195 réponses à ce sujet

[Skilled Seeker]

Ignorance? I stated facts. You are the one blinded by your fanboyism towards the Mako. And the HH is more flexable. It turns by simply moving your mouse and thus can execute 180 turns in a second. As for the boosters how is that any more cheesy than the other tech used in sci fi and mass effect? Is a mass effect field generated propulsion system like the one used in spaceships to hard to grasp?

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 24 mars 2010 - 09:37 .

[KotOREffecT]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

LOL, the MAKO wasn't even close to being as bad as you people let on. It's kind of funny, because that means either you have absolutely no skill or you're horrendously impatient and prone to hyperbole.

The same can be said about those hating on the Hammerhead which is a better vehicle in every way.

I think most people hating on the Hammerhead simply feel that the missions are a worthless waste of time (short though that time may be).

That one mission that involved the lava planet with the space station that looked like Mustafar was on par with the N7 Missions. Simply because you got to drive around, then get out, explore the station and find some clues, it also has an slightly interesting story about the Protheans, then you hit a button and the station starts to go to hell(literally), and you have to escape it and the lava, which was kinda intense, but fun.

Overall, I liked the intention to detail of the missions, yes a little short, but not as short as some make them out to be. They were def good for being what they were(free and as a test for the HH).  I'd def like to see BioWare build on them, but add some on foot combat and the dialogue of ME 1 side quests and we have a winning formula for ME 3.

[CrimsonStout]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Ignorance? I stated facts. You are the one blinded by your fanboyism towards the Mako. And the HH is more flexable. It turns by simply moving your mouse and thus can execute 180 turns in a second. As for the boosters how is that any more cheesy than the other tech used in sci fi and mass effect? Is a mass effect field generated propulsion system like the one used in spaceships to hard to grasp?

I get these points, but my major concern is the lack of personality.
I feel like I'm swapping a VW Party Van for a BMW.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

So the only thing people seem to think the hammerhead has over the mako is guided rockets and a faster pace.



Seems to coincide with my earlier comment about patience.



But the guided rockets aren't even that good. More often than not they miss unless you line the shot up perfectly beforehand, which is about the exact same situation as the mako and its AOE missile. Saying an HUD for the hammerhead would be "immersion breaking" is ridiculous given the fact that there are giant columns of magic red/blue lights leading you to the magic yellow circle of interest all over the levels.

[Jurgenaut]

The big issue for me is that the hammerhead is just another teleporter between packaged missions.

In ME1 when I wanted to exit the Normandy I walked out the airlock. If I wanted to move around the citadel, I could walk. It was immersive.

In ME2, all you do is start pre-packaged sequences. You click the star map, choose planet, watch the flight cinematic and then boom - you are outside in the exact same position as last time you entered this place. Same with Hammerhead (the Mako allowed you to exit whenever you wished). When the hammerhead missions do allow you to exit, you start in a preset location with the hovercar nicely parked.

For reasons I myself can't fully understand it feels fake. The illusion of freedom breaks.

The planets in ME1 were boring as hell, but they did enforce the image that this universe was pretty big. Perhaps the total lack of developer attention given to the planets made me think that _I_ was exploring these planets, that these planets had spawned from some form of randomized algorithm and anything could happen (even though nothing ever did).



I don't know, I may just be crazy.

[Jarcander]

The Angry One wrote...

The Hammerhead is actually less maneuverable and flexible.
Yes I suppose it's faster if you include the Wile E. Coyote rocket-in-the-arse booster.

If it was a race between Mako and Hammerhead in ME1 mountains, Hammerhead would already be there when Mako was just falling down the first obstacle.

And I have to agree that HUD is unnecessary in this case. Things like low hit point total on Hammerhead can easily be boosted with a patch when new challenges are here someday.

So, new hair colour? I think the red was better.

[gloowacz]

The Hammerhead is actually less maneuverable and flexible.
Yes I suppose it's faster if you include the Wile E. Coyote rocket-in-the-arse booster.

lol, nice line of argument. I therefore declare hammerhead infinetely superior to mako because mako can't shoot. Well, I suppose it can if you include the ACME on-top-of-it turret.

Oh and mako can't move cause it doesn't have wheels.

Modifié par gloowacz, 24 mars 2010 - 09:41 .

[The Angry One]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Ignorance? I stated facts. You are the one blinded by your fanboyism towards the Mako. And the HH is more flexable. It turns by simply moving your mouse and thus can execute 180 turns in a second.

Yeah you know why the mouse didn't turn the Mako? Because it manipulated the turret allowing for more flexible and satisfying combat than "stay just out of range of the stupid AI and shoot 700 missiles at them".

As for the boosters how is that any more cheesy than the other tech used in sci fi and mass effect? Is a mass effect field generated propulsion system like the one used in spaceships to hard to grasp?

None of which changes the fact that it's an arcady racing booster used entirely on maps that don't need it.

[KotOREffecT]

I had just as much if not more fun in combat with the HH than the Mako. I was one of the few who did like the Mako, but like I said, they seemed to have revamped the fun factor with the HH. It just feels good speeding up and pwning/ramming enemies, or coming out of mid air then crashing down while in an intense fight, it was just more fun to me. Def some of the msot fun I've had gameplay wise since ME 1 Mako fights.



I'm just glad we got 5 free missions that some are on par with the N7 Missions, esp considering the fact the a few of the N7 Missions were actually just as short if not shorter, like the one with the Varren.

[Skilled Seeker]

Blah blah keep on hating. Your arcady argument fails since its just a booster and there is nothing arcady about that. They exist in real life too you know.

[The Angry One]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Blah blah keep on hating. Your arcady argument fails since its just a booster and there is nothing arcady about that. They exist in real life too you know.

Missiles exist in real life too. Their usage on the Hammerhead however is suspect.
Or I suppose you're going to argue that the HH's missiles are teh realistic too.

[Skilled Seeker]

KotOREffecT wrote...

I had just as much if not more fun in combat with the HH than the Mako. I was one of the few who did like the Mako, but like I said, they seemed to have revamped the fun factor with the HH. It just feels good speeding up and pwning/ramming enemies, or coming out of mid air then crashing down while in an intense fight, it was just more fun to me. Def some of the msot fun I've had gameplay wise since ME 1 Mako fights.

I'm just glad we got 5 free missions that some are on par with the N7 Missions, esp considering the fact the a few of the N7 Missions were actually just as short if not shorter, like the one with the Varren.

Exactly.

1. It was FREE. And the content wasn't any shorter than other side missions.

2. It is fast paced, intense and more risky. Majority of people prefer that over slower paced gameplay of the Mako. Say we have a short attention span blah blah but Bioware can't please everyone but they can try to please the majority. If you want a slow game play a table top RPG.

[CTM1]

I wasn't a part of these boards back when Mass Effect 1 was released, but if I had I would have been one of those fighting for the Mako. While it has its problems (as noted), it also has good things going for it (as noted). Regardless of whether or not it you thought it was terrible to drive, or had unrealistic physics, it comes down to whether or not it was ultimately fun. And for me, the Mako was just that, problems be damned. To name a few, which I can elaborate on if pressed:

I loved chugging around in it and using it to pulverize enemies. The machine gun and missile launcher weren't perfect, and you had to stop to hit anything accurately, but I still had fun using it. It was great that you could just barrel right on into enemies instead (including geth armatures and colossi!).

I loved using it to get to places. Like any vehicle does, it means making large environments so that it makes sense to use it to get from point A to point B, and large environments give the player a sense of a large world. This was utterly lacking in Mass Effect 2, because we had no vehicle to give off this effect. For me, this was a major issue.

Besides the Mako's own physics, the problems that people bring up time and time again are the levels that you had to drive it on. Being forced to climb mountainous terrain repeatedly is not going to endear anyone to the machine, but it's no reason on its own to dismiss it.

In addition, I play Mass Effect on the Xbox 360, so chalk me up as a console Mako supporter. If anything, I figured PC users would hate it more - I've seen more than one Youtube video of someone showing all sorts of weird things that you can do to mess with its physics, that are exclusively PC issues.

Anyway, back to the topic. I didn't like the Hammerhead missions. They were boring, uninspired, and short. As someone already said, they feel like demos, and I find myself agreeing with that assessment.

The Hammerhead itself was fun to drive around with, but I wouldn't want it exclusively as a driving vehicle for, say, Mass Effect 3. As someone else has already pointed out, it has an in-game explanation for its limited use - its ability to hover only makes using it possible on worlds with an atmosphere. It also had issues on the cold world, hinting at its limited durability. In short, the Mako's in-game explanation is that was a vehicle built from the ground up to land on any uncharted world, and take a lot of punishment. I want to see its return in Mass Effect 3, perhaps with the Hammerhead as a backup for certain missions or worlds where using it would make sense. It would be interesting to see what Bioware could do with level design to have both vehicles available for the game.

Modifié par CTM1, 24 mars 2010 - 10:12 .

[Skilled Seeker]

The Angry One wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Blah blah keep on hating. Your arcady argument fails since its just a booster and there is nothing arcady about that. They exist in real life too you know.

Missiles exist in real life too. Their usage on the Hammerhead however is suspect.
Or I suppose you're going to argue that the HH's missiles are teh realistic too.

Ow the bouncy rubber Mako that can topple off miles high cliffs without a scratch yet slip into a pit on Noveria and burn is realistic? You have to realise it is a game and gameplay > realism.

[The Angry One]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Blah blah keep on hating. Your arcady argument fails since its just a booster and there is nothing arcady about that. They exist in real life too you know.

Missiles exist in real life too. Their usage on the Hammerhead however is suspect.
Or I suppose you're going to argue that the HH's missiles are teh realistic too.

Ow the bouncy rubber Mako that can topple off miles high cliffs without a scratch yet slip into a pit on Noveria and burn is realistic? You have to realise it is a game and gameplay > realism.

You're the one arguing about realism, not me.
Arcady does not necesarilly mean unrealistic. It means simplistic. The Hammerhead is simplistic, the Hammerhead's levels are simplistic.
I'm not saying the Mako was the zenith of complexity, but it had more potential than this.

Modifié par The Angry One, 24 mars 2010 - 09:50 .

[Skilled Seeker]

The Angry One wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Blah blah keep on hating. Your arcady argument fails since its just a booster and there is nothing arcady about that. They exist in real life too you know.

Missiles exist in real life too. Their usage on the Hammerhead however is suspect.
Or I suppose you're going to argue that the HH's missiles are teh realistic too.

Ow the bouncy rubber Mako that can topple off miles high cliffs without a scratch yet slip into a pit on Noveria and burn is realistic? You have to realise it is a game and gameplay > realism.

You're the one arguing about realism, not me.
Arcady does not necesarilly mean unrealistic. It means simplistic. The Hammerhead is simplistic, the Hammerhead's levels are simplistic.
I'm not saying the Mako was the zenith of complexity, but it had more potential than this.

More potential in which way? The HH can do everything the Mako can and more. And it is you that bought realism into the equation when you made fun of the boosters.

[Jarcander]

CTM1 wrote...

Anyway, back to the topic. I didn't like the Hammerhead missions. They were boring, uninspired, and short.

That's just unfair. Their only sin was that they were short, which is understandable. Their themes were more varied than any ME Mako mission *ever* was:

- Hovertank's engines slowly cooling on ice planet
- Lava raising on hot planet
- Pools of acid on an industrial complex
- Prothean dig with a shield generator protecting it

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Skilled Seeker wrote...
Exactly.

1. It was FREE. And the content wasn't any shorter than other side missions.

2. It is fast paced, intense and more risky. Majority of people prefer that over slower paced gameplay of the Mako. Say we have a short attention span blah blah but Bioware can't please everyone but they can try to please the majority. If you want a slow game play a table top RPG.

1) So what if it was free? BioWare spent time on a feature and people are going to speak their mind about it. That's what BioWare should want.

2) So, all you're saying is that people have different opinions while implying you are a member of the magical majority. By that same token I could say "If you want a fast-paced game go play Wipeout."
Pointless.

[Jarcander]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

2) So, all you're saying is that people have different opinions while implying you are a member of the magical majority. By that same token I could say "If you want a fast-paced game go play Wipeout."
Pointless.

This little hovertank episode adds to the game, it's not a game on its own. It fits in flawlessly too and offers variance for future playthrough's.

[Skilled Seeker]

The sales speak for themselves. ME2 has faster shooter based gameplay and sold more and is more popular than ME1. I like both but my point is Bioware's direction is not flawed it is simply the best way to attract the most players.

[KotOREffecT]

CTM1 wrote...

Anyway, back to the topic. I didn't like the Hammerhead missions. They were boring, uninspired, and short. As someone already said, they feel like demos, and I find myself agreeing with that assessment.

The Hammerhead itself was fun to drive around with, but I wouldn't want it exclusively as a driving vehicle for, say, Mass Effect 3. As someone else has already pointed out, it has an in-game explanation for its limited use - its ability to hover only makes using it possible on worlds with an atmosphere. It also had issues on the cold world. In short, the Mako's in-game explanation is that was a vehicle built from the ground up to land on any uncharted world, and take a lot of punishment. I want to see its return in Mass Effect 3, perhaps with the Hammerhead as a backup for certain missions or worlds where using it would make sense. It would be interesting to see what Bioware could do with level design to have both vehicles available for the game.

Then what do you call the N7 Missions? Yes they had fun shooter parts, and some were very original like the titanic ship one, but most were very short or almost the same as the Firewalker misssions. And if you look at the ME 1 sidequests, strip away the mako exploring, and you have a short "run through the same looking station and wipe out a few enemies and have a nice bit of dialogue and choice making.

IMO, they should combine all aspects of both games, give us the exploration part, mixed in with the off foot combat/HH combat, and then some dialogue and choice making.

As far as the Mako goes, it may be a good idea to bring that back in ME 3 as well for certain planets, I agree. The mako was never really that bad, just needs some tuning.

Modifié par KotOREffecT, 24 mars 2010 - 10:00 .

[The Angry One]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

More potential in which way? The HH can do everything the Mako can and more.

Right. Can it take any degree of punishment? No.
Can it rotate it's turret? No.
Can it zoom in to targets? No.
Can it have more than one weapon type? No.
Can it climb rough terrain? No.

And it is you that bought realism into the equation when you made fun of the boosters.

I made fun of the boosters due to the simplistic nature of the HH, and because they're entirely superfluous to the tiny level design.

[RobbertDewulf]

I liked the scanning thing, much better than receiving everything without any effort.



And the HH was quite funny, but short.

[The Angry One]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

The sales speak for themselves. ME2 has faster shooter based gameplay and sold more and is more popular than ME1. I like both but my point is Bioware's direction is not flawed it is simply the best way to attract the most players.

John Madden games attract a lot of players too. Should ME3 be more like that?

[Skilled Seeker]

I agree that the best solution is to allow us to bring both vehicles for future ME missions. Then everyone is happy.