-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mass Effect (4): First Details & Images [Update 2: Video of Mako driving around]
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
What you're suggesting admittedly does sound interesting, but that (and the idea of moving things to another galaxy, which I don't like either) also seems cheap to me. By building up a galactic setting with a detailed history, culture, etc., then throwing it all into flux (or shifting the focus to an entirely new location), it feels like they can't figure out how to tell a story set in a stable, functioning interstellar civilization. It's like people can't figure out how to make things interesting without falling back on the usual tropes - either the setting's already a dystopia, it's under siege by some nameless menace that's Forcing Everyone To Put Aside Their Differences And Band Together For The Greater Good, or there's been some sort of devastating event that's made a mess of everything, leaving civilization in a state of flux.
I'd like to see a new ME game set during the height of galactic civilization, rather than at its twilight or the dawn of its post-ME3 rebirth.
DOWN
Banned
Your complaint is pretty arbitrary. Why is it fine to make up a new planet in this Galaxy but not a different one? Either way, you are going somewhere they are creating and common sense would suggest they have a reason for deciding to have it occur in another galaxy.
And I don't think we all want to keep seeing new areas on the same set of planets. Sure, maybe one or two new hubs on the Citadel would be fine, except they may be trying to get out of the space Sheperd was in if this game is a separate story occurring while Sheperd is alive. Fact is, this was never supposed to be like The Elder Scrolls where they keep reiterating the same empire's countryside. You want some convoluted reason for them to have us go back to all the same places for our objectives? Sounds like a flawed concept to me.
So knowing they would want new locations for obvious reasons, why the heck can't they just be in another galaxy we're navigating? It's just like embarking at the start of ME1. No reason to disapprove of new places set in the Mass Effect future. That's what we would have expected largely if we were given a hypothetical 4th Sheperd game.
Portugeezer
Member
You mean you don't like the design of the conceptual prototype.
DOWN
Banned
It's back so it's a dream come true no matter what.
But I've always liked its rover inspirations. The body style is subjective, but I found it fine.
Mako on Hoth 2.0:
You can have prosperity in a state of flux. In a post ME3 Galaxy where many or most of the Mass Relays are broken and need fixing many areas will be without means to do so, while others will be far better and able to re-establish connection with the rest of the galaxy. Certainly the forces left near earth would be able to do achieve a great deal. If you fast forward a few decades after the war they could be quite prosperous, while other areas that only just rejoined the rest of the Galaxy may not, and still others are left in isolation where they may be prospering or failing.
It provides a lot of options for stories to be told and it only becomes trite if that is the only focus of the story. If it is simply the backdrop and an influence on the story being told I don't see how it matters if the galaxy is in flux, a dystopia or at the height of achievement. Really I envision things to not be destitute but simply divided in terms of politics.
Just the very nature of the Reaper War could have dramatic effects on different peoples and regions of space. The idea that something that powerful and horrendous could exist and only by a miracle that cannot be explained were they save could drastically alter some peoples beliefs and actions. Some may seek to hide away far as they can from civilization so no one or thing would ever bother to come after them, others may come to believe that military might and total domination and control is necessary in order to combat any threat that may come next, while others may believe that the Reapers were the greatest threat that could ever exist and that no other threat will ever come.
There are many many ways that a Post ME3 galaxy could go. I prefer certain themes and dynamics but there are a lot of ways things could turn out and many different aspects that could be focused on. Most of what was there before the Reapers came is still there, that doesn't have to go away, but a new layer and take on them could also be there.
ArchedThunder
Banned
Looking at the OP, didn't they straight up say it is in a new galaxy at E3?
DOWN
Banned
No, just said it was a new area of space. Didn't say it was outside the Milky Way.
Starts around :30 and the most specific lines follow.
http://youtu.be/4H1FN2_--EM
Sanctuary
Member
That would exclude 75% of the maps. Planet exploration was "fun" initially, until you get sick of the Mako doing donuts after you turned the wrong angle on top of a pebble, or you had to climb Mt. Everest to reach your destination. Unless you wanted to spend a half an hour traversing nothing but a barren wasteland. Oh, and you'd get almost to the top, get stuck, and then do backflips off the very top until you hit the bottom.
Fantastic stuff...yeah, the Mako was "great".
velociraptor
Junior Member
I do not want to play a game where I'm doing more driving than shooting. In fact, nothing irks me than 'pointless exploration'.
I found Mass Effect 1 to be a pretty boring game and the Mako did nothing for me.
All the elements that made Mass Effect 2 good need to be in this game.
Regarding the story... ME4 takes place during Shepard's life? What? So the reapers still might be a thing? Hype deflated. I've had enough of the reapers and I'm not sure how they'll circumvent that plot as the every species in the galaxy was pitted against the reaper threat.
I found Mass Effect 1 to be a pretty boring game and the Mako did nothing for me.
All the elements that made Mass Effect 2 good need to be in this game.
Regarding the story... ME4 takes place during Shepard's life? What? So the reapers still might be a thing? Hype deflated. I've had enough of the reapers and I'm not sure how they'll circumvent that plot as the every species in the galaxy was pitted against the reaper threat.
Why would their need to be a "convoluted reason" to visit some of the same planets? This problem only exists if they insists on having the game occur during the Reaper War, not if set after or before. Also, do you fully comprehend how MASSIVE the Galaxy is? Mass Effect has very much leaned towards realistic sci-fi and appropriately understands just how large the Galaxy is, as stated before the collective races had so far only explored 1% of the Galaxy so far. There are entire Mass Relays never explored due to Council policy about opening unknown relays. To add yet ANOTHER GALAXY into this mix is what I would call "needlessly convoluted." Even Star Wars, an entirely Science Fantasy story, takes place within a single galaxy, the same goes for Star Trek.
I don't see how any good can come of introducing another galaxy, if you want new worlds, new planets and new races, you can accomplish that all in the Milky Way. Again, only 1% has been explored so far, no need to add another vast galaxy with to the mix to further complicate things. I don't need another save the Galaxy plot or stop the Reapers fanfare, BioWare had the opportunity to tell that story and it took them three games for it to turn out to be a dud. I won't a less "grand" story that is more focused on exploration and less about being the savior. Hence, why setting the game after ME3 would be the perfect place as much of the galaxy would be rebuilding which would make sense for their to be a greater emphasis on exploring the unexplored regions of space for resources and what not.
Actually, it would have been a great mechanic if it was used very sparingly. In the context of given situation which encompassed ME3, there was no reason for those to be there in the first place. Personally, to remedy the situation you mentioned, I feel Bioware could have made a quest hub for Spectres. IIRC, in ME2, emails were sent to the player which when read would produce a side mission under the appropriate menu.
And I don't want to play a game that's nothing but a linear cover shooter with a glorified perk system masquerading as an RPG. If you want to play a sci-fi FPS where you're hustled from fight to fight without any so-called "pointless exploration", there are already a ton of games out there to choose from.
BioWare Montreal did the Omega DLC and MP: I think they'll have combat covered. I will be shocked if ME4 doesn't have plenty of the exact thing that got Montreal into the driver's seat for this game in the first place.
During Shepard's life could be after the Reaper war.
No way they'd canonize anything but Destroy anyway.
I'd also be fine with a side story that doesn't resolve around a galactic threat. Mass Effect 2 was a side story, after all.
DOWN
Banned
Still being super arbitrary. They explored random points in the Milky Way with Mass Relays.
Ever think they'll have an explanation of how we get to another galaxy? Because I am well aware of how huge the Milly Way is. But you seem to have a flawed misconception that there some goal to have the whole galaxy included before they make another.
Fact is, we saw a bunch of scattered locations in the galaxy that had been charted by other species or located near mass relays. There was no rhyme or reason to the map. It was just a bunch of invented planets in random solar systems. And that's all it will be once we know our reason for being able to travel to a different galaxy. Whether it's a dark matter warp or even our intention to jump there, we don't know yet.
I really don't get what you think they're missing in the Milky Way for them to invent that can't be (comparably to what they had to do when starting a new series in ME1) just created for us to learn just as excitingly as we did for new things in the originals? We were never gonna see 100% of it, as it was wildly vast. The nature of space travel in the ME universe is jumpy. No big deal that we are going to find our next planets via some other jump that's just as valid if they develop it.
Doesn't even mean we can't ever hear about another place that the original species inhabit back in the Milky Way for good.
A few things I want to comment on after reading the entire thread so far:
1. Mako exploration is being looked at with some ruby red-tinted glasses in this thread, because it was easily the worst part about about ME1. In addition to the generally poor agility of the vehicle itself, there were a myriad of other problems with the Mako, namely combat. This go-kart-with-a-cannon can only handle 10 rockets/Geth lasers and 8 sniper shots before you have to fix it with omni-gel, after which you have to wait 10-15 minutes for the shields to fully recharge before you go back to attacking the Geth tank that you still haven't killed after hitting it 5 times with your cannon in between shield recharges. Tell me, what part of that is fun?
2. I never understood why people like dice roll mechanics in shooters. Personally, I prefer my shooting mechanics to be 1:1; if I shoot at my target, I hit my target, with the only variables being kickback, positioning, body sway, etc. Anything else feels forced to me because it seems to have no bearing on what actions I take as a player. And that's why ME1 is the worst of the 3 games in terms of pure gameplay. While the RPG elements are fine when it comes to leveling, equipment and progression, those same elements make it a poor shooter when coupled with some terrible squadmate AI. A prime example of this is watching AI squadmates aim at an enemy that happens to be laying on the ground in directly front of them. The AI doesn't actually aim at them, the bullets just take random trajectories at the target while the squadmate is still physically aiming straight ahead. That's what dice rolls get you: a bunch of nonsense because of mechanics that ignore actual physics.
3. I actually want BioWare to pull its head of its cliche-writing ass and make this game take place after ME3. I mean, it isn't that hard to make it feasable: Destroy is canon, Indoctrination Theory is canon; Instead of Shepard fighting to save the world, it's Shepard working with all the Council races to reestablish contact with the other clusters while maintaining order and peace in a suddenly diverse and highly populated Sol Cluster with many different species fighting for survival. They could completely ignore the ridiculousness of the other two endings, keep all the fan favorite fuck-Barbies, and still have an interesting scenario with potential for something epic.
But, since BioWare couldn't write its way out of a post-cure celebratory Krogan orgy, we're most likely stuck with a game that ignores its own lore because they fucked up royally with ME3...
1. Mako exploration is being looked at with some ruby red-tinted glasses in this thread, because it was easily the worst part about about ME1. In addition to the generally poor agility of the vehicle itself, there were a myriad of other problems with the Mako, namely combat. This go-kart-with-a-cannon can only handle 10 rockets/Geth lasers and 8 sniper shots before you have to fix it with omni-gel, after which you have to wait 10-15 minutes for the shields to fully recharge before you go back to attacking the Geth tank that you still haven't killed after hitting it 5 times with your cannon in between shield recharges. Tell me, what part of that is fun?
2. I never understood why people like dice roll mechanics in shooters. Personally, I prefer my shooting mechanics to be 1:1; if I shoot at my target, I hit my target, with the only variables being kickback, positioning, body sway, etc. Anything else feels forced to me because it seems to have no bearing on what actions I take as a player. And that's why ME1 is the worst of the 3 games in terms of pure gameplay. While the RPG elements are fine when it comes to leveling, equipment and progression, those same elements make it a poor shooter when coupled with some terrible squadmate AI. A prime example of this is watching AI squadmates aim at an enemy that happens to be laying on the ground in directly front of them. The AI doesn't actually aim at them, the bullets just take random trajectories at the target while the squadmate is still physically aiming straight ahead. That's what dice rolls get you: a bunch of nonsense because of mechanics that ignore actual physics.
3. I actually want BioWare to pull its head of its cliche-writing ass and make this game take place after ME3. I mean, it isn't that hard to make it feasable: Destroy is canon, Indoctrination Theory is canon; Instead of Shepard fighting to save the world, it's Shepard working with all the Council races to reestablish contact with the other clusters while maintaining order and peace in a suddenly diverse and highly populated Sol Cluster with many different species fighting for survival. They could completely ignore the ridiculousness of the other two endings, keep all the fan favorite fuck-Barbies, and still have an interesting scenario with potential for something epic.
But, since BioWare couldn't write its way out of a post-cure celebratory Krogan orgy, we're most likely stuck with a game that ignores its own lore because they fucked up royally with ME3...
DOWN
Banned
The premise for Mako uncharted world exploration is brilliant and exciting. It was not the grossly misrepresented tedium you described. And you not liking the premise doesn't negate the fact that it clearly fit a lot of our tastes and desires. It's being brought back with good reason.
As for the writing comments, I find myself still surprised by how much bitter animosity people spew. ME certainly didn't grate on my nerves that badly at all.
Doctoglethorpe
Member
I really wish they would do this. Post-Destroy dark age may not be the fairy tale ending a lot of people (including myself) wanted Shepard to get, but its hard to deny its very ripe set up for more stories. Exploring the galaxy without the aid of the relays, reestablishing contact with other worlds and finding new aliens. It can still take place "in Shepard's lifetime" but he can just be a retired old geezer that people in-universe talk about like Neil Armstrong or some shit. No more end of the universe plots, no more space war 2's, just exploring this relay-ridden galaxy and skirmishing with more grounded threats, like a new first contact situation. So good sounding to me.
DOWN
Banned
How can it really be in Sheperd's lifetime if it is post-ME3? And DAI is more connected in setting and story arc to its predecessors than this will be. DAI is DA3 in a world where DA2 made EA want to distance from the notion of it sounding like it followed directly after the polarizing DA2.
ME next is seriously not part of the same arc in a broad sense.
I dont think that Inquisition is meant to be the start of a new trilogy arc though, how many endings did they claim to have lined up?
Also I mistyped, I meant to say the next mass effect after this one
In the same way that they keep saying ~this is not mass effect 4!~ they have said the same of Inquisition and Dragon Age 3.
Also I mistyped, I meant to say the next mass effect after this one
In the same way that they keep saying ~this is not mass effect 4!~ they have said the same of Inquisition and Dragon Age 3.
DOWN
Banned
Except DAI was officially first marketed and announced as DA3. And it is featuring the same major story arc, many of the same places, and major characters.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/09/17/dragon-age-3-inquisition-announced
It is widely assumed here that the name was changed due to the brand's struggle with its fan base after DA2.
ME Next hasn't been officially announced but they said calling it ME4 would be a disservice a very long time ago. Not Sheperd's story, and now we know Shepered isn't important. That means it's unlikely to be the same Reaper ark, if it involves Reapers at all.
TC McQueen
Member
That's the problem right there. The premise was great, but the execution of Mako exploration in ME1 made Bioware switch over to the shuttle drop/Hammerhead exploration stuff we got in ME2 and 3 because of the near universal problems people had with Mako travel.
Baron_Calamity
Member
1. Enjoyed it. I recently replayed all 3 games and still enjoyed it quite a bit. No rose color glasses
2. I don't understand why people would want 1:1 shooter mechanics in an RPG.
3.Whatever. I've moved past the terrible plotting in the 2nd and 3rd games. Live for the character moments.
It does look like a toy R/C car you can buy from a mall.
TC McQueen
Member
1. When your game's combat is a real time third-person shooter, people expect that it should perform/behave like one.
2. Unless you're working with some of the worst guns ever made or really shitty at handling a gun, real guns tend to behave closer to 1:1 shooter mechanics than dice-roll RPG bullshit, which makes the dice-roll stuff even more infuriating.
3. Just because a game is an RPG doesn't mean traditional dice-roll mechanics are a good fit in every case. You're supposed to design the game around the stuff you plan to put in it, not based on genre conventions.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I still maintain that the Hammerhead was a way better vehicle for traversing environments in. It's problem was it was too weak in combat sections and we hardly got to use it since it was DLC only. The added benefit is that it actually looks and feels like something that should be in a Mass Effect game. Like this is a universe with hovercars, floating drone weapons and stuff, it makes perfect sense to have an AFV with hovering capabilities. A six wheeler was always a bit off to me.
If its indeed set during ME1-3, the problem is that nothing you do will matter in the long run.
It can be the best standalone story ever. Like a group of space pirates that find themselves stranded in an uncharted galaxy and need to find their way back, and their wacky adventures. In the end, we know how the whole thing turns out, and any character development they go through, in the end, is pointless.
If this is the direction, I hope they focus on characters and character development and less on THE GALAXY IS ENDING, BUT ITS TOTALLY FINE TO STOP AND DANCE AT THE CIDATEL!
It can be the best standalone story ever. Like a group of space pirates that find themselves stranded in an uncharted galaxy and need to find their way back, and their wacky adventures. In the end, we know how the whole thing turns out, and any character development they go through, in the end, is pointless.
If this is the direction, I hope they focus on characters and character development and less on THE GALAXY IS ENDING, BUT ITS TOTALLY FINE TO STOP AND DANCE AT THE CIDATEL!
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Yeah, what a massive step backwards. The technology in the ME universe should make the mere concept of wheels irrelevant.
You can't get out and push a hovercar when the power core fails. It's also safe to assume flight uses more fuel/energy than powering a ground vehicle, which is a plus for extended operations. And adverse weather conditions or poor visibility aren't going to ground a truck.
Yeah, but wheels feel cool. The Mako was fun to drive because it took some skill, but once you got it, it was awesome. Feeling the weight of it and bouncing around terrain and the jerking forward and back when you hit the breaks or accelerated was the shit. The Hammerhead just felt like a toy and a vehicle made for a kid, there was no skill involved. It just hovered over everything.
TC McQueen
Member
I really doubt a bunch of dudes are going to be able to push an IFV if its power core fails either. You've got a point about a hover vehicle being more energy intensive than a ground one, but the hover vehicle more than makes up for that with its superior maneuverability, which allows it to avoid obstacles that could block a wheeled/tracked vehicle. And when it comes to adverse weather, in both cases the prudent move would be to hunker down in place anyway, which is slightly easier for the ground vehicle, but the hover one has an easier time getting picked up by the ship in such a situation.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Sorry to be blunt, but the Mako was fun to drive like rectal prolapse is fun.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
You can stick emergency wheels on it if you want, but we have effortless surface-to-orbit transitions via small, cheap shuttles in this universe. Hovering above the ground shouldn't be a problem even for very long periods of time. That's what the drive cores are for. It certainly fits the aesthetics of the ME universe, in which basically everything flies or hovers except the Mako and older Grizzly. Both of which are IFVs, not moon buggies, I may add.
It kicks ass to drive the thing in game, which is the most important factor in whether or not it should have been included in future games. Much better than the incredibly shitty experience of driving the ME1 Mako.
Woody Invincible
Banned
Maybe you play as Marauder Shields and you save Shepard at the end.
As far as pushing an IFV goes, that depends on how many Krogan you've got with you. ; )
Ultimately, I think that if you're exploring hostile environments, you want to use something as simple, sturdy and reliable as possible. It needs to be tough to break and simple to fix, and you need to be able to repair it in the field with whatever tools and equipment you have on hand. And even in the ME universe, there seems to be a significant difference in complexity between air vehicles and simple ground transports.
Oh, and if you run into some bizarre electromagnetic field or other strange phenomenon on one of these unexplored worlds that fries your vehicle's systems, that ground vehicle's going to roll to a stop. Your flying craft, on the other hand, has just become a large armor-plated brick, possibly moving at high speed and/or falling from a great height.
Travelling around the Citadel in an aircar is great. But for exploring an unknown planet, I think I'd prefer the truck.
I don't know if my experiences are different from other peoples' because I played these games on the PC, but for me, driving the Mako wasn't this nightmarish experience I hear people describing. The Hammerhead, on the other hand, was this skate-y feeling thing that you had to drive around these halfassed vehicular platforming levels. I didn't have a lot of fun driving it, and I thought the levels built around it were a poor substitute for the exploration in ME1. : /
TC McQueen
Member
The Firewalker levels were kinda crap because they were really test levels to see what people liked, but the Hammerhead really shone in Overlord (aside from the weak combat).
well yeah. but thankfully they're bringing back exploration.
It's back so it's a dream come true no matter what.
But I've always liked its rover inspirations. The body style is subjective, but I found it fine.
I'm ecstatic that the Mako is back,and while I don't see Ferrari in the design I wouldn't mind if it did look like something from Maranello.
It is not even the 4th mass effect game.
I guess you are pretending that Mass Effect Galaxy (2009) and Mass Effect Infiltrator (2012) don't exist.
There is nothing unreasonable about this and the record is quite clear, Bioware has said as recently as this panel that the game is not Mass Effect 4.
TC McQueen
Member
I don't know, they were advertised as a part of the run up to their respective games, and Galaxy at least is referenced in 2 by Jacob.
Either way, the tacit repulsion to saying ~this is not Mass Effect 4~ is pretty weird. Even if he does not know that those games exist, it does not undermine my point that the upcoming game is not the 4th Mass Effect game nor that the team has been consistent in saying that this is not Mass Effect 4.
Either way, the tacit repulsion to saying ~this is not Mass Effect 4~ is pretty weird. Even if he does not know that those games exist, it does not undermine my point that the upcoming game is not the 4th Mass Effect game nor that the team has been consistent in saying that this is not Mass Effect 4.