134 réponses à ce sujet

[Hrungr]

Err...I get the feeling you don't work with technology, do you?

 

i think pretty much any really competent engineer will tell you to it's always best to use the simpliest possible method to solve the problem you need to solve. Simple solutions to simple problems.There is a LOT of poorly designed modern 'technology' around that doesn't make life easier or better at all. It really just creates frustrations and drains resources, but people are suckered into buying it because having a touchscreen or a motor stuck to everything they own makes them feel like Iron Man, even though a simplier and much cheaper solution would often do a far better job. A lot of what most people implicitly think is 'technology' isn't designed to solve problems, it's designed to look flashy.

 

Why on Earth wouldn't wheels exist? They're inexpensive, reliable, and effective. They excel at the job they're designed to do.

 

Your argument makes no sense - in the ME universe you have readily-available, highly maneuverable, VTOL, hover-capable flying vehicles - from cars to starships. There's simply no reason to roll around in a wheeled vehicle, limited by the terrain. And for planetary exploration, it makes even less sense to hamper yourself with a wheeled vehicle. Unless you like rolling around on planet surfaces for... fun?

[BabyPuncher]

First of all, starships are not 'readily avaliable.' Not remotely. Nearly all science fiction plays fast and loose with that for the sake of getting its characters into space and into action, but they expense involved in engineering a vehicle that could withstand leaving and entering atmosphere, high speed space travel, and supporting human life would be very significant. I've read some experts basically saying that there's a decent liklihood civilians will never own space vehicles and that even very, very, very modest advanced spacecraft could easily be on the same magnitude of cost as an aircraft carrier. 

 

Second all, there's any number of reasons why a wheeled vehicle might be better at transporting humans around where they need to go. It could be an issue of cost. (Since we know these vehicles require an eezo core by default and wheeled vehicles obviously do not.) It could be an issue of ruggedness. (Flying vehicles are pretty much always going to be more fragile) It could be an issue of reliability. (Ground vehicles require far less maintenance and can function in enviroments flying vehicles cannot.) Could be an issue of safety.

 

We have the technology today to manufacturer helicopters not much larger than modern cars. Perhaps even as small as modern cars or smaller. Certainly a great deal faster. They would meet all the requirements you listed - certainly more 'readily avaliable' than starships. And yet cars are not obsolete.

[Hrungr]

I mentioned something similiar in a post above yours. But agreed soooooo much. Now i know thier trying to make ME:N more in the mould of ME1(a mistake imo. A regressive move) so perhaps in an effort to pander too/appease the section of the fanbase, the rpg snobs who view ME1 as the only rpg in & best of the series with the best "exploration"(if you can call what ME1 did as exploration, one cannot imo)..they included the mako?.

 

But as you and I have mentioned(its nice to know im not the only one who noticed this): The Mako is in a way quite obsolete in its own universe. It doesn't make sense to be there. Its inclusion comes across like the devs were too unoriginal in ideas and didn't want to rock the boat, so simply have decided to retread old ground. Why come up with something new & more sensical/fitting with the setting when you can use something with a template already in place, right?.

 

What I would expect in a ME universe is planetary exploration being conducted in a style more similar to... say, the game Descent. Their ships seem to have similar maneuverability. Fly high or skim across the ground, hover or simply set down where you want...

[AlanC9]

First of all, starships are not 'readily avaliable.' Not remotely. Nearly all science fiction plays fast and loose with that for the sake of getting its characters into space and into action, but they expense involved in engineering a vehicle that could withstand leaving and entering atmosphere, high speed space travel, and supporting human life would be very significant. I've read some experts basically saying that there's a decent liklihood civilians will never own space vehicles and that even very, very, very modest advanced spacecraft could easily be on the same magnitude of cost as an aircraft carrier. 
 
Second all, there's any number of reasons why a wheeled vehicle might be better at transporting humans around where they need to go. It could be an issue of cost. (Since we know these vehicles require an eezo core by default and wheeled vehicles obviously do not.) It could be an issue of ruggedness. (Flying vehicles are pretty much always going to be more fragile) It could be an issue of reliability. (Ground vehicles require far less maintenance and can function in enviroments flying vehicles cannot.) Could be an issue of safety.
 
We have the technology today to manufacturer helicopters not much larger than modern cars. Perhaps even as small as modern cars or smaller. Certainly a great deal faster. They would meet all the requirements you listed - certainly more 'readily avaliable' than starships. And yet cars are not obsolete.

This would make a lot more sense if you could come up with a reason why our ME4 PC will have a cheap, second-best alternative.

[Ajensis]

I think my biggest issue with the Mako is it's very existence in an age where flying cars, shuttles and spaceships are commonplace.

 

Why does a wheeled vehicle even exist in this era?

 

It's like firing up Need for Speed... but you have to drive a horse and buggy. Ever since I made my first planetary drop in ME1, I wondered, "Why am I in this thing?" "Why am I slowly grinding and crashing my way over these poorly-rendered mountains?" "Just gimme one of those flying cars - I'll lean out the window and shoot!"

 

And that goes for the hovercraft as well - we have flying cars/shuttles with excellent maneuverability... why would you build a simple hover-vehicle?

 

I get that rolling around on alien planets can, in theory, be fun. Maybe it will be omg-this-is-awesome in ME-Next... but it will never make sense to me.

 

A post above already touches upon it, but I think the main argument is that harsh environments could potentially impact the engines of a hover-vehicle. So although it would seem easier and faster, it would also increase the risk. Better to be on the safe side, particularly when the focus is on exploration; sky cars and its ilk are great for civilized areas, but for more primitive worlds, a more primitive approach works better.

At least that's how I explain it in my head

[KaiserShep]

Err...I get the feeling you don't work with technology, do you?

 

i think pretty much any really competent engineer will tell you to it's always best to use the simpliest possible method to solve the problem you need to solve. Simple solutions to simple problems.There is a LOT of poorly designed modern 'technology' around that doesn't make life easier or better at all. It really just creates frustrations and drains resources, but people are suckered into buying it because having a touchscreen or a motor stuck to everything they own makes them feel like Iron Man, even though a simplier and much cheaper solution would often do a far better job. A lot of what most people implicitly think is 'technology' isn't designed to solve problems, it's designed to look flashy.

 

Why on Earth wouldn't wheels exist? They're inexpensive, reliable, and effective. They excel at the job they're designed to do.

 

Well, this kind of goes to the inconsistency of the MEU itself. Mass effect technology is so ubiquitous that even basic household appliances use it. Not a single civilian vehicle throughout the entire trilogy seem to use them, but then we have wildcat rovers just laying about desolate worlds. Weapons that collapse are a needless complication, yet every damn weapon seems to do it. Engineering is so ridiculous that these frivolous designs are now somehow practical within that universe. Things that hover or use holographic tools to interact with objects are used to such a degree that things with wheels just seem incongruous. 

[BabyPuncher]

This would make a lot more sense if you could come up with a reason why our ME4 PC will have a cheap, second-best alternative.

 

The ultimate reason why the game goes with any option it goes with is fun. As Mr. Hendricks more or less implied, 'real' large scale exploration at the level of technology we see is pretty unlikely to have any human presence at all, flying or not.

 

That being said, why is unreasonable that our protagonist not have the best of everything?

[BabyPuncher]

Well, this kind of goes to the inconsistency of the MEU itself. Mass effect technology is so ubiquitous that even basic household appliances use it. Not a single civilian vehicle throughout the entire trilogy seem to use them, but then we have wildcat rovers just laying about desolate worlds. Weapons that collapse are a needless complication, yet every damn weapon seems to do it. Engineering is so ridiculous that these frivolous designs are now somehow practical within that universe. Things that hover or use holographic tools to interact with objects are used to such a degree that things with wheels just seem incongruous. 

 

First of all, I'm pretty certain it says somewhere or other civilian vehicles do use it? I know it says the Kodiak does in the codex. And what appliances are using it besides Traynor's toothbrush which is started to be extremely expensive?

 

But in any case, such 'inconsistencies' are in fact incredibly consistent with how technology in the real world actually functions and looks. And that's without dozens of differerent races and whatnot bringing their designs to the table. There's no end of frivolous crap in the real world.

 

That being said, I'm not particularly fond of the interfaces and omnitools and would not be at all upset to see them heavily redesigned. And while I don't think the collapsable weapons are all that cool, I really fail to see what makes you think they're so awful when plenty of weapons are built with collapsable and detachable parts in the real world, which are very practical. Obviously, it's rather silly that characters sometimes don't extend them until right before they anticipate combat, but that's not really about the weapons themselves.

 

What bothers me much more is that the weapons lack sights, although that's, again, par for the course for science fiction. It also might have to do with the game being a third person shooter.

[Hrungr]

A post above already touches upon it, but I think the main argument is that harsh environments could potentially impact the engines of a hover-vehicle. So although it would seem easier and faster, it would also increase the risk. Better to be on the safe side, particularly when the focus is on exploration; sky cars and its ilk are great for civilized areas, but for more primitive worlds, a more primitive approach works better.

At least that's how I explain it in my head

 

Well, I do hope they will have some explanation (even better if it's a plausible one ) as to why we aren't zipping around in shuttles across the planets we're exploring. But hopefully a more reasonable one that simply having every planet somehow having environments hazardous to ME flying vehicles, but not the Mako... which still has to get to and from the planet surface, somehow.

[Ajensis]

Well, I do hope they will have some explanation (even better if it's a plausible one ) as to why we aren't zipping around in shuttles across the planets we're exploring. But hopefully a more reasonable one that simply having every planet somehow having environments hazardous to ME flying vehicles, but not the Mako... which still has to get to and from the planet surface, somehow.

 

It doesn't have to be every planet whose environment is hazardous, just the possibility that it is but yes, the Mako relies on its thrusters too... Then again, if you delve this deeply into the technical aspects, most things in Mass Effect will stop looking sensible.

 

Suspension of disbelief is your friend, as always