KotOR, ME wasn't Jade, etc.

RPG is not static, RPG changes and evolves. Fallout 3 is not the same game as Fallout. Dragon Age: Origins is not the same game as Baldur's Gate. There is no hard, set rule as to what an RPG must be (beyond letting you play a role and it being a game, I suppose) or contain. That "YOU" (whoever you is) enjoys XYZ features and "THEY" liek ABC features does not mean that a game that does or does not include those features is any more or less an RPG. Yes, it absolutely may be less of an RPG in the mind of someone who wants ABC features, but gets XYZ features, but that does not change the inherant RPGness of the game.

Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

Some people would argue that the Mona Lisa is one of the Artists lesser works of art, that what makes it interesting is the things that you don't expect from an artist that skilled.
Some have even sugested that the artists sexual orientation might have made it harder from him to paint a natual and good looking woman because it didn't interest him.
Though, as with many things "artsy" there are many different opinions on the subject.
It's one of those pieces that might "arguably" have generated more interest due to a lack of artistic quality, from a very skilled artist.
The work was delayed, the one who had comissioned the painting was dissatisfied with it and didn't want to pay for this painting of his "wife". It was later sold to the French king who thought a painting was a painting.

Some of the people on this forum would probably say ME3 is the Monalisa of Bioware.
Interesting but at the same time not what all of them were expecting. With a lot of different claims and speculation about the work and why it ended up the way it ended.

I live the Mass effect series, and I've played Biware games sicne Baldurs gate. And I like most of ME3 aswell but I think the later parts of the game including the ending could have been handled better, more drama. Made more interesting.
So there are both incredibly great things in the game and things that seem less appealing and lacking.
Edit:
If im harsh then it is because im confident that the people at Bioware can do better! Because I belive in their abilities.

Modifié par shodiswe, 16 janvier 2013 - 11:57 .

[twystedspyder]

ME859 wrote...

Just found out that the team that put together the pew pew fest Retake Omega (Bioware Edmonton) is the same studio thats currently working on Mass Effect 4. Am I right to be concerned?

Sure?

Then again, they may decide to bring back the Mako and all will be forgiven.   

[TheRealJayDee]

David7204 wrote...

If you thought the Mako was fun, fine. You have every right to your opinion.

What's not fine is being inconsistent and hypocritical. What's not fine is whining that the scanning missions in ME 3 are lazy writing because they don't affect the story and then praising the rock collecting missions in ME 1 that don't affect the story as the best thing ever.

Well, it's just that I found the "rock collecting missions" (well, honestly, mostly the other things to do on the planets) to be fun and atmospheric, and the scanning in the sequels tedious and playing tag with the chibi-Reapers in ME3 obnoxious and laughable. Different strokes etc...

Although I have to say that I was pretty underwhelmed when I searched a system in ME3 to pick up some Elcor, only to find out via the internet that I had already completed the "mission" by scanning the planet in question earlier and just would have had to click on the questgiving Elcor a second time immediatly after accepting the "quest". Lazy writing? Debatable. An rather unsatisfying experience? For sure.

All in all I just wished they had kept some kind of improved Mako segments in the sequels.

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 17 janvier 2013 - 12:02 .

[xsdob]

@twystedspyders, I think I'm seeing what the problem was. I found none of those fun. At all. Everything after getting into the mine on the espionage mission was fun, but everything else with the make wasn't for me.

@iakus, the only problem with your post is my assessment is not an overgeneralization on anything. The mako's constant flipping over, skidding off of roads, long omnigel repair cycles, and it's needs requiring that every planet be composed entirely of mountain ranges and requiring there to be masses of duplicate items so omnigel supplies could be continuously feed, make it a broken system to me. And I was only speaking for myself.

I don't like exploration for the sake of exploration, it becomes aimless, dull, and pointless at that point. If it was a planet that required actual exploration, than by all means I would love to explore around in a vehicle. But most of these planets were already pre-mapped and explored, according to the codex. And additionally, most of them didn't have many interesting things to find in the first place, adding to the tedium, since most interesting things on the planet could be found with a simple arieal pass over with the kodiaks or normandy. Otherwise I might as well quit the game and pick up a space simulator, and just explore that game all day long.

[clarkusdarkus]

Grubas wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Grubas wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No. The Mako was driving around on recycled cookie cutter planets looking for rocks that contribute utterly nothing to the story. That is not fun. That is not groundbreaking. That is not awesome. That is nowhere even close to awesome. That is flat boring. The skies were nice, but the vistas and setpeices in ME 2 and ME 3 were far better. And if you don't like the scanning minigame in ME 3, you can easily complete it all in maybe...one hour, at most? Whereas picking up every artifact in ME 1 would take several hours at least.

Be honest.
You really want a game that plays itself. Right?

Can you argue without making stupid and baseless comments like that? I don't think the Mako was the best thing ever so therefore I must hate RPGs?

Baseless? 
You "forgot" that the cookie cutter planets are limited to optional side missions. Absolutely optional, and not necessary to get the "best ending". 
Unlike ME3. 
And yet! They offer additional content, exploration and even proper side missions. 
Unlike ME3.
In the story important missions the MAKO (together with additional hubworlds) is an essential part of the experience and has unique map design, (skyhighway on feros, the huge catacombs on Ilos...)   And why is this so? Because the MAKO is an essential part of the RPG experience. Your a frickin commander onboard your own ship. Of course you should be able to drive the MAKO yourself.   

What does ME3 offer instead? Nothing. 
In other words, smaller corridor maps with GoW style interaction. 

But this has been mentioned in this thread many times. 

So ME3 has better looks, and fancier design... but aside from cutting features, that could have been easily improved, what did it add to the series? What makes it an immersive RPG?

P.s.: Yes, the probing missions are dull AND necessary.

[Iakus]

xsdob wrote...
@iakus, the only problem with your post is my assessment is not an overgeneralization on anything. The mako's constant flipping over, skidding off of roads, long omnigel repair cycles, and it's needs requiring that every planet be composed entirely of mountain ranges and requiring there to be masses of duplicate items so omnigel supplies could be continuously feed, make it a broken system to me. And I was only speaking for myself.

I have played ME1 literally more times than I can count and never had a problem with the Mako "constantly flipping over" and the times that it did flip, it would automatically right itself.  Nor did I have problems with sliding off roads.  I admit that paths were sometimes difficult to see, though.  Long omnigel repair cycles?  Don't get hit!  Heck I rarely used the scope/crosshairs on the cannon, since that made combat too easy.

Lke I said, I liked the Mako.  It was something different than simply riunning down corridors gunning down anything that moved.  I liked checking out anomolies.  I liked searching for paths.  I liked having a different style of combat, and I liked feeling like I was on an alien world, a wide spacious setting that wasn't some claustrophobic hallway.

[xsdob]

Yes, a combat style of tap a button to jump over enemy fire while shooting at them. Rinse, repeat, do until enemy dies. But to me 15 seconds is a long time to stay paralyzed while rocket troopers, colussus's, and worse of all turrets, rain down hell on you becuase you happened to be an inch out of frame for the mountain side or ridge to cover you. My experience with the mako in all my 10 playthroughs of mass effect can be sumed up with the simple word of "unpleasant". Though fortunately it seems my experience was not shared, since I wouldn't wish it on anyone.