841 réponses à ce sujet

[DaemionMoadrin]

The Mako was superior to the Hammerhead, which was a just a shiny toy with blinking lights on the outside. Never could take it seriously, despite the vastly improved mobility.

[Hiemoth]

I always thought the Mako was a fun concept that just fell short on execution at times. I'm glad to see it return, as I thought it being cut was an overreaction to criticism. 

 

 agreed. Instead of using criticism in a constructive manner, BW just throws the baby out with the bathwater. Hopefully they've learned something.

 

I'm not certain I agree with this, at least to a point. For me, the main reason Mako was removed was because they restructured exploration so that it was more confined to specific instead of being driving around in vast areas. Hence, no need for the Mako anymore, which is very different than just throwwing away the baby with bathwater.

 

As for the Hammerhead, I didn't necessarily like that much, but even there it wasn't something for exploration. The Hammerhead missions were meant to a combat/driving experience in themselves instead of just driving around and something Mako would have been even more horrendeous in those.

[Mcfly616]

I'm not certain I agree with this, at least to a point. For me, the main reason Mako was removed was because they restructured exploration so that it was more confined to specific instead of being driving around in vast areas. Hence, no need for the Mako anymore, which is very different than just throwwing away the baby with bathwater.

 Guess you missed the part where they removed exploration too. Considering we spent the entirety of the sequels running down narrow corridors, they certainly did throw the baby out with the bathwater. And it had everything to do with the criticism they received for the wonky Mako mechanics and the bland cookie-cutter landscapes we were given to explore in ME1.

 

 

So what'd they do? Took away the vehicle and had us traverse missions through claustrophobic hallways. The epitome of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There was no restructuring of features. Just the complete disregard of them.

[Sidney]

I think you have an exceptional forgiving definition of exploration if driving across all look same world to a point marked on your map is exploration.

Frankly for all the RPG ludditiism on these boards the bizarre affection for a game element that tossed out, other than a small recharge bonus on shields, all RPG elements in favor of low rent GTA driving skills and action-y third tier Twisted Metal combat and made it required to complete the story is shocking.

[Sidney]

The Mako was superior to the Hammerhead, which was a just a shiny toy with blinking lights on the outside. Never could take it seriously, despite the vastly improved mobility.

The MAKO was as bad as the Hammerhead in that both were terribly awful vehicles to drive or fight in. The hammerhead bothered me less because I was in a lot less of my time although on a per minute feeling of wanting to toss my controller through the TV the Hammerhead might have a slight edge.

[In Exile]

The Mako is an abomination. The controls were horrible. The segments for the story were uninspired corridors. As a combat vehicle it was almost immediately inferior to going on foot; the XP penalty made going on foot worth it from the start. By the time you got e.g. immunity and other equal tiee abilities the Mako became an outright dud.

[themikefest]

Driving the mako on  pc was bad, When ME1 came out on ps3, I liked it a lot better since it made it easier to drive with using a controller

[Mcfly616]

I think you have an exceptional forgiving definition of exploration if driving across all look same world to a point marked on your map is exploration.
 

 You should probably direct your thoughts towards those that think the sequels had anything in the realm of exploration. 

 

 

As for ME1, driving across alien landscapes, finding crashed probes, remains of explorers and pirate bases, that's more exploration than we got in the sequels regardless of how bland and similar they were.  

 

 

And once again, just because it's bland and clunky doesn't mean it was a poor concept that should be completely disregarded instead of taking the criticism and realizing the full potential of a good concept. Hmm the Mako handled terribly and the planets were all the same.....well, make the Mako more fluid and diversify the planets whilst adding more varied content to them. Not hard to comprehend. Well, clearly for some it is...

[DaemionMoadrin]

The MAKO was as bad as the Hammerhead in that both were terribly awful vehicles to drive or fight in. The hammerhead bothered me less because I was in a lot less of my time although on a per minute feeling of wanting to toss my controller through the TV the Hammerhead might have a slight edge.

 

The Mako at least was designed as a proper vehicle, the Hammerhead had status indicator lights on the outside where a driver couldn't see it. It also had no landing gear and set down resting on the turbines, which means each time you stopped, you actually crash landed. Oh, and you didn't even get a display of your shields and armor, which also miraculously regenerated after taking damage. The Hammerhead missions were more about jumping platforms than anything else.

 

Did the Mako suck? Sure did. The physics of it were off, it behaved like a bouncy ball no matter what you did or what the local gravity was like. It had proper weapons and could soak up damage though.

Of course, going on foot resulted in vastly more exp, so it wasn't all that useful later on. But as a concept it worked much better than the Hammerhead.

[Il Divo]

I think you have an exceptional forgiving definition of exploration if driving across all look same world to a point marked on your map is exploration.

Frankly for all the RPG ludditiism on these boards the bizarre affection for a game element that tossed out, other than a small recharge bonus on shields, all RPG elements in favor of low rent GTA driving skills and action-y third tier Twisted Metal combat and made it required to complete the story is shocking.

 

The problem for me came down to there being absolutely nothing I enjoyed about the exploration. Each planet had one base to land on, clearly identified on the map, with 2 rooms filled with a few enemies and that was the extent of it. The rest came down to Salarian Medallions and ME1 inventory (which I despised).

 

It comes down to bad exploration (ME1) vs no exploration (ME2), I'd rather Bioware not place resources towards a feature that actively detracts from my enjoyment. The question now is whether ME:A can do exploration sufficiently well. 

 

All imo, of course.

[Hiemoth]

 Guess you missed the part where they removed exploration too. Considering we spent the entirety of the sequels running down narrow corridors, they certainly did throw the baby out with the bathwater. And it had everything to do with the criticism they received for the wonky Mako mechanics and the bland cookie-cutter landscapes we were given to explore in ME1.

 

 

So what'd they do? Took away the vehicle and had us traverse missions through claustrophobic hallways. The epitome of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There was no restructuring of features. Just the complete disregard of them.

 

Yes, I missed it to the degree I pointed it out that I mentioned it in my comment you replying to.

 

And no, them removing the exploration content you are speaking of had little to do with the Mako controls, what it had everything to do with was resource management. During the development of ME2, they explicitely explained how they wanted to switch the focus on exploration, that instead of having those empty maps to drive with identical bunkers, they wanted each map and world you land to feel different. Hence the switch in resource management of creating those unique locations with smaller maps instead of what we got in ME1. I am utterly baffled by this indication of claustrophic hallways in ME2/3, because that is literally what we had in ME1 as well when we were not in the damn vehicles. When we were in the vehicles, we were essentially on empty worlds.

 

It is resource management, plain and simple, and by the way almost literally restructuring the features. Throwing the baby with bathwater would have been removing new locations completely and focus on a single space. What we instead got was unique worlds with smaller maps and lack of vehicles.

[Sidney]

The Mako at least was designed as a proper vehicle, the Hammerhead had status indicator lights on the outside where a driver couldn't see it. It also had no landing gear and set down resting on the turbines, which means each time you stopped, you actually crash landed. Oh, and you didn't even get a display of your shields and armor, which also miraculously regenerated after taking damage. The Hammerhead missions were more about jumping platforms than anything else.
 
Did the Mako suck? Sure did. The physics of it were off, it behaved like a bouncy ball no matter what you did or what the local gravity was like. It had proper weapons and could soak up damage though.
Of course, going on foot resulted in vastly more exp, so it wasn't all that useful later on. But as a concept it worked much better than the Hammerhead.

Well the indicator lights were a feed off of how excited people were dead space had "in game" shield and health indicators rather than a HUD. That's gamey and stupid. When you talk about Hammerhead problems frankly you forgot the hovering over a yellow circle to pick up something being harder than most other tasks because it inexplicably wobbled all over the place. I think I failed at picking crap up more than anything.

The MAKOs weapons were pretty bad especially if you were not on level ground then the recticle didn't actually point at what you were shooting at. Conceptually the idea of a rolling planetary exploration vehicle makes no sense - cliffs, oceans, rivers, mountains. Flight would have been a better answer and given that the Normandy flies in the atmosphere the real world reason you don't fly (like lift) don't seem to matter.

[Sidney]

The problem for me came down to there being absolutely nothing I enjoyed about the exploration. Each planet had one base to land on, clearly identified on the map, with 2 rooms filled with a few enemies and that was the extent of it. The rest came down to Salarian Medallions and ME1 inventory (which I despised).
 
It comes down to bad exploration (ME1) vs no exploration (ME2), I'd rather Bioware not place resources towards a feature that actively detracts from my enjoyment. The question now is whether ME:A can do exploration sufficiently well. 
 
All imo, of course.

Im yet to see exploration done well, period. The scale is always wrong in Skyrim or DAI where stuff is way, way too close together. I mean look at the map of Skyrim to see how much crap is crammed into it. It makes the world feel the exact opposite of big,mint feel insanely claustrophobic because you can't walk 2 minutes without tripping over a lost temple, haunted barrow or herd of giants.

[Mcfly616]

 

During the development of ME2, they explicitely explained how they wanted to switch the focus on exploration, that instead of having those empty maps to drive with identical bunkers, they wanted each map and world you land to feel different. Hence the switch in resource management of creating those unique locations with smaller maps instead of what we got in ME1. 

 

 Yes, unique and different hallways. You can have them. I'll take ME1's big empty alien landscapes. Much better than the sequels approach of herding us like cattle from point A to point B or treating us like mice in an extremely linear maze throughout the entirety of the game. 

 

 

No worries though. Andromeda will see the return of vehicular exploration across vast landscapes. 

[In Exile]

The problem for me came down to there being absolutely nothing I enjoyed about the exploration. Each planet had one base to land on, clearly identified on the map, with 2 rooms filled with a few enemies and that was the extent of it. The rest came down to Salarian Medallions and ME1 inventory (which I despised).

It comes down to bad exploration (ME1) vs no exploration (ME2), I'd rather Bioware not place resources towards a feature that actively detracts from my enjoyment. The question now is whether ME:A can do exploration sufficiently well.

All imo, of course.

There was nothing to explore. When all the content is identical - with only the location of the obstacle being varied and the skin of the location being a little different - you're not "exploring".

[In Exile]

Yes, unique and different hallways. You can have them. I'll take ME1's big empty alien landscapes. Much better than the sequels approach of herding us like cattle from point A to point B or treating us like mice in an extremely linear maze throughout the entirety of the game.


No worries though. Andromeda will see the return of vehicular exploration across vast landscapes.

ME1s maps are just rat mazes. In fact, that's what every single video game map is - a rat maze of varying complexity. A maze isn't a corridor; mazes can be fun on their own.

[Hiemoth]

 Yes, unique and different hallways. You can have them. I'll take ME1's big empty alien landscapes. Much better than the sequels approach of herding us like cattle from point A to point B or treating us like mice in an extremely linear maze throughout the entirety of the game. 

 

 

No worries though. Andromeda will see the return of vehicular exploration across vast landscapes. 

 

Did you miss that part of ME1 where each bunker was a carbon copy of the other? Or where each mission required you to drive to a specific location with no impact on the route, since the maps themselves are empty?

 

You may like that, I would never argue that you shouldn't, but the claims are disingenious to the extreme.

[Mcfly616]

Did you miss that part of ME1 where each bunker was a carbon copy of the other? Or where each mission required you to drive to a specific location with no impact on the route, since the maps themselves are empty?

 

You may like that, I would never argue that you shouldn't, but the claims are disingenious to the extreme.

 I won't ask if you missed it, because it's blatantly obvious you missed the numerous times I clearly stated how bland and cookie-cutter and similar and empty ME1's planets were. Those claims are as genuine as they get. 

 

 

Your assertion that I claimed anything to the contrary is nothing more than your own delusion and/or manifestation.

[Spectr61]

First and foremost; get the basics right.

Optimize for all platforms, not just consoles. Example, DAI's PC port is a joke.

Get the netcode right, from the start. Example, DAIMP with it's multiple, legion, bugs/glitches.

Consistency and accountability.
Consistency - Make illegal all exploits, from reload cancelling (ME3)/attack animation cancelling (DAI), to missile glitching (ME3)/4 X XP glitch(DAI).
Accountability - Design a system to reliably catch, and then ban, cheaters.

Get the process right, then add beautiful content.

Else, like a silk hat on a pig.

[Fixers0]

There were two crucial elements that ME1's UNC Missions did undeniably better than ME2's and ME3's N7 assingements, and those were narrative and roleplaying.

 

One the narrative part most of ME1's sidequest had  a story of its own, one or multiple conversations, revelations, discoveries and decisions. ME2's N7 quest on the other were mostly just shooting galleries,  and above all extremely quiet: Shepard didn't talk at all, you're squadmates barely spoke and I didn't remember any of the NPC we encountered. Contrast this with ME1 were we had Corporal Toombs, Helena Blake Admiral Kahoku, Lord Darius and Major kyle.

 

The roleplaying point connects with the earlier said; At which point did ME2 N7 offer the player a conversation choice through the dialogue wheel, or any conversation for that matter: Zero times. The only two "decisions" I can remember were the missons involing the missile launch and the Cerberus operative, outside of that there is no interaction by the player other  runnin' and gunnin'. Once Again ME1 had use decide the fate of Toombs, Major Kyle, Helena Blake,  selling or keeping The data recovered from Cerberus, the Exogeni researchers who where cloning Thorian Creepers and to negotiate or fight with Lord Darius.

 

All of the above can easily be explained by the fact that nearly every N7 quest in ME2 were created and programmed soley by level desingers, no writers were involved at all.

[Mcfly616]

There were two crucial elements that ME1's UNC Missions did undeniably better than ME2's and ME3's N7 assingements, and those were narrative and roleplaying.

 

One the narrative part most of ME1's sidequest had  a story of its own, one or multiple conversations, revelations, discoveries and decisions. ME2's N7 quest on the other were mostly just shooting galleries,  and above all extremely quiet: Shepard didn't talk at all, you're squadmates barely spoke and I didn't remember any of the NPC we encountered. Contrast this with ME1 were we had Corporal Toombs, Helena Blake Admiral Kahoku, Lord Darius and Major kyle.

 

The roleplaying point connects with the earlier said; At which point did ME2 N7 offer the player a conversation choice through the dialogue wheel, or any conversation for that matter: Zero times. The only two "decisions" I can remember were the missons involing the missile launch and the Cerberus operative, outside of that there is no interaction by the player other  runnin' and gunnin'. Once Again ME1 had use decide the fate of Toombs, Major Kyle, Helena Blake,  selling or keeping The data recovered from Cerberus, the Exogeni researchers who where cloning Thorian Creepers and to negotiate or fight with Lord Darius.

 

All of the above can easily be explained by the fact that nearly every N7 quest in ME2 were created and programmed soley by level desingers, no writers were involved at all.

 Indeed. The N7 missions from ME2 were so disappointing after the little side stories we were treated to in ME1. Prepare your flameshield though. Many here view ME2's N7 missions to be the best side quests in the series. Even though they featured no dialogue, no choices, no story really to speak of. And on top of that, an immersion breaking "Mission Complete" screen with a rundown of your attained loot, creds, and xp.

[Il Divo]

Honestly, those narrative and role-playing elements were ruined by concentration density. Each quest required an excessive amount of effort for minimal narrative/role-playing content, to say nothing of their bland environments. KotOR and Jade Empire, in my opinion, handled side quests better than any other Bioware games largely for this reason. 

 

Personally, I would have cut out all of ME1's quests along with the ME2 N7 side quests, which were also extremely weak. 

[AlanC9]

Indeed. The N7 missions from ME2 were so disappointing after the little side stories we were treated to in ME1. Prepare your flameshield though. Many here view ME2's N7 missions to be the best side quests in the series. Even though they featured no dialogue, no choices, no story really to speak of. And on top of that, an immersion breaking "Mission Complete" screen with a rundown of your attained loot, creds, and xp.

I never understood why so many people got their panties in a twist over the Mission Complete screen. In PnP we handwave away routine stuff like heading back to base all the time.

[Grieving Natashina]

I ran into this in DA:I, but I find it a pretty basic mistake that I hope BioWare doesn't repeat.  I took some screenshots awhile back of my save folder.  The organization is about non-existent for character saves.

 

First, let's take a look at the DA2 folder:

Spoiler

See that?  Nice and neat, with each game having it's own character file.  ME, DA:O/DA2 and NWN all have folders set up like that.  It's really nice for making backups of save files, since you can tell who is who at a glance.

 

This is the DA:I save folder.  See if you can spot the mistake:

Spoiler

What a sodding disaster.  There is a way to tell what character is, if you check the last six digits of the save file.  C84A70 was my character Rowan.  Unless I want to go through and learn the code for every single character, making backups of just one character is not user friendly.  

 

I consider this a basic mistake of game design that I never want to see come back.  I hope that ME:A has character save files rather than throwing everything in a big mess like that.

[Mcfly616]

I never understood why so many people got their panties in a twist over the Mission Complete screen. In PnP we handwave away routine stuff like heading back to base all the time.

 I'm not sure about "panties in a twist" (always said "panties in a bunch"). Either way, I don't think either applies. I just think some people (such as myself) feel the N7 missions felt noticeably disconnected from the game and/or more importantly the world. The Mission Complete screen was just part of the pitfalls of an otherwise tacked on jaunt that didn't add anything of substance to the experience. It simply broke immersion even more.