10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Lusitanum wrote...

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.

I seriously doubt I was the only one.  There, I'm done.

Lusitanum wrote...

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!

No, even then it should be very very difficult.  Bringing the best (of what's needed)  And being prepared should just guarantee it won't be a total bloodbath.

Lusitanum wrote...

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.

Depends.  How well is it done?  Is it just a carbon-copy of Virmire or is some creativity  put into it?

Maybe there could have been a challenge with three possible results: a squadmates who can 1) do it right 2) do it but gets themself or someone else killed or 3) completely screw it up, die, and make the rest of the mission harder.

Maybe earning a squadmate's loyalty could have caused that person to actually save another.  You know, character interaction?  Teamwork?  Wouldn't it be ironic if Miranda dies in the Suicide mission unless you had Jack's loyalty?  In an extreme case, perhaps one teamate could die for another!

Lusitanum wrote...

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:

You gotta admit, the Mako had a lot of shields.  Unlike another tank named after a shark i could mention

Lusitanum wrote...
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?

Yes.  Yes I am.  Really.

Lusitanum wrote...

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?

Exactly!  Glad to see you coming around to my si...oh, wait, you're still defending the Hammerhead, aren't you? 

Modifié par iakus, 04 juillet 2010 - 05:02 .

[Andy the Salarian]

For me it was the realism of the first game that drew me into the universe this is exactly where the second failed.

[Some Geth]

The Mako was like a monster of the week on Super Sentai and it needs to be killed here this guy can help

[Iakus]

Terror_K wrote...


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!"

This. 

I  liked planetary exploration, but I'd rather do completely without than be stuck with the Hammerhead for ME 3 instead of the Mako or something closer to it.

Terror_K wrote...

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.

ME 3 will be when the devs decide running to cover will be too distracting from combat, so the game will move Shep from cover to cover automatically

[Darth Drago]

Lusitanum wrote...

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!

-First off, thousands of years? Um, try 173 years. Mass Effect 1 took place in 2183.

-The only thing I’ll agree on is the Mako was out of place as a wheeled vehicle. I would think that by then we have at least hover tanks and other vehicles as seen in the Hammer’s Slammers books.

-The shields were a bit slow to recharge but it made more sense considering its size and  duration of combat.

-The turret, like all turrets on vehicles and other things have a certain maximum angle it can go down for safety reasons. Again that makes perfect sense.

-Unfit for combat? I’m sorry I would take the old Mako over that junk heap Hammerhead Hover Tank any day of the week. Even as a light armored vehicle it sucks by today’s standards and wouldn’t likely be used by anyone that is in a profession that involve a risk of combat. I mean really? It can easily be destroyed by small arms weapons.

-I don’t think the Mako was ever classified as a vehicle that can cross over all types of terrain. Besides what kind of wheeled vehicle do you know of that can even come close to climbing mountains? There was not one spot in any of the UNC worlds that required you to climb any of these unclimbable mountains on those maps. There were a few hidden things like the prothian orb or minerals that may have required looking at a map more to see how to get to them. How is the Hamerhaed better here? Oh, it can hover over water and make jumps to key spots built into the terain for it to go. So much better.

The Hammerhead to me is nothing but a poorly designed and implemented vehicle gimmick that has more platforming or overhead vehicle shooter game mechanics to it than something that belongs in a RPG/shooter hybrid that ME2 claims to be. It had potential but instead of improving or fixing anything from its first release they apparently didn’t fix anything with Overlord.

I wonder what the fans of Gears of War would say if the vehicles they can drive like the Laverne, got replaced by something a lot weaker in every aspect in Gears of War 3.

[WilliamShatner]

The Mako feels like you're driving a futuristic tank. The Hammerhead feels like you're playing Quake 3.

[Some Geth]

WilliamShatner wrote...

The Mako feels like you're driving a futuristic tank. The Hammerhead feels like you're playing Quake 3.

The Mako feels like playing Sonic 06 <_<.

[onotix]

Yeah, I don’t know, the combat in Mass Effect 2 was good, but it felt like so-I AM ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.

[KitsuneRommel]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...


The same can be said about the Mako. Simplified planets

Most planets in the universe are boring,lifeless rocks.
I never had a problem with them.

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

It's science fiction to wish for rocks and boulders or larger than few square miles land area? You learn something new every day.

[Pocketgb]

Some Geth wrote...

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:.

I'd rather more devs just drop the vehicle gimmick and actually put more focus on a singular combat. I think this is why I liked ME2's combat far more than I anticipated: it had enough that was interesting to make me not miss any 'vehicle breaks'.

[KitsuneRommel]

WilliamShatner wrote...

The Mako feels like you're driving a futuristic tank. The Hammerhead feels like you're playing Quake 3.

What was 'futuristic' about it aside from the fact that it could jump 3 feet? It looks like it was made in the 90's.

[Zulu_DFA]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...


The same can be said about the Mako. Simplified planets

Most planets in the universe are boring,lifeless rocks.
I never had a problem with them.

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

It's science fiction to wish for rocks and boulders or larger than few square miles land area? You learn something new every day.

It's science fiction to be OK with barren planets in a game about space travel.

You want birds and waterfalls? Play a fantasy game, there are plenty of them. Play ME2, because it's a fantasy game, trying to sell under sci-fi label.

[Terror_K]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

The Mako feels like you're driving a futuristic tank. The Hammerhead feels like you're playing Quake 3.

What was 'futuristic' about it aside from the fact that it could jump 3 feet? It looks like it was made in the 90's.

Actually it looks very much the style of sci-fi stuff from the late 70's through to the 80's design wise. A bit of a mix of early movie Star Trek stuff with Space 1999, some Star Wars, a little Alien, etc. Though much of the game has this look. The Hammer head doesn't look too bad in this regard either and fits in visually.

Aside from that it had a mass accelerator cannon, which seems far more effective than missiles (which aren't in limited supply... why?). It also has the ability to alter its density using mass effect fields for those high drops. Then there's its shields, which The Hammerhead lacks entirely.

It almost seems as if the entire logic behind Hammerhead supporters here is "it hovers, so it's more advanced, futuristic and science fictiony!" and that's pretty much it. Screw practicality as long as its cool.

[Max Legend]

Vena_86 wrote...

Then there are things like loading screens and mission complete screens that constantly remind you that you are playing a game. The first game was developed for people who appreaciate a believable science fiction experience with an atmosphear similar to classics like blade runner or the old star trek movies. This has been stated by the developers them selfs. The second game seems to be developed for teenagers who appreciate nothing more than MICHAEL BAY EXPLOSIONS! Logic mistakes? Inconsistencies? Believable atmosphear? Nothing matters as long as there is a cool presentation, that suger coats the hollow cake. The only thing thats missing is the silhouette of a helicopter flying infront of a sunset. But there is always ME3...

I didnt put words in your mouth.You allready made a clear statement.

[Zulu_DFA]

Terror_K wrote...

Screw practicality as long as its cool.

This seems to be the general idea of ME2. Especially evident in the art of the game: "outfits", Cerberus logo on everything, etc.

[Primalrose]

I am overall, satisfied with the game. It had a greater cinematic quality, cleaner combat, interesting characters and I thought how the ending unfolded was pretty darn epic. Initially I was worried about how stripped the combat felt but I felt they moved in the right direction with this aspect. Mineral scanning bored me though.s There's also plenty of memorable lines and loved the increased humor. Loved all the characters in their own way. Bioware succeeded in creating some compelling characters. (Miranda and Jacob were my least favorite...too bland)



I won't lie though, if this was merely a movie it would be mediocre because the plot is lacking compared to the first. I didn't like how events only really began to unfold near the end... found myself getting a little bored in the middle, wanting to know more about the reaper's intentions, but the characters help remedy that somewhat. The countless plot holes just made me scratch my head also. I admit I only began to notice them in my second playthrough though. In some ways it feels too much like obvious filler in preparation for the final game, but I still enjoyed it greatly regardless.

[Pocketgb]

Primalrose wrote...

...The countless plot holes just made me scratch my head also. I admit I only began to notice them in my second playthrough though...

Did you say plotholes?

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...


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


It's science fiction to wish for rocks and boulders or larger than few square miles land area? You learn something new every day.

Its a fact that most planets are boring,lifeless rocks.Just look how many planets in the solar system have advanced life.

And when they include planets with life, it shouldt look like jungles or deserts one earth.

Alien animals and alien plants,thats the way to go.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 juillet 2010 - 02:46 .

[Goldrock]

Game was kick ass name some other sci fi games of this calibor you really cant so just be happy bioware put a couple out there for us.

[Lusitanum]

[quote]Darth Drago wrote...

-First off, thousands of years? Um, try 173 years. Mass Effect 1 took place in 2183.[/quote]

Um, try remembering that humanity had a huge technological boost by meeting alien species that have been using technology thousands of years beyond our own? I know the chronology, thank you very much, but that's not the point.

[quote]Darth Drago wrote...

-The only thing I’ll agree on is the Mako was out of place as a wheeled vehicle. I would think that by then we have at least hover tanks and other vehicles as seen in the Hammer’s Slammers books.[/quote]

Or a helicopter that could endure the atmosphere of uncharter planets. Seriously, I can think of modern day vehicles tht would make more sense for exploration than the Mako.

[quote]Darth Drago wrote...

-The shields were a bit slow to recharge but it made more sense considering its size and  duration of combat.[/quote]

A few more seconds to recharge because it's a big vehicle? Fine, I expect that.

Several minutes to recharge to full capacity? Well, thank God the enemies are all conveniently placed in such large intervals. If this was any kind of real combat situation, the shields would be as useless as modern day vehicle armor!

[quote]Darth Drago wrote...

-The turret, like all turrets on vehicles and other things have a certain maximum angle it can go down for safety reasons. Again that makes perfect sense.[/quote]

Except on visor mode, where it goes through the vehicle. Yeah, makes sense.

[quote]Darth Drago wrote...

-Unfit for combat? I’m sorry I would take the old Mako over that junk heap Hammerhead Hover Tank any day of the week. Even as a light armored vehicle it sucks by today’s standards and wouldn’t likely be used by anyone that is in a profession that involve a risk of combat. I mean really? It can easily be destroyed by small arms weapons.[/quote]

Yeah, I have to agree with that, for a vehicle aimed for combat, the Hammerhead shields didn't really last that long, forcing you to keep falling back, waiting for your shields to recharge and then coming back. It could benefit from a bit more balance in the shield capacity/recharge rate, but it still looks more fit for active combat than the Mako.

Hell, the only reason why the Mako lasted longer is because all your enemies ever fired at you were either devastating attacks that were slow as hell and might as well have a big neon sign over them saying "I'M ATTACKING YOU NOW, WATCH OUT!" by the way that you could spot them a mile away or rapid fire shots that hardly made a dent at all.

Put the Mako against the machine-gun turrets of ME2 and it gets torn to pieces in seconds, or at least gets its shields so depleted that you'll have to leave it there fixing itself while you go away and make a cup of tea while you wait.

[quote]Darth Drago wrote...

-I don’t think the Mako was ever classified as a vehicle that can cross over all types of terrain. [/quote]

Given that it was a vehicle meant for exploring unknown alien planets, I don't see how it couldn't be.

[quote]Darth Drago wrote...

Besides what kind of wheeled vehicle do you know of that can even come close to climbing mountains? [/quote]

[quote]Darth Drago wrote...

There was not one spot in any of the UNC worlds that required you to climb any of these unclimbable mountains on those maps. There were a few hidden things like the prothian orb or minerals that may have required looking at a map more to see how to get to them. How is the Hamerhaed better here? Oh, it can hover over water and make jumps to key spots built into the terain for it to go. So much better. [/quote]

Not one spot? How about you try most of them? Minerals, important bases, prothean ruins... if there were mountains, there was something important there.

And I like how you point out "jumping to key spots" as a bad thing. What, is having a feature that enables a vehicle to do what it's meant to do a negative aspect now?

[quote]Darth Drago wrote...

I wonder what the fans of Gears of War would say if the vehicles they can drive like the Laverne, got replaced by something a lot weaker in every aspect in Gears of War 3. [/quote]

I don't know how the Laverne works, but I seriously doubt it handles as badly as the Mako or takes as long to recharge its bateries as the Mako does. So that's bound to be a terrible comparison.

[quote]iakus wrote...

I seriously doubt I was the only one. 
There, I'm done.[/quote]

No one said you were. Just that "i wasn't the only one" can work both ways.

[quote]iakus wrote...

No,
even then it should be very very difficult.  Bringing the best (of
what's needed)  And being prepared should just guarantee it won't be a
total bloodbath.[/quote]

Yes, because we've never seen before a situation that is apparently hopeless, but which is surpassed anyway because seeing the good guys lose is one hell of a downer.

[quote]iakus wrote...

Depends. 
How well is it done?  Is it just a carbon-copy of Virmire or is some
creativity  put into it?[/quote]

People whine enough about how both Garrus missions are too similar just because they both evolve chasing down two completely different kinds of people in two distinct kinds of missions.

[quote]iakus wrote...

Maybe
there could have been a challenge with three possible results: a
squadmates who can 1) do it right 2) do it but gets themself or someone
else killed or 3) completely screw it up, die, and make the rest of the
mission harder.

Maybe earning a squadmate's loyalty could have
caused that person to actually save another.  You know, character
interaction?  Teamwork?  Wouldn't it be ironic if Miranda dies in the
Suicide mission unless you had Jack's loyalty?  In an extreme case,
perhaps one teamate could die for another![/quote]

That already happens! Having more loyal squad mates means that less of them will die at certain key points, namely the Hold the Line moment or the vents section. Or just try to have a non-loyal Miranda as fire-team leader next time and see if Tali doesn't get herself killed.

[quote]iakus wrote...

Yes.  Yes I am. 
Really.[/quote]

Be glad for the lack of aim on the ME1 enemies then.

[quote]iakus wrote...

Exactly!  Glad
to see you coming around to my si...oh, wait, you're still defending the
Hammerhead, aren't you?  ../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/quote]

Even with all its faults, it still beats the Mako.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...



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.[/quote]

"Realistic disadvantage" and "leaving the game in stand-by while you pick up a book and wait for the shields to recharge" are not synonyms.



[quote]Terror_K wrote...



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?[/quote]

It actually has regenerating shields. That's a little thing that's already been established in the game. Ships have them, military personel have them and even land vehicles. The only difference is that those actually work the way they're supposed to. Unlike the Mako's.



[quote]Terror_K wrote...



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, [/quote]

Even though I can think of several modern day vehicles that would make more sense to use for exploring a planet than the Mako.



[quote]Terror_K wrote...



felt
battle-capable, felt like a proper exploration vehicle, [/quote]

Battle-capable to fight enemies who couldn't hit the broad side of a Panzer tank in movement, yeah.



[quote]Terror_K
wrote...



felt strong and weighty [/quote]

... which is way it bounced like a tennis ball at the slightest bump on the road...



[quote]Terror_K
wrote...



and overall felt useful. [/quote]

"GOD! not another Mako section! Anything but another Mako section!"



[quote]Terror_K
wrote...



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.[/quote]

I'll admit, the worlds in the Hammerhead pack felt really way too tailor-made for the Hammerhead. They lacked any feeling that they were actual worlds, and instead were just something created for a test-drive.

But then again, that's what it was: a test-drive to test the controls of the Hammerhead and see our reaction. And now, they can actually bring back the planet exploration of ME1 without turning it into one of the worst aspects of the game.



[quote]Terror_K wrote...





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.[/quote]

Mountain climbing in ME1: "JUST - GET - UP THERE! You were designed for this sort of thing, why is this so goddamned hard for you? God, I hate mountains... "

Mountain climbing in ME2: "Oh look, a mountain! Cool! Let's see if there's something interessting up there *jumps up*"

Notice the difference?





[quote]Terror_K wrote...





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. [/quote]

"Pacing" has to have a reason, not just dragging its heels because it's afraid it might be getting too exciting. That's what made the Citadel in ME1 and ME2 so different, even though they're both places where, at its core, you pretty much just walk around and talk to people.





[quote]Terror_K
wrote...





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. [/quote]

Didn't I refute this claim of yours a while back? But I don't recall a reply though.

Wonder why that was...





[quote]Terror_K
wrote...





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.[/quote]

Funny, I heard that all before about a game very similar to this one. What was it's name again. Oh, yes

MASS EFFECT!

So that's where that feeling of "I've heard this talk before" was coming from.

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

It's science fiction to be OK with
barren planets in a game about space travel.

You want birds and
waterfalls? Play a fantasy game, there are plenty of them. Play ME2,
because it's a fantasy game, trying to sell under sci-fi label.[/quote]

Still
stuck on the "waterfall thing" because you still don't get what makes a
given planet good, are you?

Modifié par Lusitanum, 04 juillet 2010 - 12:01 .

[KitsuneRommel]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

It's science fiction to be OK with barren planets in a game about space travel.

You want birds and waterfalls? Play a fantasy game, there are plenty of them. Play ME2, because it's a fantasy game, trying to sell under sci-fi label.

You mean like Virmire? You do realize that the genre is space opera? That's why aliens don't look alien either. But no... it's much better to have nonsensical buildings in middle of featureless landscapes. It must be cost-effective to have a warehouses in middle of nowhere.

[Il Divo]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

You mean like Virmire? You do realize that the genre is space opera? That's why aliens don't look alien either. But no... it's much better to have nonsensical buildings in middle of featureless landscapes. It must be cost-effective to have a warehouses in middle of nowhere.

Just wanted to doubly emphasize this. Mass Effect in many respects feels like a Star Wars replica, only without lightsabers and happens to incorporate Earth into its origin. The biggest problems I see are the way aliens are handled. They may look different enough, but manerisms, emotions, motivations, etc. They all still feel remarkably human contrary to what they were intended.

[Iakus]

Lusitanum wrote...

iakus wrote...

No,
even then it should be very very difficult.  Bringing the best (of
what's needed)  And being prepared should just guarantee it won't be a
total bloodbath.

Yes, because we've never seen before a situation that is apparently hopeless, but which is surpassed anyway because seeing the good guys lose is one hell of a downer.

Situations like The Dirty Dozen, which this game was often compared to?   Or any number of other "hopeless battle/suicide mission" stories?  Good guys typically win, but winning hopeless battles usually has a steep cost to it.

Lusitanum wrote...

iakus wrote...

Depends. 
How well is it done?  Is it just a carbon-copy of Virmire or is some
creativity  put into it?

People whine enough about how both Garrus missions are too similar just because they both evolve chasing down two completely different kinds of people in two distinct kinds of missions.

You must admit, Garrus has an annoying tendency to let personal vendettas cloud his judgement.  Plus he seems to need someone at his sshoulder to remind him that he does not always get to decide who lives and wo dies.

Lusitanum wrote...

iakus wrote...

Maybe
there could have been a challenge with three possible results: a
squadmates who can 1) do it right 2) do it but gets themself or someone
else killed or 3) completely screw it up, die, and make the rest of the
mission harder.

Maybe earning a squadmate's loyalty could have
caused that person to actually save another.  You know, character
interaction?  Teamwork?  Wouldn't it be ironic if Miranda dies in the
Suicide mission unless you had Jack's loyalty?  In an extreme case,
perhaps one teamate could die for another!

That already happens! Having more loyal squad mates means that less of them will die at certain key points, namely the Hold the Line moment or the vents section. Or just try to have a non-loyal Miranda as fire-team leader next time and see if Tali doesn't get herself killed.

Kinda weird how that plays out exactly as if you had the wrong tech expert in the first place. 

I'm talking about other points in the game. Stuff that happens along the way.   Like a cut scene at some point where Jack does a biotic slam on a Collector drawing a bead on Miranda.  Grunt wading through a bunch of them to rescue a Tali who's about to be overwhelmed.  Thane pulling Jacob back from a booby trap.  Maybe this is stuff that happens during Hold the Line, but we don't get to see it!  It's all off-screen and hidden numbers.  And I know how much people hate numbers in games

Lusitanum wrote...

iakus wrote...

Yes.  Yes I am. 
Really.

Be glad for the lack of aim on the ME1 enemies then.

I'm more grateful for the massive amounts of shields it has, even if it does take a while to replenish if you let them get depleted

Modifié par iakus, 04 juillet 2010 - 04:58 .

[bjdbwea]

Lusitanum wrote...

Even though I can think of several modern day vehicles that would make more sense to use for exploring a planet than the Mako.

Really. Such as? Maybe you should let NASA know, it might save them millions in development.

Seriously though, I agree that a hovering vehicle might make more sense in some situations, but the question remains how that would deal with mountain climbing. Maybe a combination with wheels? But it doesn't change the fact that the Hammerhead wasn't very good. Too simple, too unrealistic (especially the weaponry), too obviously focused on instant non-stop action, too convenient and linear level design. That's not a good replacement for the exploration part from ME 1.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 04 juillet 2010 - 05:22 .

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

It's science fiction to be OK with barren planets in a game about space travel.

You want birds and waterfalls? Play a fantasy game, there are plenty of them. Play ME2, because it's a fantasy game, trying to sell under sci-fi label.

You mean like Virmire? You do realize that the genre is space opera? That's why aliens don't look alien either. But no... it's much better to have nonsensical buildings in middle of featureless landscapes. It must be cost-effective to have a warehouses in middle of nowhere.

Where would you hide as a pirat? Those planets are ideal for this.