97 réponses à ce sujet

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Terminator 800 wrote...

Which was late December and they wouldnt cut something like that that close to their going gold.

They went gold a week or so after that

So it wasn't a review...

Remember the embargo people saw this content a while before their articles were allowed to be released...

And 1up never saw the actual vehicle or anything, just noted a hangar labeled Hammerhead... Hardly compelling.

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 18 janvier 2010 - 07:54 .

[ViSeiRa]

crimzontearz wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...

What about you skepticism?

I mean you really believe what  you wrote in your OP. then why write it at all if you don't want evidence to convince you otherwise, and the problem is that evidence were provided and you still rant about it being wrong.

A review is "evidence"...faulty as it may be because as some pointed out the "embargo" may be in vigor and/or all developers missed the Hammerhead (both unlilely but possible)

a developer saying  "we cannot reveal anything right now....but we will let you know...it's awesome" is definitely no evidence, which is what we got so far aside for an interview with with Doc Muzyka where he says something about reworking the Mako's controls several months ago

A review is "hardly" evidence, reviewers rush to meet deadlines, they most likely skipped side missions that includes using the pilotable vehicle.

The fact that no developer said "no" is as close to the truth as it gets, now if you consider a review that mentions the existence of a drop ship evidence of the lack of another then you really need to keep up with more gaming news.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

ViSeirA wrote...


A review is "hardly" evidence, reviewers rush to meet deadlines, they most likely skipped side missions that includes using the pilotable vehicle.

What you're saying is that a review is hardly proof. It is evidence. Of course it's evidence... Not proof, evidence.

[crimzontearz]

ViSeirA wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...

What about you skepticism?

I mean you really believe what  you wrote in your OP. then why write it at all if you don't want evidence to convince you otherwise, and the problem is that evidence were provided and you still rant about it being wrong.

A review is "evidence"...faulty as it may be because as some pointed out the "embargo" may be in vigor and/or all developers missed the Hammerhead (both unlilely but possible)

a developer saying  "we cannot reveal anything right now....but we will let you know...it's awesome" is definitely no evidence, which is what we got so far aside for an interview with with Doc Muzyka where he says something about reworking the Mako's controls several months ago

A review is "hardly" evidence, reviewers rush to meet deadlines, they most likely skipped side missions that includes using the pilotable vehicle.

The fact that no developer said "no" is as close to the truth as it gets, now if you consider a review that mentions the existence of a drop ship evidence of the lack of another then you really need to keep up with more gaming news.

actually I consider several reviews in which is confirmed the existance of a dropship AND the lack of the Hammerhead

please, as much as I respect the Bioware team I refuse to take all they say as  gold, not after the whole ME1 post release ordeal

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Terminator 800 wrote...

You believe what you will. I'm not going to try and convince anyone otherwise.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that the HH doesn't exist. I'm merely pointing out that we don't have enough information to know for sure.

For all we know "Hammerhead" was the codename for the Kodiak dropship, but they changed it to Kodiak because it didn't reflect the theme of the first Mako.

Just saying, you're allowed to be confident, but take the evidence with a grain of salt because there's plenty of room for you to be mistaken.

[ViSeiRa]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...


A review is "hardly" evidence, reviewers rush to meet deadlines, they most likely skipped side missions that includes using the pilotable vehicle.

What you're saying is that a review is hardly proof. It is evidence. Of course it's evidence... Not proof, evidence.

Finding evidence leads to proof, They're not the same but they're related, not finding evidence doesn't lead to proof, it's not the same thing.

Not finding  enough evidence to support the existence of the HammerHead doesn't mean it doesn't, period.

Modifié par ViSeirA, 18 janvier 2010 - 08:06 .

[Zomg_A_Chicken]

I want a hover tank

Modifié par Zomg_A_Chicken, 18 janvier 2010 - 08:06 .

[marshalleck]

I think it may be DLC. They've said they'd talk about it this week, and they've also said they'd talk about DLC this week. 2+2=4.



But I could well be wrong.

[DarthCaine]

It won't be the first time BioWare lied. You wouldn't believe all the stuff they said about ME1. They tend to overhype their games

[EJon]

It won't be DLC. It's probably the Kodiak because the OXM review said that you will be dropped off to any location with it, and how you can't drive it. Obviously theres no Mako typed vehicle in this game, and good riddance.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

ViSeirA wrote...

Finding evidence leads to proof, They're not the same but they're related, not finding evidence doesn't lead to proof, it's not the same thing.

Not finding  enough evidence to support the existence of the HammerHead doesn't mean it doesn't.

We have sources that imply the Hammerhead doesn't exist.  That's evidence.  These multiple reviews that say or imply there is no pilotable vehicle = evidence showing it might not exist.

[Detsu]

Everyone overhypes everything. I agree that the reviews are probably true and that vehicle gameplay has been shunted into the DLC lane.

[Br0th3rGr1mm]

Reviewers can be TOLD not to reveal certain details of a game the Dev wants to remain "hidden". I'm guessing the Hammerhead (or whatever the hovercraft is named) is only being used in specific main story missions and the reviewers were kindly asked NOT to mention it until after release (or Bioware makes some sort of pre-release reveal of it.

DarthCaine wrote...
It won't be the first time BioWare lied. You wouldn't believe all the stuff they said about ME1. They tend to overhype their games

Chaging their design direction without making an announcement is not hte same as lying....grow up.  I'm not even sure a Dev CAN overhype their own game...that's the media's job.

Modifié par Br0th3rGr1mm, 18 janvier 2010 - 08:13 .

[crimzontearz]

Br0th3rGr1mm wrote...

Reviewers can be TOLD not to reveal certain details of a game the Dev wants to remain "hidden". I'm guessing the Hammerhead (or whatever the hovercraft is named) is only being used in specific main story missions and the reviewers were kindly asked NOT to mention it until after release (or Bioware makes some sort of pre-release reveal of it.

I could agree with that

of course tho some reviews did not "omitt" the info

they flat out said it did not exist, although if THAT was the case I'd not be miffed at all 

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Br0th3rGr1mm wrote...

Reviewers can be TOLD not to reveal certain details of a game the Dev wants to remain "hidden". I'm guessing the Hammerhead (or whatever the hovercraft is named) is only being used in specific main story missions and the reviewers were kindly asked NOT to mention it until after release (or Bioware makes some sort of pre-release reveal of it.

If that's the case then they wouldn't directly deny its existence. Apparently that one review says Shepard will always be on foot. That's a denial of the vehicle, not an avoidance of revealing it.

[ammit23]

Almost every video so far has shown a drop-off vehicle with rotating engine and hover-style abilities. That the new replacement for Mako?



At times I didn't enjoy Mako, especially on primary missions. Too slow, rather fight on foot. But side quests, climing insane moutains for no reason but for the fun of it, that's the utility of the Mako!

[AerykN7]

As fascinating as this discussion is, if I do not drive a Hammerhead in game myself - then I will say it does not exist.

[ViSeiRa]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...

Finding evidence leads to proof, They're not the same but they're related, not finding evidence doesn't lead to proof, it's not the same thing.

Not finding  enough evidence to support the existence of the HammerHead doesn't mean it doesn't.

We have sources that imply the Hammerhead doesn't exist.  That's evidence.  These multiple reviews that say or imply there is no pilotable vehicle = evidence showing it might not exist.

There you said it, "implied"

[Mystranna Kelteel]

ViSeirA wrote...

There you said it, "implied"

I'm talking about multiple sources here. 

The OXM implies it.
360 Gamer says there are no exploration vehicles.
Both support each other, both are valid pieces of evidence.

[ViSeiRa]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...

There you said it, "implied"

I'm talking about multiple sources here. 

The OXM implies it.
360 Gamer says there are no exploration vehicles.
Both support each other, both are valid pieces of evidence.

And both are non-official sources.

[EJon]

There is no Mako typed vehicle. Think about it - these new side quest planets aren't like the ones in ME1 where its an uninhabited flat/mountain area. These new planets are unique, featuring forests, mountains, sand dunes, etc.. They also have unique missions with each of them. The Kodiak will drop you off at a "point of interest" instead of you driving around to it. The Mako serves a purpose in ME1, but not in ME2 where you have a dropship drop you off at your destination.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

ViSeirA wrote...

And both are non-official sources.

So? It's still evidence. Again, we're not talking proof.

[Detsu]

ViSeirA wrote...
And both are non-official sources.

It's funny that you think this negates the point.

Two reviews both saying "no vehicles" is a very good reason to assume that there are no vehicles. You can maintain hope if you want, but don't mistakenly think that your wishes have any affect on reality.