It's not asking for less features I clearly said I'd prefer a Kodiak for flying instead of driving. I don't see the point in driving around in circles (with what looks to be a weaponless vehicle) when I could fly in a straight line or strafe targets/dodge AA guns.
It's MEU even taxi's can fly. Why go for something with wheels?
We dunno that wheels are all it's gonna have. It's early in development. I'm optimistic, but then I'm easy to please on this subject. If it's more Borderlands 2 and RAGE and less Duke Nukem Forever, I'll be happy. If we do get a Kodiak, I hope it's like Bullestorm, flying those little 'copters around.
I think everyone who wants to fly a Kodiak should read it's codex entry (again). "Flying brick" -sounds sooo fun [/downer]
Let's remove optional content and dumb down the game, yaaay!
From Gamespot - "Let The Mako Die"
We set out to argue why the return of Mass Effect's M-35 Mako is a bad idea, but all we got was this dumb montage.
'Flying brick'
With stealth systems, the ability to hover and a high powered mini turret for passengers who get bored with sight seeing.
It already sounds better. 
From Gamespot - "Let The Mako Die"
We set out to argue why the return of Mass Effect's M-35 Mako is a bad idea, but all we got was this dumb montage.
Yeah.........gamespot............speaking seriously about games though It's not the Mako per se that it is important but what represent...that meaning Exploration something that went away in ME2 and 3 and made the sequels just shooting galleries. I want to explore this damn galaxy being in the Mako, Hammerhead or whatever you want just make us do something other than just...shooting
Guys please, rejoice:
Mako is love, mako is life.
Never understood the complaint about it's controls. I can make that beauty dance.
Only ever played it on PC, so dunno any different, but I grew to love that old tank, and I never understood why we couldn't salvage it from Alchera. It looked mostly intact. Some parts of Overlord would have been a blast in the Mako.In the end, the Mako and I became a single entity that could climb and climb for days. That said, I suspect that PC users may have had the hardest time with it. On the PS3, I had a grand time with it.
There's no reason why planets cannot be procedurally generated, so different every playthrough with different missions per run.
Since you feel that way, I will make good on my previous offer.
Good for you.
How is it "already repeating a mistake from the Shepard trilogy?" The footage showed a version of the Mako that was noticeably faster and handled much better. The new design is visibly different and lacks a cannon, and, as I've mentioned before, there is an entirely new physics engine supporting it. There is plenty of proof that indicates that this new version will be different. You seem to assume that it will be just like the original Mako, or, as you called it, the "mistake from the Shepard trilogy."
Yes the ME1 vehicle was, "a mistake from the original trilogy" which a below post from BioWare clearly indicated. The footage of the Mako that we've seen shows only a concept for it and nothing even remotely close to a finished product which you are already declaring a success 
. There will have to be a lot more footage and explanation of the new vehicle to sufficiently judge it instead of jumping to conclusions.
It's "poor mobility, horrible physics," and more were due to the clunky game mechanics from Mass Effect one. Many of the original game's features were ambitious, but were poorly executed due to a lack of experience with the Unreal Engine. It's no secret that the original Mako was a mess. Even the so-called "passionate fans" will attest to that, but it was more so the idea of planetary exploration that was made it appealing.
I don't recall having any serious game mechanics issues that were much of a problem at all with the huge exception of the Mako. Planetary exploration is indeed appealing and without which Mass Effect could hardly be considered an RPG but the vehicle which facilitates said exploration needs to be done right.
While I agree with you here, I think this was due to the Hammerhead being an afterthought. It was a DLC exploration vehicle that was only used in Firewalker and Overlord missions. People complained about the Hammerhead almost as much as the Mako. That being said, I have no idea why there was no vehicle in Mass Effect 3.
The Hammerhead's only real flaw was it's severe lack of armor which was still far less of a frustration than the Mako's habit of getting stuck in crevices or crawling up a mountain only to slowly slip backwards. It would be very hard to honestly complain about the M-44 anywhere close as much as the Mako for what you yourself said, "It was a DLC exploration vehicle".
Actually, most pilots in the modern day military have to meet strict physical requirements since passing out during maneuvers is a real possibility. I believe Cortez mentions something similar when he talks about his days flying a Trident. While I would love to see space combat in the new games, I fail to see how this is relevant to the Mako discussion. The inclusion of the Mako in the next game does not indicate that space combat or any additional vehicles won't be included. This is why I said you were jumping to conclusions.
Well I'm going to assume that N7 operatives easily have the same if not far stricter physical requirements than pilots would but this is irrelevant since the spacecraft in the game have inertia dampeners. The inertia dampeners eliminate the risk of g-forces causing a pilot to black out and you'll notice that Cortez is never seen wearing a g-suit. The idea of discussion of a space vehicle is relevant to the Mako discussion because it's apart of the larger idea of exploration of the galaxy. There was nothing to indicate I jumped to conclusions and the idea of a space vehicle for exploration is something that would be different and exciting if pulled off well.
I think everyone who wants to fly a Kodiak should read it's codex entry (again). "Flying brick" -sounds sooo fun [/downer]
I'll be more than happy to fly this beauty:
Mass Effect 2 and 3 suffered greatly without true exploration. ME 1 at least tried with the mako even if it wasn't everybody's thing
I just don't understand why people assume the new Mako is going to be exactly like the old one. Does BioWare often bring back widely-disliked game elements without making any changes or improvements?
I loved the Mako exploration of planets, I didn't care for the controls but eventually figured best on how to make it work for me. The exploration of planets during ME2 was upgraded to better effect in 3 which I loved 3's style then transport down, but open like ME1 would be great. And flying the fighters would be awesome as well.
I just saw the SDCC demo footage. Personally, all three Mass Effects are in my top 15 games I've ever played, but ME1's several paces behind its sequels. Even still, the concept of going around on those uncharted worlds in the Mako is one of the best things about the franchise for me as a space opera diehard. Those skyboxes in the first game are just unrivaled. So when I saw this early design for a successor to that idea rushing down hills on an icy world, I'm not gonna lie: my heart skipped a beat.
Get this thing right, BioWare, and you have no idea how much joy you'll bring this fan.
Yes the ME1 vehicle was, "a mistake from the original trilogy" which a below post from BioWare clearly indicated. The footage of the Mako that we've seen shows only a concept for it and nothing even remotely close to a finished product which you are already declaring a success
Do I need to spell it out for you? I'm not disagreeing that the original Mako was flawed. I am, however, disagreeing with the statement that they are "repeating a mistake from the original trilogy." That very statement implies that it will be more or less, if not exactly the same as the Mako from Mass Effect. Nowhere do I declare the new Mako a "success," but I do remark that it is different and obviously so. So if it is different, how are they repeating the same mistake?
I don't recall having any serious game mechanics issues that were much of a problem at all with the huge exception of the Mako. Planetary exploration is indeed appealing and without which Mass Effect could hardly be considered an RPG but the vehicle which facilitates said exploration needs to be done right.
The Hammerhead's only real flaw was it's severe lack of armor which was still far less of a frustration than the Mako's habit of getting stuck in crevices or crawling up a mountain only to slowly slip backwards. It would be very hard to honestly complain about the M-44 anywhere close as much as the Mako for what you yourself said, "It was a DLC exploration vehicle".
Complaints are still complaints. However, there is far more design time and effort going into this new Mako, which gives it a pretty good chance to surpass the Hammerhead. That's just my opinion though.
Well I'm going to assume that N7 operatives easily have the same if not far stricter physical requirements than pilots would but this is irrelevant since the spacecraft in the game have inertia dampeners. The inertia dampeners eliminate the risk of g-forces causing a pilot to black out and you'll notice that Cortez is never seen wearing a g-suit. The idea of discussion of a space vehicle is relevant to the Mako discussion because it's apart of the larger idea of exploration of the galaxy. There was nothing to indicate I jumped to conclusions and the idea of a space vehicle for exploration is something that would be different and exciting if pulled off well.
Actually, you would be surprised. In the military, the physical requirements are incredibly strict, but different for spec ops and pilots. Due to the size of cockpits and jets, pilots generally have to meet a certain height and weight criteria. Spec Ops rarely have to worry about passing out due to a change in blood flow or getting dizzy.
The Kodiak was a flying brick with an inertial dampener. There was no need to wear a G-Suit. The Trident is fast, lightweight, and agile, capable of out maneuvering any other air or spacecraft. It was capable of putting the pilot through enough g-forces that they still needed to wear a g-suit regardless of inertial dampeners. That being said, I'd be stoked if we ever got to pilot one in game.
As for you jumping to conclusions, you did. Despite the new Mako being noticeably different, you're convinced that it will be no better than the previous incarnation -- an assumption you made without any sufficient evidence. And before you try saying that I am doing the same because you seem to think I am declaring the new Mako a "success," I am not. All we know about planetary exploration in the next Mass Effect is that the Mako is confirmed to return, that it is customizable, and that is different from the previous version. With this, we have no idea if it will be a success or a mistake, nor do we know if this will be the only exploration vehicle available to us. Regardless, you clearly say that "Bioware is already repeating a mistake from the original trilogy" despite having no way of knowing that. Making a definitive statement without a sufficient amount of evidence is, by definition, jumping to conclusions.
So I say again, with all due respect, you are jumping to conclusions.
It's MEU even taxi's can fly. Why go for something with wheels?
Two words: Goomba Stomp.
Guest_Magick_*
Never consider feelings for the Mako. All ME1 exploration planets looked the same with a different color scheme an terrain. Enjoyed different side stories and missions on planets. Exploration could of been better. Should of add more to planets than leaving them empty. As long as we have an efficient exploration vehicle with planets that possess places to explore then no complaints. Either way, you'll have my money Bioware.....if ME4 is worth it!
Do I need to spell it out for you? I'm not disagreeing that the original Mako was flawed. I am, however, disagreeing with the statement that they are "repeating a mistake from the original trilogy." That very statement implies that it will be more or less, if not exactly the same as the Mako from Mass Effect. Nowhere do I declare the new Mako a "success," but I do remark that it is different and obviously so. So if it is different, how are they repeating the same mistake?
There he goes again 
. I spelled it out for you in the first place in my original post. So far the only aspects of the next Mako that we know about is that it will be another wheeled vehicle and have a different appearance, that's it. The vehicle will be created on a different engine but derderer so will the entire game. Until more specific information comes out about the new Mako's abilities there is no guarantee it won't be as bad as the first. Also, just because someone doesn't have the same opinion as you doesn't mean you can take everything they say out of context to attempt to prove them wrong.
Maybe not yourself, but if you look at reviews for the original game, they're there. Slow loading textures, floaty targeting, dumb ai, and a few other things. The Mako was indeed a huge flaw, but the concept it represents is deserving of a second chance.
For it's day back in 2006/2007, these issues were common and thus for skilled gamers weren't a big issue. The most common complaint, however, was the Mako.
Actually, you would be surprised. In the military, the physical requirements are incredibly strict, but different for spec ops and pilots. Due to the size of cockpits and jets, pilots generally have to meet a certain height and weight criteria. Spec Ops rarely have to worry about passing out due to a change in blood flow or getting dizzy.
The Kodiak was a flying brick with an inertial dampener. There was no need to wear a G-Suit. The Trident is fast, lightweight, and agile, capable of out maneuvering any other air or spacecraft. It was capable of putting the pilot through enough g-forces that they still needed to wear a g-suit regardless of inertial dampeners. That being said, I'd be stoked if we ever got to pilot one in game.
Actually, I am not surprised being a veteran myself and having served with aviation and special operations units. Spec Ops have the highest physical and mental requirements of any in the military, even more than fighter pilots. Assuming a SEAL couldn't have the physical stamina to withstand g-forces that F-18 pilots can is silly.
As for you jumping to conclusions, you did.
Only because you want to believe I did. Go back and actually read my original post and use some objectivity, not just your opinion.
Retour en haut
