Ok... anyone who has seriously followed this thread knows that I live way out in the middle of nowhere in rural America, and communications technology in my part of the world is primative to say the least. Since moving out here, I have had to give up my broadband access, so staying on top of all the latest DLC is a major chore for me. Just this week I've finally gotten access to the Firewalker and Kasumi DLC packs, and have given them both a thorough runthrough. To sum up my feelings on these DLC packs, let's just say I was underwhelmed to the point of disappointment, and it causes me to seriously question whether or not to support paid ME DLC in the future. I knew going in to the DLC packs that their reception has been lukewarm at best, and certainly contoversial, but I don't like to lend credence to rumor and opinion if I can avoid it. I'll address Firewalker and Kasumi in seperate posts
Scarecrow’s Compendium of Proposals to BioWare for Mass Effect Gameplay Improvements (UPDATE 2)
Débuté par
Scarecrow_ES
, févr. 02 2010 09:23
-
Ce sujet est fermé
- Show only BioWare posts
Retour en haut
#602
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 02:07
Scarecrow_ES
-
- Members
- 436 messages
First, Firewalker and the Hammerhead Exploration Vehicle...
I'll start by saying I was entirely ambivoulent about ME1's Mako. The vehicle and related content had strengths and weaknesses that caused me to neither adore it nor hate it. The Mako had terrible controls, the exploration sections in which it was used were unfocused and largely uninteresting, and the level design of those sections was poor to the point of inducing significant frustration stemming simply from trying to navigate from one place to another.
With the Hammerhead, the Mako's strengths are now weaknesses, and it's weaknesses are the Hammerhead's strengths. As a result, I am no less ambivoulent toward the Hammerhead as a vehicle. However, given that significant time and resources were spent in delivering a DLC pack showcasing the new vehicle that proves to be little more than a glorified tech demo in public beta test guise, I have to express extreme disappointment in this package. Time would have been far better spent elsewhere.
The Hammerhead handles well enough. Control is smooth and responsive and rarely are you ever doing something you didn't intend - all things that couldn't be said of the Mako. Navigating the Hammerhead across terrain is a far less frustrating experience. I also have to say that I much prefer the more focused nature of exploration and combat scenarios the Hammerhead finds itself in to the largely random, open terrain exploration of the Mako. It simply makes more sense to have this kind of exploration than the former, though I certainly don't think that the design opportunities here were done justice in the Firewalker missions.
The Hammerhead does have its failings though... Its combat prowess is largely less than that of the Mako. The homing missile system is wonky at best, and is significantly inferior to the old cannon and machinegun setup of the Mako, which I'd have much preferred. The issue is, largely, that the missiles do pretty much whatever they want... not what YOU want. You can target one enemy, and they'll track another, and miss both.
The other issue is the gimmicky non-combat functionality of the HH. The boost system is a nice touch that is underutilized to the point of superflousness. Why have it at all if you're not going to ever need to use it? The scanning system is uninteresting and unneccessary, at least in the way it was presented. A better system would have had you pointing your targetting reticule at certain important areas within short range and scanning that way, getting rid of the silly "try to stay on top of this big glowing spot on the ground" nonsense. Then there's the jumping. I do prefer this method of vertical travel better than the short hops of the Mako, but I think the HH's jumps are far more... extravegant... than they need to be. There's more platforming in a Firewalker mission than in a Mario Brothers game. I love the way it was done, I just think we really need it to be less gimmicky. Less height and more duration.
But ultimately what ends up failing is the mission design. The way the missions are set up is good. The Mako shined best during story missions where you had to get from one place to the other, and the Hammerhead mission structure typifies the best of that. The problem is that you don't care about where you started or where you're going, and it's no fun getting there. The gimmicky nature of the HH's features lend themselves most readily to gimmicky mission tennats, and that's exactly what we ended up with in Firewalker.
The ideas of the missions were oft-times great. But you didn't really care why you were there... there wasn't a real rhyme or reason to it. Just start here, and drive there... the end. Maybe scan some stuff or blow up some Geth in between. In those rare occasions where you did get out of the HH during the mission, the ground sections were uninteresting, whereas the story missions with the Mako were more meaty than the Mako sections.
For the Hammerhead and it's missions to be a success, you reall need to feel as though there's a reason to be in the thing, beyond just gimmicky gameplay. Platforming is not that reason. I'd say keep the focused mission structure, but give the player some potatoes to go with the HH meat. We're obviously trying to get somewhere in that vehicle, so there should be a sense of accomplishment when we get there, and a feeling that we're just getting the mission started. Really this was a problem with virtually all the N7 missions as well. They were all short and uninteresting with no real point to them at all. The missions carried no weight.
Get rid of the gimmicky gameplay, keep the focused missions, and challenge the player with something more than hopping from platform to platform and holding a button down over obvious spots.
As such, the Firewalker DLC pack and Hammerhead vehicle would have been better left unpublished, and more attention given to other projects.
I'll start by saying I was entirely ambivoulent about ME1's Mako. The vehicle and related content had strengths and weaknesses that caused me to neither adore it nor hate it. The Mako had terrible controls, the exploration sections in which it was used were unfocused and largely uninteresting, and the level design of those sections was poor to the point of inducing significant frustration stemming simply from trying to navigate from one place to another.
With the Hammerhead, the Mako's strengths are now weaknesses, and it's weaknesses are the Hammerhead's strengths. As a result, I am no less ambivoulent toward the Hammerhead as a vehicle. However, given that significant time and resources were spent in delivering a DLC pack showcasing the new vehicle that proves to be little more than a glorified tech demo in public beta test guise, I have to express extreme disappointment in this package. Time would have been far better spent elsewhere.
The Hammerhead handles well enough. Control is smooth and responsive and rarely are you ever doing something you didn't intend - all things that couldn't be said of the Mako. Navigating the Hammerhead across terrain is a far less frustrating experience. I also have to say that I much prefer the more focused nature of exploration and combat scenarios the Hammerhead finds itself in to the largely random, open terrain exploration of the Mako. It simply makes more sense to have this kind of exploration than the former, though I certainly don't think that the design opportunities here were done justice in the Firewalker missions.
The Hammerhead does have its failings though... Its combat prowess is largely less than that of the Mako. The homing missile system is wonky at best, and is significantly inferior to the old cannon and machinegun setup of the Mako, which I'd have much preferred. The issue is, largely, that the missiles do pretty much whatever they want... not what YOU want. You can target one enemy, and they'll track another, and miss both.
The other issue is the gimmicky non-combat functionality of the HH. The boost system is a nice touch that is underutilized to the point of superflousness. Why have it at all if you're not going to ever need to use it? The scanning system is uninteresting and unneccessary, at least in the way it was presented. A better system would have had you pointing your targetting reticule at certain important areas within short range and scanning that way, getting rid of the silly "try to stay on top of this big glowing spot on the ground" nonsense. Then there's the jumping. I do prefer this method of vertical travel better than the short hops of the Mako, but I think the HH's jumps are far more... extravegant... than they need to be. There's more platforming in a Firewalker mission than in a Mario Brothers game. I love the way it was done, I just think we really need it to be less gimmicky. Less height and more duration.
But ultimately what ends up failing is the mission design. The way the missions are set up is good. The Mako shined best during story missions where you had to get from one place to the other, and the Hammerhead mission structure typifies the best of that. The problem is that you don't care about where you started or where you're going, and it's no fun getting there. The gimmicky nature of the HH's features lend themselves most readily to gimmicky mission tennats, and that's exactly what we ended up with in Firewalker.
The ideas of the missions were oft-times great. But you didn't really care why you were there... there wasn't a real rhyme or reason to it. Just start here, and drive there... the end. Maybe scan some stuff or blow up some Geth in between. In those rare occasions where you did get out of the HH during the mission, the ground sections were uninteresting, whereas the story missions with the Mako were more meaty than the Mako sections.
For the Hammerhead and it's missions to be a success, you reall need to feel as though there's a reason to be in the thing, beyond just gimmicky gameplay. Platforming is not that reason. I'd say keep the focused mission structure, but give the player some potatoes to go with the HH meat. We're obviously trying to get somewhere in that vehicle, so there should be a sense of accomplishment when we get there, and a feeling that we're just getting the mission started. Really this was a problem with virtually all the N7 missions as well. They were all short and uninteresting with no real point to them at all. The missions carried no weight.
Get rid of the gimmicky gameplay, keep the focused missions, and challenge the player with something more than hopping from platform to platform and holding a button down over obvious spots.
As such, the Firewalker DLC pack and Hammerhead vehicle would have been better left unpublished, and more attention given to other projects.
#603
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 02:38
Scarecrow_ES
-
- Members
- 436 messages
And now fo Kasumi... and really this applies to Zaeed too.
Kasumi is a very interesting character, a great addition to your team, and a completely wasted opportunity.
Both Kasumi, and Zaeed before her, are the final two crewmembers promised by BioWare since... jeez, how long has it been? But unlike every other recruitable member of your crew, these do not have a recruitment mission. They don't have conversation options outside of their loyalty mission. They exist on your ship, like other crewmembers, but you cannot interact with them as you can with other crewmembers. As a result, I feel like you end up caring far less about them than other crewmembers. Ultimately, you might say that the lack of conversation wheels and missions are just minor issues, but when your entire game is based around your relationships with these characters, the absense of a means to relate to them is a significant ommision.
You cannot argue that integrating these characters in as complete a way as your other crewmates would not have been possible for BioWare to achieve. Both Kasumi and Zaeed were planned and in the works well before ME2's release. But both have been released essentially half finished. This was largely annoying with Zaeed, who was released as free content, but it's inexcusable for Kasumi, who is a paid download. The player certainly doesn't get what he pays for with this character.
Her loyalty mission is done well enough. But ultimately there is no sense of attachment that you'd feel for your other crewmembers by the time you undertake it. You're given no opportunity to get to know her and get to care why you're there, and there's no real gravity to the outcome of the loyalty mission. I figure there is an excuse a BioWare that says that Zaeed and Kasumi are essentially hired mercs, and don't need all the pre-loyalty stuff, which gave them license to ignore it. However, most of your recruits are mercs, so I don't think that holds water.
I was very disappointed that you didn't get much time to spend with Thane, Samara, or Legion, as their recruitment came so late in the story. You didn't get the same opportunity to build a repoir with these characters as you did they others before taking on their loyalty missions, which led to them feeling much less an extension of friendship as a necessity of mission. Zaeed and Kasumi are far worse in this regard. You have no time to spend with either of these characters before their loyalty missions, and very little interaction of any substance afterward. They don't feel like part of the crew. Why would they risk their necks for a few credits in their pockets? Certainly your interactions with them don't provide enough reason.
And estabilishing that relationship could have been quite easy. Recruitment missions for both Zaeed and Kasumi could have been as simple as catching up to Zaeed during a particularly difficult bounty hunt and helping to track down his bounty as the means to free him up to be on your crew. For Kasumi, I'm sure you could have taken the Thane route... knowing that to find your recruit, you had to meet up at whatever thing she was after - maybe she's going to go steal something, and you've got to help her out, or track her, or something. Who knows.
Having that recruitment mission, complete with full dialog, would have gone a long way to establishing a connection to these characters that's sorely missing. Being able to have real meaningful conversations with these characters between missions in the same way you can with others would have helped as well. What surprises me is just how much dialog there really is for each character. But it's unlikely you'll ever hear most of it because it's largetly spouted at random just as you'll see in any of the random public NPC characters you can't interact with. Just like those, the dialog is presented to the universe at large, as if they're talking to themselves and not you. The more cinematic nature of your other character interactions only serves to highlight how much this is missed in Zaeed and Kasumi.
If I were the folks at BioWare, I never would have been comfortable releasing these characters as they've been presented. I'm not appauled... I don't believe it was done for greed... but perhaps lazyness, or apathy. The staff at BioWare is known for doing far better than this, and it's puzzling to me why they'd put this out there as it has been. Suffice it to say, the large DLC packs for ME2 haven't been up to the standards long held by the company. Thus I'm thoroughly disappointed.
Kasumi is a very interesting character, a great addition to your team, and a completely wasted opportunity.
Both Kasumi, and Zaeed before her, are the final two crewmembers promised by BioWare since... jeez, how long has it been? But unlike every other recruitable member of your crew, these do not have a recruitment mission. They don't have conversation options outside of their loyalty mission. They exist on your ship, like other crewmembers, but you cannot interact with them as you can with other crewmembers. As a result, I feel like you end up caring far less about them than other crewmembers. Ultimately, you might say that the lack of conversation wheels and missions are just minor issues, but when your entire game is based around your relationships with these characters, the absense of a means to relate to them is a significant ommision.
You cannot argue that integrating these characters in as complete a way as your other crewmates would not have been possible for BioWare to achieve. Both Kasumi and Zaeed were planned and in the works well before ME2's release. But both have been released essentially half finished. This was largely annoying with Zaeed, who was released as free content, but it's inexcusable for Kasumi, who is a paid download. The player certainly doesn't get what he pays for with this character.
Her loyalty mission is done well enough. But ultimately there is no sense of attachment that you'd feel for your other crewmembers by the time you undertake it. You're given no opportunity to get to know her and get to care why you're there, and there's no real gravity to the outcome of the loyalty mission. I figure there is an excuse a BioWare that says that Zaeed and Kasumi are essentially hired mercs, and don't need all the pre-loyalty stuff, which gave them license to ignore it. However, most of your recruits are mercs, so I don't think that holds water.
I was very disappointed that you didn't get much time to spend with Thane, Samara, or Legion, as their recruitment came so late in the story. You didn't get the same opportunity to build a repoir with these characters as you did they others before taking on their loyalty missions, which led to them feeling much less an extension of friendship as a necessity of mission. Zaeed and Kasumi are far worse in this regard. You have no time to spend with either of these characters before their loyalty missions, and very little interaction of any substance afterward. They don't feel like part of the crew. Why would they risk their necks for a few credits in their pockets? Certainly your interactions with them don't provide enough reason.
And estabilishing that relationship could have been quite easy. Recruitment missions for both Zaeed and Kasumi could have been as simple as catching up to Zaeed during a particularly difficult bounty hunt and helping to track down his bounty as the means to free him up to be on your crew. For Kasumi, I'm sure you could have taken the Thane route... knowing that to find your recruit, you had to meet up at whatever thing she was after - maybe she's going to go steal something, and you've got to help her out, or track her, or something. Who knows.
Having that recruitment mission, complete with full dialog, would have gone a long way to establishing a connection to these characters that's sorely missing. Being able to have real meaningful conversations with these characters between missions in the same way you can with others would have helped as well. What surprises me is just how much dialog there really is for each character. But it's unlikely you'll ever hear most of it because it's largetly spouted at random just as you'll see in any of the random public NPC characters you can't interact with. Just like those, the dialog is presented to the universe at large, as if they're talking to themselves and not you. The more cinematic nature of your other character interactions only serves to highlight how much this is missed in Zaeed and Kasumi.
If I were the folks at BioWare, I never would have been comfortable releasing these characters as they've been presented. I'm not appauled... I don't believe it was done for greed... but perhaps lazyness, or apathy. The staff at BioWare is known for doing far better than this, and it's puzzling to me why they'd put this out there as it has been. Suffice it to say, the large DLC packs for ME2 haven't been up to the standards long held by the company. Thus I'm thoroughly disappointed.
#604
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 02:40
kregano
-
- Members
- 794 messages
Well, for all we know, they plan to integrate the Hammerhead into an expansion pack or something, so logically Bioware would want player opinion on their new vehicle after the last one was criticised by so many people. Sure, there were some obvious things they should've caught before release (lack of a shield/health bar, the bad lock on, and the paperthin armor), but I'd rather know that Bioware was trying to improve on that aspect instead of sitting here and seeing several dozen threads about "Bioware doesn't care about vehivular exploration" threads in the general forum.Scarecrow_ES wrote...
With the Hammerhead, the Mako's strengths are now weaknesses, and it's weaknesses are the Hammerhead's strengths. As a result, I am no less ambivoulent toward the Hammerhead as a vehicle. However, given that significant time and resources were spent in delivering a DLC pack showcasing the new vehicle that proves to be little more than a glorified tech demo in public beta test guise, I have to express extreme disappointment in this package. Time would have been far better spent elsewhere.
#605
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 03:03
Sledge454
-
- Members
- 409 messages
Alright I give up. I *deeply* apologize for trying to present my middling, pathetic ideas in front of the mighty font of ultimate greatness that is Scarecrow_ES. In fact I will throw away my copy of ME2 for like Wayne and Garth I am not worthy to play the same game as he.
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
#606
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 04:35
Scarecrow_ES
-
- Members
- 436 messages
Sledge... it's not like I didn't express interest in your idea... it's a good idea. What I said was it didn't work for Mass Effect. Don't be so melodramatic.
Kregano... for all we know, they aren't planning anything further with the Hammerhead. BioWare hasn't said word one on the issue, and with relatively poor reception for the Firewalker missions, I'd think BioWare would be looking hard at just why there's reason at all to invest in vehicular missions. I personally believe the Hammerhead could be a great addition to the next game, given it's potential. What I have to question is the decision to invest so much time and energy into something that's little more than a tech demo. Especially when you've got "incomplete" character packs, and a bevy of other controversial gameplay issues to work on - not to mention your sequel title.
But I get it... a small, dilusional, but extremely vocal group of people whines about not liking a particular feature of a game, and some bean counter over at game developer central does the math and finds out revenue increases by such and such a percent if the company feigns caring about what the vocal minority wants, so the next time around things completely stray from what used to be so that small group can be happy at the expense of everyone who was just fine with it in the first place... I totally get it. But's it's completely ruining gaming.
Kregano... for all we know, they aren't planning anything further with the Hammerhead. BioWare hasn't said word one on the issue, and with relatively poor reception for the Firewalker missions, I'd think BioWare would be looking hard at just why there's reason at all to invest in vehicular missions. I personally believe the Hammerhead could be a great addition to the next game, given it's potential. What I have to question is the decision to invest so much time and energy into something that's little more than a tech demo. Especially when you've got "incomplete" character packs, and a bevy of other controversial gameplay issues to work on - not to mention your sequel title.
But I get it... a small, dilusional, but extremely vocal group of people whines about not liking a particular feature of a game, and some bean counter over at game developer central does the math and finds out revenue increases by such and such a percent if the company feigns caring about what the vocal minority wants, so the next time around things completely stray from what used to be so that small group can be happy at the expense of everyone who was just fine with it in the first place... I totally get it. But's it's completely ruining gaming.
#607
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 08:22
Sledge454
-
- Members
- 409 messages
Scarecrow_ES wrote...
Sledge... it's not like I didn't express interest in your idea... it's a good idea. What I said was it didn't work for Mass Effect. Don't be so melodramatic.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly how you have any more insight into ME canon than anyone else.
#608
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 02:41
Scarecrow_ES
-
- Members
- 436 messages
Sledge, I have insight because I actually bothered to READ the canon. Go check out the codex for the generic info, then check out the information provided for the various weapons that appear in the game at the armory. Even weapons within the same category don't work the same, and can have wildly different components. If two given shotguns or two given assault rifles or two given anything elses don't work of the same operating principles, then there's little hope that multiple weapons across distinct categories will be any more compatible.
#609
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 03:34
szomszedsrac
-
- Members
- 19 messages
Scarecrow_ES wrote...
Szomszedsrac ...
Some of the stuff you wrote is largely similar to stuff I've already proposed, so in that way we're of like mind. I couple of pages back I re-proposed (I'm sure I discussed it a long time ago, but I'm not weeding through 24 pages of posts to make sure) a system for breaking up attribute points for powers in a way that allows you to customize the power the way you want it to work. Does basically what you're looking for, but no tiers, just straight points.
You combined powers sounds a lot like my squad combined powers system, so you've got no arguement from me there.
As far as my biotic/tech power system, there doesn't necessarily have to be an on-screen "meter" to show the power timer. In fact, ME2 manages to display the cooldown timer on-screen without having a seperate "meter" to do it, and I see no reason why a similar multi-tiered system couldn't be used under my system. Since powers are basically divided into light and heavy (heavy draining your full energy, and light draining 1/2 or 1/3 depending on balancing), then really you just need a way to represent the 2-3 basic energy tiers (ME2 only has one such tier). There doesn't have to be any more clutter than what ME2 already shows.
Sorry for answering late, I don't have connection at home and sometimes it take days for me to read the reply, and answer it.
When I first came here, I read your first post, but maybe when I dropped my ideas on a piece of paper, I forgot that you already proposed something similiar. I was in a hurry, since I can only acces the net 2-3 times a week, so I didn't have too much time to finalize my thoughts what I wrote down to the paper (including translation and typing
). So when I was writing that, it was a little blurry what exactly you proposed, but we almost got to the same thought independently. And I will read your first post again to avoid writing down the same things
.
#610
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 08:29
Sledge454
-
- Members
- 409 messages
Scarecrow_ES wrote...
Sledge, I have insight because I actually bothered to READ the canon. Go check out the codex for the generic info, then check out the information provided for the various weapons that appear in the game at the armory. Even weapons within the same category don't work the same, and can have wildly different components. If two given shotguns or two given assault rifles or two given anything elses don't work of the same operating principles, then there's little hope that multiple weapons across distinct categories will be any more compatible.
And nowhere does it say that component x of weapon y must be a certain size or shape or is confined to one specific function to the exclusion of all else.
Perhaps you should read it again.
Modifié par Sledge454, 30 avril 2010 - 08:34 .
#611
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 10:27
yuncas
-
- Members
- 781 messages
BAM! BAM! Hit the nail on the head with both of them. Right on. But this..
[quote]Scarecrow_ES wrote...
The Hammerhead handles well enough. Control is smooth and responsive and rarely are you ever doing something you didn't intend - all things that couldn't be said of the Mako. Navigating the Hammerhead across terrain is a far less frustrating experience. I also have to say that I much prefer the more focused nature of exploration and combat scenarios the Hammerhead finds itself in to the largely random, open terrain exploration of the Mako. It simply makes more sense to have this kind of exploration than the former, though I certainly don't think that the design opportunities here were done justice in the Firewalker missions.
[quote]
I actually prefer the open ended mako style mission to the hand being held direction forced on you hammerhead style mission. Everything else though is pretty much a bullseye.
[quote]Scarecrow_ES wrote...
The Hammerhead handles well enough. Control is smooth and responsive and rarely are you ever doing something you didn't intend - all things that couldn't be said of the Mako. Navigating the Hammerhead across terrain is a far less frustrating experience. I also have to say that I much prefer the more focused nature of exploration and combat scenarios the Hammerhead finds itself in to the largely random, open terrain exploration of the Mako. It simply makes more sense to have this kind of exploration than the former, though I certainly don't think that the design opportunities here were done justice in the Firewalker missions.
[quote]
I actually prefer the open ended mako style mission to the hand being held direction forced on you hammerhead style mission. Everything else though is pretty much a bullseye.
Modifié par yuncas, 30 avril 2010 - 10:27 .
#612
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 10:29
yuncas
-
- Members
- 781 messages
Quote system is stupid. Can't figure it out.
#613
Posté 01 mai 2010 - 01:33
Arijharn
-
- Members
- 2 850 messages
The only thing about the Mako I didn't enjoy was the long mindless meandering on desolate planetscapes... the storyline missions as part of a live, breathing world (like Feros, like Ilos, like Noveria) I thought was absolutely awesome.
The Hammerhead I thought was a good direction, but like you described, things bothered me a lot about it as well... frankly it's moronic 'targetting' is the largest gripe with it. The racing style mission I thought was rather pointless as well in context of the game if only because it doesn't address the issue that should drive the game itself; why should I care?
The Hammerhead I thought was a good direction, but like you described, things bothered me a lot about it as well... frankly it's moronic 'targetting' is the largest gripe with it. The racing style mission I thought was rather pointless as well in context of the game if only because it doesn't address the issue that should drive the game itself; why should I care?
#614
Posté 01 mai 2010 - 03:41
Scarecrow_ES
-
- Members
- 436 messages
Yuncas... the worst thing about the more open nature of planet exploration in the Mako was just that the worlds were not nearly full enough of stuff to explore. The liklihood that as a military organization you are going to drop a ground vessel on a planet often extremely far away from the given objective with a known location is... not good. Rarely in planet-side missions do you not know exactly where you are supposed to go... it's just that the game lets you go other places.
But really, what else on the planet is there to provide compelling gameplay? The occasional crashed vehicle, corpse, or mineral deposit? Rarely is there a non-mission task worth doing in the Mako that provides any real fun. If they could provide more interesting content to keep you exploring, I think the Mako could have been slightly less tedious.
With the Hammerhead, the more focused nature of the exploration is more realistic, and has far more potential for compelling gameplay. If there is any particular fault here, it's that the developer didn't make any real use of this focus. They made less of a world and could make sure you saw every part of it on your travels, but they didn't fill it with anything you wanted to see, just as was the case in the Mako. I think adding branching paths with optional exploration, and populating the game world with worthwhile vehicular experiences would make these sections a stand-out feature in the game. Well... once the minor problems were fixed.
But really, what else on the planet is there to provide compelling gameplay? The occasional crashed vehicle, corpse, or mineral deposit? Rarely is there a non-mission task worth doing in the Mako that provides any real fun. If they could provide more interesting content to keep you exploring, I think the Mako could have been slightly less tedious.
With the Hammerhead, the more focused nature of the exploration is more realistic, and has far more potential for compelling gameplay. If there is any particular fault here, it's that the developer didn't make any real use of this focus. They made less of a world and could make sure you saw every part of it on your travels, but they didn't fill it with anything you wanted to see, just as was the case in the Mako. I think adding branching paths with optional exploration, and populating the game world with worthwhile vehicular experiences would make these sections a stand-out feature in the game. Well... once the minor problems were fixed.
#615
Posté 02 mai 2010 - 09:41
yuncas
-
- Members
- 781 messages
Yeah I guess there isn't really anything to find or do except drive around over sometimes difficult terrain but I still prefer it to the arcade game from ten years ago that is the hammerhead's gameplay. Maybe it's just the vistas I prefer or the feel I get that I'm actually on an alien planet, not a psuedo-corridor game level.
And the part about an air drop being far from an enemy position. I am not nor have ever been a paratrooper but even I would guess the likelihood of an enemy organization engaged frequently in piracy and slave trading possessing some sort of anti-air defense to shoot me out of the sky with would be plausible. I say better safe than sorry. That being said the premise of the action in game I think is good but it WAS done to death.
And the part about an air drop being far from an enemy position. I am not nor have ever been a paratrooper but even I would guess the likelihood of an enemy organization engaged frequently in piracy and slave trading possessing some sort of anti-air defense to shoot me out of the sky with would be plausible. I say better safe than sorry. That being said the premise of the action in game I think is good but it WAS done to death.
#616
Posté 04 mai 2010 - 01:36
Scarecrow_ES
-
- Members
- 436 messages
Well, it's not to say that most of the Hammerhead missions really took advantage of the more focused scope of the game world to provide more interesting environments. What you see there, as I would describe it, is a glorified tech demo. Let's face it, the Hammerhead mission designs weren't that good, but there's certainly more potential there than in a fully open environment. I'll point at the Halo series for this. The vehicle environments in Halo are classic linear pseudo-corridor game levels, as you say. But, because of the way they're presented, you end up feeling more connected to those environments... you get the sense that there's more going on in the world, even if you can only see a small part of it. There's a lot of good stuff packed into a relatively small amount of space, and you get to see all of it because the design makes sure you can't miss it. In this sense, BioWare could learn a bit more from Bungie in creating vehicular missions people actually enjoy playing.
As far as pirate anti-air defense... well... if your goal is to try to hide away from the long arm of the law on a desolate planetscape somewhere, the last thing you want is some form of active air-defense. Any form of "radar" system used for target acquisition is going to send out a signal that the enemy can home right in on. Beyond that, hitting a moving aircraft without some advanced form of tracking is no easy feat. It's highly unlikely that any illicit group is going to have the hardware to take on a speeding warship, and if they did, it's just going to paint a massive bullseye on them anyway.
Now, if you ARE going to defend against something, you're going to want to defend against either bombardment (hence the many underground structures) or ground forces (turrets, etc). If you happen to be in those ground forces trying to assault a prepared defense, the last thing you're going to want is to telegraph exactly where you are and what you're doing. Nothing says surprise attack quite like a tank being airdropped right on your head... eh?
As far as pirate anti-air defense... well... if your goal is to try to hide away from the long arm of the law on a desolate planetscape somewhere, the last thing you want is some form of active air-defense. Any form of "radar" system used for target acquisition is going to send out a signal that the enemy can home right in on. Beyond that, hitting a moving aircraft without some advanced form of tracking is no easy feat. It's highly unlikely that any illicit group is going to have the hardware to take on a speeding warship, and if they did, it's just going to paint a massive bullseye on them anyway.
Now, if you ARE going to defend against something, you're going to want to defend against either bombardment (hence the many underground structures) or ground forces (turrets, etc). If you happen to be in those ground forces trying to assault a prepared defense, the last thing you're going to want is to telegraph exactly where you are and what you're doing. Nothing says surprise attack quite like a tank being airdropped right on your head... eh?
#617
Posté 04 mai 2010 - 11:09
yuncas
-
- Members
- 781 messages
The first part I agree with. The second and third part I think have too much assumption in them. Wanting to hide is a good point but can it really be assumed that the only opposition to a pirate organization would be a well equiped and well trained military force? What about a rival organization that doesn't have the luxury of top of the line warships and equipment, or civilians stumbling on the base? I'd say a ruthless group would want to shoot the civilians out of the sky before they broadcasted their location to a well armed well trained military. A great way to never be found out is to never be reported. It's true that dead men tell no tales.
And in game the lack of air defenses sure didn't hide the presence of any of the bases or their exact locations from the military. Even the fact that many of the bases that were underground, which would be a good physical defense against space based artillery, I suppose, didn't stop them from being detected from space. Even in the present day high tech aircraft are shot down by relatively low tech RPGs. Could it be reasonable to assume that there could be some sort of analogous future technology? The part about prepared infantry positions brings a good point but the tank dropping on your head assumes that there is no air defense. And again the lack of any type of air defense did not, at all, hide the location of pirate bases from the Normandy SR-1. If a tank was about to plummet out of the sky onto my head and I had some semblance of an air defense I think that tank could kiss it's ass goodbye.
And in game the lack of air defenses sure didn't hide the presence of any of the bases or their exact locations from the military. Even the fact that many of the bases that were underground, which would be a good physical defense against space based artillery, I suppose, didn't stop them from being detected from space. Even in the present day high tech aircraft are shot down by relatively low tech RPGs. Could it be reasonable to assume that there could be some sort of analogous future technology? The part about prepared infantry positions brings a good point but the tank dropping on your head assumes that there is no air defense. And again the lack of any type of air defense did not, at all, hide the location of pirate bases from the Normandy SR-1. If a tank was about to plummet out of the sky onto my head and I had some semblance of an air defense I think that tank could kiss it's ass goodbye.
Modifié par yuncas, 04 mai 2010 - 11:13 .
#618
Posté 05 mai 2010 - 04:32
Scarecrow_ES
-
- Members
- 436 messages
I certainly agree there is a certain amount of assumption to be made in my previous post, but it's not blind assumption. It's based on years of living in the arena of military doctrine. I can't speak for what a future "pirate" might do, but I can certainly speak for current military tech.
If your worry is a rag-tag group of poorly trained and poorly equiped individuals, you're still not going to go for the grand air defense system. And starship with atmospheric capability is going to move too fast for anything but directed energy weapons to hit. You can forget about projectiles and even guided missiles. In either of those cases, you're still going to need a ground tracking system to at least get the initial lock for a fire and forget type missile. The second you switch on such a system, you're sending out a signal which pinpoints your location, and can be used by your enemy to target you. Since you're stationary, the enemy doesn't have to worry about maintaining any sort of lock, or sending any sort of tracking signal itself.
Historically surface-to-air missile batteries have been used to take out slow, low-flying aircraft. In answer to these system, anti-radiation missiles, which home in on radar and other such signals, were developed and implimented. From there, a special setup of aircraft was devised just to search for and destroy these anti-aircraft batteries. Knowing that a Wild Weasel, as we Americans call them, would be flying with a group of traditional aircraft, SAM crews would keep their tracking systems inactive, then turn them on just long enough to get a lock, fire, and turn the system off again. Usually this gave the Wild Weasel just enough time to target the SAM site and blow it off the face of the earth. Lesson? Don't paint a big bullseye on yourself if you know you can't get away with it.
A directed energy system, by the way, would have to remain on for tracking for a long period of time. The reality is, anti-air systems, for a number of reasons, are a silly thing for the savvy space pirate to invest in.
As far as low tech RPGs bringing down aircraft... I can agree if we're talking about helicopters, which are big, slow moving targets well within range (under special circumstances) of ground fire (RPGs actually have an extremely short range). Otherwise, if you hope to hit a moving plane, you're going to need something far more sophisticated. Even a Stinger is outclassed by most modern aircraft, and they'll move far slower than the Normandy or other space-faring ship.
In my opinion... and I'll be fair in reexpressing this is opinion... the best hope a "pirate" or other outlaw can have is in remaining undetected on some rarely-travelled backwater world. Given the notion that most systems in the Mass Effect Universe have yet to be officially explored, and even those that have been initially surveyed see virtually no traffic... if you're a "pirate" you can be relatively safe in knowing that unless someone is specifically looking for you, and they know whereabouts to look, you should be relatively obscure unless you are telegraphing your presense. And of course, there's reason to believe that if you ARE found by an overwhelming force, there's little you're going to be able to do about it.
If your worry is a rag-tag group of poorly trained and poorly equiped individuals, you're still not going to go for the grand air defense system. And starship with atmospheric capability is going to move too fast for anything but directed energy weapons to hit. You can forget about projectiles and even guided missiles. In either of those cases, you're still going to need a ground tracking system to at least get the initial lock for a fire and forget type missile. The second you switch on such a system, you're sending out a signal which pinpoints your location, and can be used by your enemy to target you. Since you're stationary, the enemy doesn't have to worry about maintaining any sort of lock, or sending any sort of tracking signal itself.
Historically surface-to-air missile batteries have been used to take out slow, low-flying aircraft. In answer to these system, anti-radiation missiles, which home in on radar and other such signals, were developed and implimented. From there, a special setup of aircraft was devised just to search for and destroy these anti-aircraft batteries. Knowing that a Wild Weasel, as we Americans call them, would be flying with a group of traditional aircraft, SAM crews would keep their tracking systems inactive, then turn them on just long enough to get a lock, fire, and turn the system off again. Usually this gave the Wild Weasel just enough time to target the SAM site and blow it off the face of the earth. Lesson? Don't paint a big bullseye on yourself if you know you can't get away with it.
A directed energy system, by the way, would have to remain on for tracking for a long period of time. The reality is, anti-air systems, for a number of reasons, are a silly thing for the savvy space pirate to invest in.
As far as low tech RPGs bringing down aircraft... I can agree if we're talking about helicopters, which are big, slow moving targets well within range (under special circumstances) of ground fire (RPGs actually have an extremely short range). Otherwise, if you hope to hit a moving plane, you're going to need something far more sophisticated. Even a Stinger is outclassed by most modern aircraft, and they'll move far slower than the Normandy or other space-faring ship.
In my opinion... and I'll be fair in reexpressing this is opinion... the best hope a "pirate" or other outlaw can have is in remaining undetected on some rarely-travelled backwater world. Given the notion that most systems in the Mass Effect Universe have yet to be officially explored, and even those that have been initially surveyed see virtually no traffic... if you're a "pirate" you can be relatively safe in knowing that unless someone is specifically looking for you, and they know whereabouts to look, you should be relatively obscure unless you are telegraphing your presense. And of course, there's reason to believe that if you ARE found by an overwhelming force, there's little you're going to be able to do about it.
#619
Posté 05 mai 2010 - 08:20
FluxDeluxe
-
- Members
- 110 messages
To wind this backround to gameplay. As scarecrow says the level design benefits from the more focused strategy. The control system for the new vehicle is fantastic. However it's too weak, the UI is terrible, no display to tell you if you've got shields or where your armour is damaged and the worlds themselves lack a certain something. The volcano world is great as is the prothean artifact however they are too short. As i said the more focused level design works but the level need to be bigger, with several different paths to get to where you need to go all containing different configurations of enemies.
#620
Posté 05 mai 2010 - 08:52
yuncas
-
- Members
- 781 messages
Way to shoot me down with actual "knowledge and experience". Allright I get it that staying hidden is a very good defense, but I can't conceed the point that having a viable anti-air defense is out of the realm of possibility for the make believe pirates in a make believe future in a make believe game. Look at the history of aviation and its use in warfare. Started as slow biplanes with .30 cal machine guns dog fighting and dropping artillery shells and hand grenades on ground targets. Look at the present day with super sonic stealth fighters that can shoot down an aircraft on the edge of the horizon reliably with a single missile. Bombers that can carry tons and tons of GPS bombs that can glide for miles and burrow through dozens of feet of solid rock and explode when they enter an open space. Always an advance in technology led to way to counter it. Prop planes had speed restrictions, the jet was developed. Radar could spot planes almost anywhere in the sky, stealth aircraft were developed. Anti aircraft missiles could shoot down low flying aircraft, planes were made that could fly in the stratosphere and still do their job. Missiles were made to shoot down those planes, so sattelites took their place.
In game the computer on your wrist is a medical diagnostic computer, a minitaurized tool shop, and a communications device. Who can say how big a radar-like device and its componets are and how they operate, and if the energy they emit is detectable or not. Isn't heat detection the main way for sensing ships and aircraft in this game? Would that really take energy enough to be detected by an orbital ship? Does it even rely on any kind of directed emmission of any energy to pick up a target ala radar? When that drill sergeant in the citadel was talking about a 20 kilo slug I assumed he meant 20 kilograms, not 20 kilotons, even though he said it could produce destruction equal to that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The point being to create that level of destructive energy the projectile would have to be travelling at ridiculous speeds. The main armament in the ME story is mass accelerator weapons. How hard would it be to lead a flying target when the bullet is traveling at those ridiculous speeds. And who can say that the weapon wouldn't have a workable tracking system when the computer power contained on your wrist is equal to a six top of the line desktops .
You give specific examples as to why these air defenses don't work. Why were they invented in the first place? You said that stingers and RPGs are pretty much obsolete these days. What about just two decades ago when stingers were responsible for shooting down HUNDREDS of soviet aircraft in Afghanistan. What about when flak guns took out hundreds of bombers and fighters over europe. When an enfield could shoot down a fighter. When an RPG shoots down a helicopter one out of one hundred times the 1% success rate doesn't stop the 99 failures from being fired. I don't know if I could succinctly put it with regards to all I've typed. Maybe just with human ingenuity ( or alien for that matter) and the vast scope of the civilizationsin this game I don't think you can say there can't be some kind method or weapon that can shoot down a tank dropping out of the sky. After all that is what this is all about. You said a tank dropping on top of a base would be a good idea instead of landing a ways away to avoid being shot out of the sky.
Edited to add ideas, hopefully making the post clearer.
In game the computer on your wrist is a medical diagnostic computer, a minitaurized tool shop, and a communications device. Who can say how big a radar-like device and its componets are and how they operate, and if the energy they emit is detectable or not. Isn't heat detection the main way for sensing ships and aircraft in this game? Would that really take energy enough to be detected by an orbital ship? Does it even rely on any kind of directed emmission of any energy to pick up a target ala radar? When that drill sergeant in the citadel was talking about a 20 kilo slug I assumed he meant 20 kilograms, not 20 kilotons, even though he said it could produce destruction equal to that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The point being to create that level of destructive energy the projectile would have to be travelling at ridiculous speeds. The main armament in the ME story is mass accelerator weapons. How hard would it be to lead a flying target when the bullet is traveling at those ridiculous speeds. And who can say that the weapon wouldn't have a workable tracking system when the computer power contained on your wrist is equal to a six top of the line desktops .
You give specific examples as to why these air defenses don't work. Why were they invented in the first place? You said that stingers and RPGs are pretty much obsolete these days. What about just two decades ago when stingers were responsible for shooting down HUNDREDS of soviet aircraft in Afghanistan. What about when flak guns took out hundreds of bombers and fighters over europe. When an enfield could shoot down a fighter. When an RPG shoots down a helicopter one out of one hundred times the 1% success rate doesn't stop the 99 failures from being fired. I don't know if I could succinctly put it with regards to all I've typed. Maybe just with human ingenuity ( or alien for that matter) and the vast scope of the civilizationsin this game I don't think you can say there can't be some kind method or weapon that can shoot down a tank dropping out of the sky. After all that is what this is all about. You said a tank dropping on top of a base would be a good idea instead of landing a ways away to avoid being shot out of the sky.
Edited to add ideas, hopefully making the post clearer.
Modifié par yuncas, 05 mai 2010 - 09:17 .
#621
Posté 05 mai 2010 - 12:58
Relix28
-
- Members
- 2 679 messages
Love this thread and all it's constructive criticism. Keep it up guys.
Hope that folks @ BioWare can appreciate all this crtitical thought and make some good use out of it someday.
Hope that folks @ BioWare can appreciate all this crtitical thought and make some good use out of it someday.
#622
Posté 06 mai 2010 - 01:34
Scarecrow_ES
-
- Members
- 436 messages
I completely understand where you're coming from Yuncas, and you're absolutely right that there's always an arms race going on. Is it possible there exists a type of anti-air defense that'd be useful to the "pirates" on the ground? Sure, why not. But, as in every military engagement since the beginning of time, the one weapon you cannot ever plan for is surprise. Even the most sophisticated air defense system is useless if you're not given time to turn the thing on and move it into position. Could there be a sophisticated mass accellerator anti-spaceship ground weapon that would be accessable to "pirates?" Possibly. Is that going to do them any good if they have no idea what's coming or from where? No.
Even if we accept that mass accellerator weapons can provide what is essentially an instantaneous and utterly devastating strike, and if we assume there is tracking technology capable of automatically plotting an intercept solution for such a fast moving target, you're still limited in the speed at which the weapon can be charged and fired, and worse, by how fast the weapon can be brought to bare on the target. Let's face it, the gun might fire at light speed, but is the mount capable of traversing fast enough to track a target moving at at least several times the speed of sound? Your spaceship is going to be able to outrun the manueverable missile, and out traverse the fast-striking gun.
If I'm Commander Shepard, I'm doing a hot-drop of that tank right on top of the enemy I'm trying to kill. I'm not giving them fair warning so they can get their defenses trained on me. I'm blazing in like the wind, dropping my ground force, and dashing off all before the sophisticated tracking computer can get a fix on me and motor the anti-air defenses into position to fire. If there are ground defenses there that can be harmful to my tank, I might just throw in a few low-yield precision strikes in there prior to pushing that tank out the bay to soften up the LZ first. Before the folks in the base know what's happened, my spaceship is long gone and my tank is knocking on the front door. Against all that, there is no defense.
Even if we accept that mass accellerator weapons can provide what is essentially an instantaneous and utterly devastating strike, and if we assume there is tracking technology capable of automatically plotting an intercept solution for such a fast moving target, you're still limited in the speed at which the weapon can be charged and fired, and worse, by how fast the weapon can be brought to bare on the target. Let's face it, the gun might fire at light speed, but is the mount capable of traversing fast enough to track a target moving at at least several times the speed of sound? Your spaceship is going to be able to outrun the manueverable missile, and out traverse the fast-striking gun.
If I'm Commander Shepard, I'm doing a hot-drop of that tank right on top of the enemy I'm trying to kill. I'm not giving them fair warning so they can get their defenses trained on me. I'm blazing in like the wind, dropping my ground force, and dashing off all before the sophisticated tracking computer can get a fix on me and motor the anti-air defenses into position to fire. If there are ground defenses there that can be harmful to my tank, I might just throw in a few low-yield precision strikes in there prior to pushing that tank out the bay to soften up the LZ first. Before the folks in the base know what's happened, my spaceship is long gone and my tank is knocking on the front door. Against all that, there is no defense.
#623
Posté 06 mai 2010 - 08:52
yuncas
-
- Members
- 781 messages
I guess I will have to agree to disagree and leave it here because I don't think this discussion will be brought to a conclusion through ANY amount of debate.
#624
Posté 07 mai 2010 - 04:25
Scarecrow_ES
-
- Members
- 436 messages
That's entirely possible, but it's been good to have you posting Yuncas! ALways happy to have you in the thread.
#625
Posté 08 mai 2010 - 12:55
yuncas
-
- Members
- 781 messages
I think it's the only likely possibility but whatever... bump.
