10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Andy the Salarian]

XyleJKH wrote...

I have said this before the only thing I disliked about the 2nd one compared to the 1st one was the realism. Before you all jump down my throat hear me out. Mass effect is Sci Fi I know that, but they use theoretical science in their gameplay which is a great appeal to me.
ME1 was real for a bunch of reasons. Everyone wore armour, not just to in a fight, but also to protect from the elements of a hazardous environment, may it be vaccum, or a hazardous environment
ME2 took that away. When the group was fighting in the collector ship all the other party members wore were face masks exceptions being Garrus, Legion (obviously), Tali and Grunt.
That made ME1 a bit more realistic. I mean your only threat is not lack of oxygen. Extreme pressure, cold, heat, radiation and in some cases species related allergies.
The other fact is small, but I felt is due. Female fighters in the 1st one, didnt wear high heels.. sure their sexy but they are not practical for running, fighting and walking around uneven terrain.
That was a big thumbs down in my opinion.
Anyway that is it

 

Same here. This really agitated me. I too love sci fi with a bit of realism. I thought it was so bad a** having all of your sqaudmates in awesome armor rather than a cool jacket or tight fitting clothes(miranda). How can you have shields with casual clothes this makes no sense. The breathing masks got to me too and when joker was rescued he somehow survived <_<. 

Modifié par Andy the Salarian, 03 juillet 2010 - 09:08 .

[Lusitanum]

[quote]iakus wrote...

Could die, yeah.  But really, how
hard is it to keep everyone alive?  Simply play the game and there is
vitually zero chance of death.  It's harder to surgically kill off just
the ones you want to die than to get everyone out alive (tus maing it  a
"dumping ground for for getting rid of the least likable characters"). 
I expected to have to put at least a little thought into it.  maybe a
bit of random chance thrown into the mix.  As it was my first
playthrough I sweated most about the escort back because there were no
blindingly obvious clues about who to use (turned out there's a reason
for that)[/quote]

That is after you know how to get them all out. Metagamey knowledge means nothing on this matter.

Also, given how almost everyone lost someone on their first playthrough, I'd say that your "virtually zero chance of death" is wrong.

And finally, no, random chance should never come into play. Nobody wants to replay about 1 to 2 hours of game (much of it comprised of cutscenes) just because the CPU randomly decided to kill someone. That's the stupid "dying due to bad luck" mechanic we've left buried behind us all those years ago and we're not bringing it back it's desecrated corpse from the unmarked grave we've gladly left it to rot in.

[quote]iakus wrote...

Virmire decision,
someone's gonna die.  Someone who had been with you since Eden Prime. 
Someone you have had the most chances to get to know and grow attached
to.  The choice might be easier for some than others, but it's still a
choice on who to lose.  The Suicide Mission it's more of a choice
of whether to lose.[/quote]

Jacob was also with you since the very beggining. He was also the first character you met. That didn't make him any more popular because it's not how long you're with someone that matters, it's how good a character he is.

[quote]iakus wrote...

If they had done that for ME 2, I'd have been totally cool with that.  Instead, out caem the chainsaw, and exploration was reduced to corridors full of mercs.

Except for one DLC, apparantly.[/quote]

And you haven't figured out why yet? Because the goddamned Mako sections were so bad, so tedious, so needlessly frustrating that just saying "we took them out" was another point in the game's favor. People hated the goddamned Mako sections. It was the most frequent complaint to the game. There were some who even stopped playing the game alltogether because they got fed up with them and there even some who would argue that they're the reason why human colonies are disspearing in ME2 (or that might just be a joke, but you get my point).

So now Bioware has to veeery slowly bring them up, sticking its head inch by inch while saying "it's OK, we can do these right" just to prevent gamers from shooting them down where they stand.

First it was the Hammerhead pack which just introduced the vehicle, and gamers were satisfied with its most basic aspect: the controls were adequate. And now, they're even daring to bring back planet exploration, testing the waters and seeing our reaction. Because they know that if they just come around and say "more planet exploration for ME3!" without showing that they can actually do them properly this time, we'll probably rip their throats out with our teeth before they even have time to finish that sentence.

[quote]Zulu_DFA
wrote...

That's
what I'm talking about. In ME2 there are no "planets". There are
corridor levels. It seemed quite awkward during Mako rides on the main
missions except for Feros and Ilos, where the "corridors" were of
artificial origin in-game. But on the uncharted worlds you had a
lot of freedom, and this "operational area" thing was pretty seemless.
You could climb mountains or you could find a way around them. Or you
could dismount and take a walk, if you felt like it.[/quote]

And you could ask someone to waterboard you too if you felt like it. That didn't make it any more fun, but you could do it.

[quote]Zulu_DFA
wrote...

I suppose you never
looked at the skys in ME1. Because in ME2, altough in higher resolution
and with some new special effects, the skys are not that impressive.[/quote]

Yes, I did look to the skies and sometimes there quite a few nice views, like moons of different colors (thought nothing beats the view from our own moon with the Earth off in the distance :happy:). But then you had to keep looking at the ground in order to play the game and the only thing coming to mind was "Well... it sure is... very red. And rocky. *sigh*"

So the skies are less impressive in ME2? That's OK, if I have to choose, I'd rather that the interessting things are the ones I spend looking during 98% of my gameplay time.

[quote]Zulu_DFA
wrote...

I dunno, I'd always
choose a vast open space landscape, than a forest... And even of forests
I prefer those of pines. Claustrophobia, maybe? So, is ME2 a horror
game?[/quote]

Weren't the bases in ME1 even more claustrophobic? Which was problematic given the fact that you had to... you know, fight in them?

[quote]Zulu_DFA
wrote...

As I remember it there was some angle
limitations even with the visor view. You could not send a shell to the
feet of a geth trooper, standing right in front of the Mako. However,
you could aim at its "flashlight" and take it out.[/quote]

But the same Geth a few meters away but just slightly below the Mako could not be shot in normal view, but could be hit in visor view.

[quote]Zulu_DFA
wrote...

That's exactly what I mean. Naigating the Mako
successfully through some uneven terrain required and stimulated some
thinking. You had to work with the minimap from time to time. Thoughout
the Firewalker pack I didn't turn my brain on even once. I completed if
by trial and error method, even though it would not allow saving
mid-level, and uninstalled it. Forever.[/quote]

What, that's it? THAT is your definition of "stimulated thinking" and "turning your brain on"? That was the big intellectual loss that makes ME2 such a huge loss for your mental excercise?

See, this is why I say that waving the "dumbed-down" flag is an exercise in futility: there was never anything that mentally stimulating in ME1. Or Dragon Age. Or Fallout. Or any of those games that people keep bringing about when they start waving about the "end of days" banner.

Intelectual exercise comes from the depth of the game, not from how much you have to work around the gameplay limitations brought by a vehicle that controls like a basketball thrown across the room. Games like Civilization, Sam & Max, Grim Fandango and the recent Machinarium (how many of you have actually heard of this last one, BTW?) never ever impair your movement and then claim that it's part of the mental challenge. They make it easy for you to move around and then test your gray matter by presenting you complex mental challenges for your to solve using your own wits.

Oh, and they also remove needlessly annoying game features like combining inventory items or carrying around loads of items that you're never going to use again to avoid increasing your frustration in unecessary ways. And yet I never heard the fans of these titles, the gamers who actually have to use their brains in order to play their games, complain about "dumbing-down".

And now the RPG fans whine about how their brains are hungry for exercise because now they don't need to compare which guns fire the most bullets in a given span of time or that they no longer need to keep checking the map to figure out which way your futuristic vehicle designed for travel through all kinds of terrain can go through without hurting its feelings? Are you serious?

[quote]Zulu_DFA
wrote...

No, because that's how it is. ME2 is
a dumbed down version of ME1. And this is ridiculous.[/quote]

I'm sorry, I'm trying hard not to be confrontational here, but if working around gameplay limitations is what you call mental exercise, then I heartily suggest you play something that actually stimulates your brain. The whole Sam & Max Season 3 is for sale on Steam for a promotional price right now, I'd recommend starting there. It's not all that demanding when it comes to using your brain cells (especially with the Hint system) but that's what makes it such a good starting point.

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...



Most planets in the universe are
boring,lifeless rocks.

I never had a problem with them. [/quote]

Most things in life are
boring. Like filling out paperwork or wasting time waiting for things
to happen. That doesn't make them the least bit compelling in a game.
That's what makes mineral scanning boring: it's
probably something that Shepard (or someone else) has to do in order to
get resources, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to implement
it in the game.



[quote]Zulu_DFA
wrote...



People with a taste for science fiction are a dying
breed these days.



So, it's of little surprise that, ME1's
uncharted worlds and hardsuit armor gets hacked to give place to "N7"
levels with twittering birds and murmuring waterfalls and fashion show
outfits.[/quote]

Oh, and creepy, deserted and disturbingly silent bases with corpses littered everywhere. That's also not in any way sci-fi.

No, what's really sci-fi is constant struggles to go up a hill in a universe that has mastered faster-than-light space travel.

Modifié par Lusitanum, 03 juillet 2010 - 10:12 .

[Orchomene]

I didn't much like the mako, I admit. But after having tested the hammerhead, the mako felt easy to control. The hammerhead is tedious and painful to maneuver and you can't even save in it. After having replayed several times at the first mission, I managed to finish the mission but never touched it again.

I reminded me of the old arcade games I played more than twenty years ago and already found frustrating as hell with the lack of saves.

I don't understand why they replaced a vehicule by another one that is even less enjoying.

[Terror_K]

Andy the Salarian wrote...

XyleJKH wrote...

I have said this before the only thing I disliked about the 2nd one compared to the 1st one was the realism. Before you all jump down my throat hear me out. Mass effect is Sci Fi I know that, but they use theoretical science in their gameplay which is a great appeal to me.
ME1 was real for a bunch of reasons. Everyone wore armour, not just to in a fight, but also to protect from the elements of a hazardous environment, may it be vaccum, or a hazardous environment
ME2 took that away. When the group was fighting in the collector ship all the other party members wore were face masks exceptions being Garrus, Legion (obviously), Tali and Grunt.
That made ME1 a bit more realistic. I mean your only threat is not lack of oxygen. Extreme pressure, cold, heat, radiation and in some cases species related allergies.
The other fact is small, but I felt is due. Female fighters in the 1st one, didnt wear high heels.. sure their sexy but they are not practical for running, fighting and walking around uneven terrain.
That was a big thumbs down in my opinion.
Anyway that is it

 

Same here. This really agitated me. I too love sci fi with a bit of realism. I thought it was so bad a** having all of your sqaudmates in awesome armor rather than a cool jacket or tight fitting clothes(miranda). How can you have shields with casual clothes this makes no sense. The breathing masks got to me too and when joker was rescued he somehow survived <_<. 

Yeah, I agree with this too. This is what I mean when I say that in places ME2 went all "modern Hollywood" on us, while the first felt more like a semi-believable sci-fi in keeping with the great classic sci-fi's from the late 70's to early 90's (kind of all the great sci-fi from Alien and Star Wars through to Babylon 5 and DS9). ME2 seemed to just have these ridiculous examples as above just to be cool and to hell with practicality. ME1 seemed like it was about making a coherent and somewhat believable universe for some solid ground for the game to sit on, while ME2 felt like much of it was was there for bombastic entertainment. Much of it is still solid, and it still has the great 80's-esque design and visual style, but there are little things here and there such as the squaddies running around without armour and wearing just breathing masks in hazardous environments, the biotic power charge, etc. that just make me roll my eyes and seem to just throw any credibility out the window.

I actually remember early on bringing up the armour holograms in some of the screenshots as seeming rather ridiculous. I didn't know these were limited tech armour at the time and thought that they may have been a form of holographic armour and commented how ridiculous it would be to have bright glowing armour that gives away not only what type of protection you have but also your location in a dark area, inevitably drawing all attention to you because you're lit up like a Christmas tree. One of the devs (can't remember which... either Patrick or Stanley I think) popped in and made a comment that "but they look cool!" basically and said that if something "looks cool" it generally stays even if it has practicality or logic errors. I believe that this mindset is the overall problem with ME2 in this regard, just like how the mindset to make each ME game independent when it's supposed to be a trilogy is another failing.

[bjdbwea]

I agree with that too. The "realism" was something really refreshing. It was like the developers wanted to portray a possible (some physical limitations aside) future. Coherent too. But in ME 2 indeed it seems as if it had to be "cool" no matter what. It's annoying, because it's been done like that countless times. The "realistic" approach was something unique.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 04 juillet 2010 - 12:31 .

[WilliamShatner]

ME2 is a comic book compared to a sci-fi novel that is Mass Effect.



Witness Samara flying towards her victim like Storm from X-Men or Kasumi running up pipes and leaping ridiculous distances like Spider-Man.

[Iakus]

[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...

Could die, yeah.  But really, how
hard is it to keep everyone alive?  Simply play the game and there is
vitually zero chance of death.  It's harder to surgically kill off just
the ones you want to die than to get everyone out alive (tus maing it  a
"dumping ground for for getting rid of the least likable characters"). 
I expected to have to put at least a little thought into it.  maybe a
bit of random chance thrown into the mix.  As it was my first
playthrough I sweated most about the escort back because there were no
blindingly obvious clues about who to use (turned out there's a reason
for that)[/quote]

That is after you know how to get them all out. Metagamey knowledge means nothing on this matter.

Also, given how almost everyone lost someone on their first playthrough, I'd say that your "virtually zero chance of death" is wrong.

And finally, no, random chance should never come into play. Nobody wants to replay about 1 to 2 hours of game (much of it comprised of cutscenes) just because the CPU randomly decided to kill someone. That's the stupid "dying due to bad luck" mechanic we've left buried behind us all those years ago and we're not bringing it back it's desecrated corpse from the unmarked grave we've gladly left it to rot in.

[/quote]

My first playthrough, with zero spoilers, I got everyone through alive.  Like I said, the escort was the only one where the choice wasn't completely obvious.  Metagaming had nothing to do with it.  The choices were so obvious the suicide mission turned out to be a disapointment as a result.  Play the game, pay attention, and the answers are all handed to you, done up with a bow.

I'm not saying random chance is a good thing necessarilly( I would have preferred more and harder choices myself) .  But at least it would have given a sense of how dangerous the  mission was. A suicide mission should be almost impossible to compete with zero casualties.

[quote]iakus wrote...

Virmire decision,
someone's gonna die.  Someone who had been with you since Eden Prime. 
Someone you have had the most chances to get to know and grow attached
to.  The choice might be easier for some than others, but it's still a
choice on who to lose.  The Suicide Mission it's more of a choice
of whether to lose.[/quote]

Jacob was also with you since the very beggining. He was also the first character you met. That didn't make him any more popular because it's not how long you're with someone that matters, it's how good a character he is.
[/quote]

Ah yes, Jacob, the vanilla mortal who walks among the gods of Mass Effect.  Does nobody love you?

At any rate, I did say "The choice might be easier for some than others, but it's still a choice of who to lose"  You have to pretty much order someone to their deaths.  Someone whom your Shepard may very well consider a friend.  That's far more realistic a "Suicide Mission"


[quote]iakus wrote...

If they had done that for ME 2, I'd have been totally cool with that.  Instead, out caem the chainsaw, and exploration was reduced to corridors full of mercs.

Except for one DLC, apparantly.[/quote]

And you haven't figured out why yet? Because the goddamned Mako sections were so bad, so tedious, so needlessly frustrating that just saying "we took them out" was another point in the game's favor. People hated the goddamned Mako sections. It was the most frequent complaint to the game. There were some who even stopped playing the game alltogether because they got fed up with them and there even some who would argue that they're the reason why human colonies are disspearing in ME2 (or that might just be a joke, but you get my point).

So now Bioware has to veeery slowly bring them up, sticking its head inch by inch while saying "it's OK, we can do these right" just to prevent gamers from shooting them down where they stand.

First it was the Hammerhead pack which just introduced the vehicle, and gamers were satisfied with its most basic aspect: the controls were adequate. And now, they're even daring to bring back planet exploration, testing the waters and seeing our reaction. Because they know that if they just come around and say "more planet exploration for ME3!" without showing that they can actually do them properly this time, we'll probably rip their throats out with our teeth before they even have time to finish that sentence.
[/quote]

You mean the Hammerhead wasn't a sick joke?  Dang!

I'd take the Mako over the Hammerhead any day of the week.  No HUD, no saving the game in the vehicle, no armor or shielding to speak of and seriously innacurate fire control.  Even with Firewalker being free I still felt cheated.

 Seriously, I never understood the Mako hate.  Mountains sure.  Terrain, fine dress it up with suspiciously terran flora and fauna if it makes people happy.  But the Mako?  Makes me wish I was part of the old boards so I could defend it before the travesty that is the Hammerhead culd be dreamed up.

Wonder if I could get a good deal on a Delorean and some plutonium?

[Iakus]

WilliamShatner wrote...

ME2 is a comic book compared to a sci-fi novel that is Mass Effect.

Witness Samara flying towards her victim like Storm from X-Men or Kasumi running up pipes and leaping ridiculous distances like Spider-Man.

I think this actually fits better than the Michael Bay comprisons.  ME 1 was an sf novel.  ME 2 was a superhero comic.


The recruitment and loyalty missions could even be seperate issues(Next month:  "Can Shepard Defeat the Dreaded THRESHER MAW!?") , with the Suicide Mission being the crossover event. 

I like it!

[Chuvvy]

WilliamShatner wrote...

ME2 is a comic book compared to a sci-fi novel that is Mass Effect.

Witness Samara flying towards her victim like Storm from X-Men or Kasumi running up pipes and leaping ridiculous distances like Spider-Man.

Well now I have the Spider-Man theme stuck in my head.

[Iakus]

Terror_K wrote...

I actually remember early on bringing up the armour holograms in some of the screenshots as seeming rather ridiculous. I didn't know these were limited tech armour at the time and thought that they may have been a form of holographic armour and commented how ridiculous it would be to have bright glowing armour that gives away not only what type of protection you have but also your location in a dark area, inevitably drawing all attention to you because you're lit up like a Christmas tree. One of the devs (can't remember which... either Patrick or Stanley I think) popped in and made a comment that "but they look cool!" basically and said that if something "looks cool" it generally stays even if it has practicality or logic errors. I believe that this mindset is the overall problem with ME2 in this regard, just like how the mindset to make each ME game independent when it's supposed to be a trilogy is another failing.

People seem to invoke The Rule of Cool so much they seem to forget that too much of it leads to a Wall Banger

[fchopin]

I like cool myself as long as it's done in a believable way.

[fchopin]

Sorry, double post.

Modifié par fchopin, 04 juillet 2010 - 01:09 .

[Terror_K]

fchopin wrote...

I like cool myself as long as it's done in a believable way.

Yeah, but in ME2 quite often it wasn't, and when that happens it also stops being cool and just becomes tragically lame. But I'm still not sure as to why they had crewmembers wearing only facemasks most of the time on hazardous worlds since it's hardly that cool. I'd say it was because they were worried about people not being able to read the characters' expressions when on missions like this, but at the same time that contradicts them giving us lame DLC armour where your main character can't take off a full-face helmet, as well as the fact that it would be simple to just make a helmet with an exposed face behind a transparent visor (as some helmets have in-game already). I just can't fathom the reason(s) for going with such a bad design decision here, except maybe that they'd designed the clothing already and thought "Well, Samara, Jack and co. are already running around out there with exposed skin, so we can just give them a mask." The clothing I can understand to a degree when it comes to the "coolness factor" and all, but I still think there should be battle-attire and Normandy-attire, ala ME1. Even if we don't get to customise it, Miranda and Jack should have had something more battle-appropriate beyond the Normandy's hull.

[bjdbwea]

Maybe they didn't want to confuse their new audience? After all, it's standard in most shooters that characters always look the same.



But more likely it's just one more occasion of saving development time. Is different armor absolutely necessary to be able to play through the game? No, so let's cut it out. Even the "new" armor you for some reason get for gaining their loyalty is just retextures after all.

[Terror_K]

bjdbwea wrote...

Maybe they didn't want to confuse their new audience? After all, it's standard in most shooters that characters always look the same.

But more likely it's just one more occasion of saving development time. Is different armor absolutely necessary to be able to play through the game? No, so let's cut it out. Even the "new" armor you for some reason get for gaining their loyalty is just retextures after all.

And yet (again) they had time to add in pointless (albeit admittedly fun) fluff such as Normandy customisation to the game...

Also, while different armour isn't absolutely necessary to play though the game, I feel it should be (i.e. that armour should actually act like armour and not just be cosmetic for the most part and only offer bonuses without common base values across the board). As it stands armour isn't necessary because it doesn't actually do that much.

Modifié par Terror_K, 04 juillet 2010 - 01:56 .

[fchopin]

Terror_K wrote...

fchopin wrote...

I like cool myself as long as it's done in a believable way.

Yeah, but in ME2 quite often it wasn't, and when that happens it also stops being cool and just becomes tragically lame. But I'm still not sure as to why they had crewmembers wearing only facemasks most of the time on hazardous worlds since it's hardly that cool. I'd say it was because they were worried about people not being able to read the characters' expressions when on missions like this, but at the same time that contradicts them giving us lame DLC armour where your main character can't take off a full-face helmet, as well as the fact that it would be simple to just make a helmet with an exposed face behind a transparent visor (as some helmets have in-game already). I just can't fathom the reason(s) for going with such a bad design decision here, except maybe that they'd designed the clothing already and thought "Well, Samara, Jack and co. are already running around out there with exposed skin, so we can just give them a mask." The clothing I can understand to a degree when it comes to the "coolness factor" and all, but I still think there should be battle-attire and Normandy-attire, ala ME1. Even if we don't get to customise it, Miranda and Jack should have had something more battle-appropriate beyond the Normandy's hull.

I agree with you up to a point, i dont use the DLC armour because of the helmet.
 
We are having the same discussion on the witcher forum about Geralt's hair, i dont like pony tails and TW2 Geralt has a pony tail but in the first witcher the hair is loose and that is how i like it.
 
I prefer games to stay the same if they are sequels or it breaks the immersion in the games.

[Lusitanum]

iakus wrote...

My first playthrough, with zero spoilers, I got everyone through alive.  Like I said, the escort was the only one where the choice wasn't completely obvious.  Metagaming had nothing to do with it.  The choices were so obvious the suicide mission turned out to be a disapointment as a result.  Play the game, pay attention, and the answers are all handed to you, done up with a bow.

You did, others didn't. Don't bring the "I did it" rule as if it was an absolute.

iakus wrote...

I'm not saying random chance is a good thing necessarilly( I would have preferred more and harder choices myself) .  But at least it would have given a sense of how dangerous the  mission was. A suicide mission should be almost impossible to compete with zero casualties.

Unless you bring up the absolute best of the best and prepare accordingly for it. Which you do!

iakus wrote...

Ah yes, Jacob, the vanilla mortal who walks among the gods of Mass Effect.  Does nobody love you?

At any rate, I did say "The choice might be easier for some than others, but it's still a choice of who to lose"  You have to pretty much order someone to their deaths.  Someone whom your Shepard may very well consider a friend.  That's far more realistic a "Suicide Mission"

And wouldn't repeating the same kind of high-moment wouldn't feel like Bioware were just ripping themselves.

iakus wrote...
You mean the Hammerhead wasn't a sick joke?  Dang!

I'd take the Mako over the Hammerhead any day of the week.  No HUD, no saving the game in the vehicle, no armor or shielding to speak of and seriously innacurate fire control.  Even with Firewalker being free I still felt cheated.

You're bringing up no shielding to speak off when comparing it with this:



And bringing innacurate fire when your point of reference is a cannon that couldn't shoot below its own level (unless you used the visor mode and broke the laws of physics) versus homing missiles? Really?

iakus wrote...

Seriously, I never understood the Mako hate.  Mountains sure.  Terrain, fine dress it up with suspiciously terran flora and fauna if it makes people happy.  But the Mako?  Makes me wish I was part of the old boards so I could defend it before the travesty that is the Hammerhead culd be dreamed up.

Wonder if I could get a good deal on a Delorean and some plutonium?

Because why would you want a vehicle that's actually easy and fun to use over the piece of crap that looked ridiculous and obsolete when compared to our technology of the XXI century?

Modifié par Lusitanum, 04 juillet 2010 - 02:58 .

[Terror_K]

Lusitanum wrote...

You're bringing up no shielding to speak off when comparing it with this:



And bringing innacurate fire when your point of reference is a cannon that couldn't shoot below its own level (unless you used the visor mode and broke the laws of physics) versus homing missiles? Really?

I'm sorry then that the game wasn't a constant rollercoaster ride and things may have been slightly annoying and inconvenient now and then. God forbid that the player should be at a realistic disadvantage and things not constantly be recharging and exploding every five seconds.

Because why would you want a vehicle that's actually easy and fun to use over the piece of crap that looked ridiculous and obsolete when compared to our technology of the XXI century?

Actually, beyond the hovering ability the Hammerhead comes across as a major step-back from a technological standpoint as well as a gameplay and fun one (you honestly find the Hammerhead more fun? Okay then...). The fact that it has only one type of weapon, can't turn its own turret independently of the direction its facing, shakes like an epileptic after ten expressos when scanning, has no shields and appears to be made out of wet tissue paper all prove this. But then it has those magical invisible elves that can heal it just from not being shot, so I guess that's okay, right?

Seriously... beyond the zippy and nimble nature of it, the Hammerhead is just a whole bunch of steps backwards in every regard, at least compared to the PC version's Mako. The Mako was a vehicle that felt like it made sense in the context of the universe, felt battle-capable, felt like a proper exploration vehicle, felt strong and weighty and overall felt useful. The Hammerhead is none of these things, and just comes across as a game vehicle designed for a game so you can have platforming sections. It doesn't feel strong enough to be a proper exploration vehicle, and certainly doesn't feel battle-able. It makes little to no sense in the universe... at least until you come across the contrived platforming obstacles that are only on worlds you land the thing on.

[bjdbwea]

This goes back to the realism angle. The Mako was obviously designed with current combat vehicles in mind. It was of course far from being a simulation, but it did provide some of a challenge at times. Especially because you couldn't just sit there for five seconds to have the vehicle fully repaired. Whereas the Hammerhead looks and gameplay were obviously once again "streamlined" to provide instant, non-stop, non-thinking action.

[Some Geth]

The Mako is evil anyone who likes I feel sorry for and I will make fun of you.

[Terror_K]

bjdbwea wrote...

This goes back to the realism angle. The Mako was obviously designed with current combat vehicles in mind. It was of course far from being a simulation, but it did provide some of a challenge at times. Especially because you couldn't just sit there for five seconds to have the vehicle fully repaired. Whereas the Hammerhead looks and gameplay were obviously once again "streamlined" to provide instant, non-stop, non-thinking action.

Indeed. It's another casualty of the devs pretty much saying "let's just make a fun, action-packed video game! Screw realism. Screw immersion. Screw common sense. Screw any sense that Mass Effect was capable of being more than just a game."

[Lusitanum]

Terror_K wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

This goes back to the realism angle. The Mako was obviously designed with current combat vehicles in mind. It was of course far from being a simulation, but it did provide some of a challenge at times. Especially because you couldn't just sit there for five seconds to have the vehicle fully repaired. Whereas the Hammerhead looks and gameplay were obviously once again "streamlined" to provide instant, non-stop, non-thinking action.

Indeed. It's another casualty of the devs pretty much saying "let's just make a fun, action-packed video game! Screw realism. Screw immersion. Screw common sense. Screw any sense that Mass Effect was capable of being more than just a game."

Because having a vehicle that was unwieldy, unfit for combat, had shields that took forever to recharge and couldn't even do what he it was primarly meant to be (i.e. a vehicle fit to croos all kinds of terrain that couldn't even climb a mountain adequately) in a world that is thousands of years ahead of ours really screams "immersion", "realism" and "common sense".

And I also liked how the words "fun" and "action-packed" almost sounded derogatory. As if they were, you know, things to avoid in an action-RPG!

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

This goes back to the realism angle. The Mako was obviously designed with current combat vehicles in mind. It was of course far from being a simulation, but it did provide some of a challenge at times...

Just poke the Mako into an enemy and every fight becomes a joke. Bioware just needs to ditch the vehicle gimmick altogether.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 04 juillet 2010 - 04:09 .

[Terror_K]

Lusitanum wrote...

Because having a vehicle that was unwieldy, unfit for combat, had shields that took forever to recharge and couldn't even do what he it was primarly meant to be (i.e. a vehicle fit to croos all kinds of terrain that couldn't even climb a mountain adequately) in a world that is thousands of years ahead of ours really screams "immersion", "realism" and "common sense".

And I also liked how the words "fun" and "action-packed" almost sounded derogatory. As if they were, you know, things to avoid in an action-RPG!

Sorry, but I just find all those claims regarding The Mako incredibly false. It was a breeze to drive (on the PC anyway... I admit that The Mako was a chore on the 360, but that was entirely due to the control scheme, not the vehicle itself), the shields recharging made logical sense and should only really both ADD-riddled shooter fans, it was 10x more combat capable than The Hammerhead is with its complete lack of shields, slow and inaccurate missiles and tissue-paper body, and The Mako could actually climb most mountains extremely well, with only the incredibly steep ones that physics determine it shouldn't be able to climb being an issue (the real issue was that there were far too many of these ultra-steep mountains) while The Hammerhead needs fairly flat terrain to run smoothly on and needs to physically jump if anything greater than 10 degrees comes up ahead.

The Mako really was a logical cross between a large rover and a tank. The Hammerhead is a pathetic joke that makes no real sense whatsoever beyond contrived platforming sections. It's like bringing a fun little go-kart to the destruction derby when it comes to its implementation here. It's clearly been designed for action-oriented gameplay with platforming sections purely with the design of the levels it has to go on in mind. The Mako is a vehicle I could realistically see being made for planet exploration if there were possible hostile threats on the world. The Hammerhead screams "I'm a game vehicle made for fast, mindless fun in a game!"

And I do believe that "action packed" can be overdone in a game, just like it can in everything. And "fun" is also a point of view, because as somebody else said earlier in this thread, too many people define "fun" as everything being fast, quick and easy with nothing to hinder them or get in the way. They whine about elevators being too slow, and the Mako being too slow, and the shields recharging being too slow, and the powers recharging being too slow and the planet scanning being too slow, etc. as if they want all limitations removed. No wonder Mass Effect 2 became an easy, repetitive, samey action-packed extravaganza where half the game is played for you, there's next to no trade-offs with anything, character and item progression is limited and linear and your Shepard can be a Master of All Trades with nothing to stand in his/her way. The way things are going Mass Effect 3 will just be a rolling demo that you just sit and watch like a movie between killing things.

Modifié par Terror_K, 04 juillet 2010 - 04:29 .

[Some Geth]

Pocketgb wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

This goes back to the realism angle. The Mako was obviously designed with current combat vehicles in mind. It was of course far from being a simulation, but it did provide some of a challenge at times...

Just poke the Mako into an enemy and every fight becomes a joke. Bioware just needs to ditch the vehicle gimmick altogether.

Or you know just make a good vehicle :innocent:.