97 replies to this topic

[Cpt Beefheart]

In amongst this whole "derp derp derp, I don't want 3rd person herp derp" thing has come the disposition that the MWO is a simulator (I don't want to use 3rd person either, but I'll get to that later). Please kids, calm down, the Mechwarrior series are not simulators in the pure sense of the word, and I for one am thankful they are not.

Here's some features that simulators have, and how MWO and other games in the MW series compare.


Functional cockpits and micromanagement

So far, MWO has shown intention of displaying readouts on LCD screens in cockpits. However in simulators this is the primary feature of the game, and you spend more time looking at instruments than you do looking at your HUD, especially outside of combat. This is because, IRL, when piloting/driving a piece of machinery it is physically impossible to display every important piece of information, in its finer points, on a HUD, and it's more sensible to put detailed readouts (which you need when operating complex machines) on an instrument panel rather than cluttering the pilot's line of sight.

This also means micromanagement. In flight simulators this is air:fuel ratios, voltage, radar management, scopes, bomb/rocket timing, laser targeting and so on, which MW games do-not feature. IRL, it's feasible that a big stompy robot would still need a great deal of its human "brain" to manage such systems rather than leaving it to an AI which is likely to get damaged in combat.

If MWO was a simulator, you'll be spending more time looking away from the action, clicking on a control panel and pressing hot keys than you would be going *pew pew pew*.

Realistic weapon function and ammo storage

In the Battletech books and the TV series it's stated over and over again that LRMs and sSRMs are heat guided. Heat seeking missles require line of sight to function (infared doesn't necessarily travel through walls ect) and most also do-not have a "lock on" feature that specifies what target they home onto. Rather, they fly toward the closest hot object within their line of sight. Ones that do lock on are not as popular or functional as laser or radar guided missles for air combat, or as quick and easy as "fire and forget" missles for ground combat. Guided missiles in MWO act more like radar guided missiles in that they recuire a radar lock to function. Radar lock requires the pilot to specify which target the missile is to fly toward via a control panel. Even with an AI, there are many many things that show up on a radar, especially one scanning ground objects and it wouldn't be sensible to rely on a computer to identify friend from foe and lock on automatically. Even in the future, relying purely on an AI to make this distinction when it could be damaged in combat it's more likely there would be more pilot input to missle lock than there is in MWO. This is especcially when battlemechs still require a neurohelmet to determine balance due to limited AI, and the nurohelmet has nothing to do with targeting. I can't see A1 fans enjoying themselves constantly having to look at a radar scope to achieve a lock as they would if this were a simulation.

In terms of interface, modern missiles don't feature a fancy graphic to display a lock. They are simple so as to not distract the operator (yeah, the military industrial complex is weird like that) and it's not likely that even an advanced weapons platform from the future would see fancy graphics as much of an improvement. Boxes that interpret radar readings onto a HUD (target boxes) do not chance size IRL so they can be easily identified by the pilot. Milliseconds count in combat, and it's more sensible to have a box that is the same size every time no matter the distance to the target so the pilot doesn't have to scan for a tiny little box representing an enemy in the distance. MWO's target boxes change in size depending on the distance to the target, and it's not exactly an improvement to the modern system which has simple displays for a reason.

Furthermore, most missiles do-not cause "splash damage" and the force of impact is forward of the missile. The fireball from a missile impact is excess fuel burning and is about as harmful to the target as flame from a matchstick.

What also makes the MW series completely unrealistic is the fact you can store hunking great big shells of ammunition in the legs of your mech, and it's somehow able to navigate its way through all the moving parts of the legs, hips, engine and shoulders into a cannon located in the arms without the mech having to stop moving to avoid a jam and without having to add extra parts.

Newtonian physics, ballistics and weather

Simulation games pride themselves on their engines being based almost completely on Newton's laws and the effects of weather. For example, if you were driving a high speed tank and fire a shell with the turret at 90 degrees, the shell would travel along with the tank as well as outward from it, in a slight curve. Wind would also affect the projectile no matter how heavy it is. Ballistics weapons in MWO do not do this and travel more in a straight line if they're fired while moving than they do a curve.

Another example of MWO not being true to physics is that 90 tonnes of steel is able to travel at 100+ kmh and come to a complete stop without the weight of its torso causing it to topple over. If MWO was a true simulator maneuvering your giant robot of death would be far more difficult than it already is, and the models wouldn't look nearly as nice as designs would have to be altered to make them more stable in a real world environment.

Weather would also affect the maneuverability of your mech. For example, in the Frozen City, your giant Atlas would be swaying side to side in a blizzard, making it not only hard to walk in a straight line, but also making it harder to keep your targeting sight steady as your mech is blown about. Also, in a similar scenario to the "90 tonnes moving at 100+ kph" mentioned before, a Dragon (for example) which is capable of moving at these speeds with the right engine would find itself skating across the ice and tripping over in the snow, making it not much fun at all.

Realistic damage

So far the only "realistic damage" that occurs in MWO is that your mech loses limbs and weapons. Hits to the engine do not affect the mech's performance and hits to the head do not affect your computer, radar or any componants in that area. Both (true) flight simulators and driving simulators feature damage that affect the performance of your machine. Damage to the front and center of your jet fighter, for example, result in computer components shutting down, loss of radar, instrument malfunctions and so on. Hits to the wings cause fuel fires and loss of control surfaces. Logically, "legging" a mech would not only cause it to move slower and limp along, but will also cause it to become unstable and sway as the gyro and AI compensates for the loss of strengh in the affected leg.

So far, there has been intention to have this sort of damage, but in my mind at least, this is where the "simulation" aspect begins and ends for MWO.

If MWO was a true simulator, with real world aspects taken into account, you might be spending hours, if not days, waiting for your mech to be repaired for the next battle. How about realistic death? Eve online (although not a true simulator) features Pod death which can be disasterously frustrating for the victim. Of course, there's no clones per-se in the BT universe (except for the Clans), so the logical conclusion for an IS pilot not ejecting in time before his battlemech is reduced to a pile of bubbling iron-oxide is the account is locked and he has to start again from scratch.

Input from experts

Yes, this game has been given the blessing of Jordan Weisman and the Devs were/have been working in collaberation with him on how the rules and concepts of MWO work. However, simulation games spend a great deal of time working with real life experts on how machines function and what it's like to operate them. Logically, the people PGI should be also colaborating with to create a simulation of giant combat robots are tank crews, fighter pilots and the guys from DARPA. To my knowledge, there is not a single person assisting the development of the game who has ever operated a tank, flown a fighter jet or designed a combat robot.

Furthermore, simulators are often intended and used as training software for drivers and pilots. Even EA's F1 simulator is used by F1 drivers at home in the off season to keep their skills sharp while their car is being built/tuned. Lockon: Modern Air Combat is a famous simulator which was designed with members of the Russian military and also later used by the Russians in their own simulators.

Bottom line

Let's look at some actual simulators out there. No, I'm not talking X-Wing, Ace Combat and so on. They are pure fantasy arcade style games. What I'm talking about is the *real* simulators which feature every aspect of the "real thing" which includes the bordom of starting up the machine, navigating it to where it needs to go, firing a few shots before turning around and going home, as well as the stress/terror of micromanaging everything you're doing while trying to kill someone who is trying to kill you. Games like Lockon, Orbiter and Silent Service... three of the most drab and boring games out there.
As WWII pilots said "flying a fighter is hours of bordom mixed with seconds of horror" and simulators are exactly that - Simulators are boring and frustrating with steep learning curves and hours of tutorials before playing missions where you navigate somewhere doing nothing before being killed in a few seconds.

Thank f%$k the MWO is not a simulator. It would not be nearly as fun as it is now, and people would drop it in a matter of minutes in frustration. If anything, MWO is, in my opinion, an FPS that feels like a simulator even though it isn't one in the true sense. But it is this that makes me love the game. I like the degree of immersion that occurs when your view is limited to that of your cockpit. I like not being able to see around corners, and the ability to hide behind smoke and behind buildings knowing that while I might know where the enemy is, they can't see me, I can't see them and either of us could move at any second. It's the thinking ahead and planning, the flowing and change of tactics that, win or lose, is where the fun lies for me and I pity anyone who wants to play in 3rd person as they'll never get this experience.


~~~~~ TLDR ~~~~~

Call MWO for what it is: it's an FPS, it's an MMO, it's a build/customisation game, it's a team game and this is where the fun and challenge is. But please don't call it a simulator. Simulators are cr4p boring frustratingly difficult games.

[Ettibber]

actually they did market this as a "mech simulation game" and if they do cave in and put 3rd person in, i'm done. they said they wouldn't, and i don't like being lied to.

Edited by Ettibber, 22 March 2013 - 11:17 PM.

[Sir Roland MXIII]

I always thought of MW as a quasi-simulator, not a true sim'. As someone who enjoys both sim' games and otherwise I can see elements of both here. I agree that 100% simulation involves a great deal of tedium, however not all of the ingredients of simulation are boring, and I would love to have more sim' elements than we have now.

Edited by Sir Roland MXIII, 22 March 2013 - 11:19 PM.

[EvilCow]

And the whole point is not about MWO being or not a simulator. It is about further splitting the community (at best) or be forced to accept an obnoxious game dynamic or drop the game entirely

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

It's a feature I'm on the fence about. If we do get it, I hope its usage gets a separated queue for those that do not want to have anything to do with it nor want it to be in their matches. If it is not separated, then I'd vote NO.

[Ettibber]

EvilCow, on 22 March 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

And the whole point is not about MWO being or not a simulator. It is about further splitting the community (at best) or be forced to accept an obnoxious game dynamic or drop the game entirely

obnoxious? try broken, it's one of the reasons poptarting was so popular in MW4

[Darkfire66]

Cpt Beefheart, on 22 March 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

In amongst this whole "derp derp derp, I don't want 3rd person herp derp" thing has come the disposition that the MWO is a simulator (I don't want to use 3rd person either, but I'll get to that later). Please kids, calm down, the Mechwarrior series are not simulators in the pure sense of the word, and I for one am thankful they are not.

Here's some features that simulators have, and how MWO and other games in the MW series compare.


Functional cockpits and micromanagement

So far, MWO has shown intention of displaying readouts on LCD screens in cockpits. However in simulators this is the primary feature of the game, and you spend more time looking at instruments than you do looking at your HUD, especially outside of combat. This is because, IRL, when piloting/driving a piece of machinery it is physically impossible to display every important piece of information, in its finer points, on a HUD, and it's more sensible to put detailed readouts (which you need when operating complex machines) on an instrument panel rather than cluttering the pilot's line of sight.

This also means micromanagement. In flight simulators this is air:fuel ratios, voltage, radar management, scopes, bomb/rocket timing, laser targeting and so on, which MW games do-not feature. IRL, it's feasible that a big stompy robot would still need a great deal of its human "brain" to manage such systems rather than leaving it to an AI which is likely to get damaged in combat.

If MWO was a simulator, you'll be spending more time looking away from the action, clicking on a control panel and pressing hot keys than you would be going *pew pew pew*.

Realistic weapon function and ammo storage

In the Battletech books and the TV series it's stated over and over again that LRMs and sSRMs are heat guided. Heat seeking missles require line of sight to function (infared doesn't necessarily travel through walls ect) and most also do-not have a "lock on" feature that specifies what target they home onto. Rather, they fly toward the closest hot object within their line of sight. Ones that do lock on are not as popular or functional as laser or radar guided missles for air combat, or as quick and easy as "fire and forget" missles for ground combat. Guided missiles in MWO act more like radar guided missiles in that they recuire a radar lock to function. Radar lock requires the pilot to specify which target the missile is to fly toward via a control panel. Even with an AI, there are many many things that show up on a radar, especially one scanning ground objects and it wouldn't be sensible to rely on a computer to identify friend from foe and lock on automatically. Even in the future, relying purely on an AI to make this distinction when it could be damaged in combat it's more likely there would be more pilot input to missle lock than there is in MWO. This is especcially when battlemechs still require a neurohelmet to determine balance due to limited AI, and the nurohelmet has nothing to do with targeting. I can't see A1 fans enjoying themselves constantly having to look at a radar scope to achieve a lock as they would if this were a simulation.

In terms of interface, modern missiles don't feature a fancy graphic to display a lock. They are simple so as to not distract the operator (yeah, the military industrial complex is weird like that) and it's not likely that even an advanced weapons platform from the future would see fancy graphics as much of an improvement. Boxes that interpret radar readings onto a HUD (target boxes) do not chance size IRL so they can be easily identified by the pilot. Milliseconds count in combat, and it's more sensible to have a box that is the same size every time no matter the distance to the target so the pilot doesn't have to scan for a tiny little box representing an enemy in the distance. MWO's target boxes change in size depending on the distance to the target, and it's not exactly an improvement to the modern system which has simple displays for a reason.

Furthermore, most missiles do-not cause "splash damage" and the force of impact is forward of the missile. The fireball from a missile impact is excess fuel burning and is about as harmful to the target as flame from a matchstick.

What also makes the MW series completely unrealistic is the fact you can store hunking great big shells of ammunition in the legs of your mech, and it's somehow able to navigate its way through all the moving parts of the legs, hips, engine and shoulders into a cannon located in the arms without the mech having to stop moving to avoid a jam and without having to add extra parts.

Newtonian physics, ballistics and weather

Simulation games pride themselves on their engines being based almost completely on Newton's laws and the effects of weather. For example, if you were driving a high speed tank and fire a shell with the turret at 90 degrees, the shell would travel along with the tank as well as outward from it, in a slight curve. Wind would also affect the projectile no matter how heavy it is. Ballistics weapons in MWO do not do this and travel more in a straight line if they're fired while moving than they do a curve.

Another example of MWO not being true to physics is that 90 tonnes of steel is able to travel at 100+ kmh and come to a complete stop without the weight of its torso causing it to topple over. If MWO was a true simulator maneuvering your giant robot of death would be far more difficult than it already is, and the models wouldn't look nearly as nice as designs would have to be altered to make them more stable in a real world environment.

Weather would also affect the maneuverability of your mech. For example, in the Frozen City, your giant Atlas would be swaying side to side in a blizzard, making it not only hard to walk in a straight line, but also making it harder to keep your targeting sight steady as your mech is blown about. Also, in a similar scenario to the "90 tonnes moving at 100+ kph" mentioned before, a Dragon (for example) which is capable of moving at these speeds with the right engine would find itself skating across the ice and tripping over in the snow, making it not much fun at all.

Realistic damage

So far the only "realistic damage" that occurs in MWO is that your mech loses limbs and weapons. Hits to the engine do not affect the mech's performance and hits to the head do not affect your computer, radar or any componants in that area. Both (true) flight simulators and driving simulators feature damage that affect the performance of your machine. Damage to the front and center of your jet fighter, for example, result in computer components shutting down, loss of radar, instrument malfunctions and so on. Hits to the wings cause fuel fires and loss of control surfaces. Logically, "legging" a mech would not only cause it to move slower and limp along, but will also cause it to become unstable and sway as the gyro and AI compensates for the loss of strengh in the affected leg.

So far, there has been intention to have this sort of damage, but in my mind at least, this is where the "simulation" aspect begins and ends for MWO.

If MWO was a true simulator, with real world aspects taken into account, you might be spending hours, if not days, waiting for your mech to be repaired for the next battle. How about realistic death? Eve online (although not a true simulator) features Pod death which can be disasterously frustrating for the victim. Of course, there's no clones per-se in the BT universe (except for the Clans), so the logical conclusion for an IS pilot not ejecting in time before his battlemech is reduced to a pile of bubbling iron-oxide is the account is locked and he has to start again from scratch.

Input from experts

Yes, this game has been given the blessing of Jordan Weisman and the Devs were/have been working in collaberation with him on how the rules and concepts of MWO work. However, simulation games spend a great deal of time working with real life experts on how machines function and what it's like to operate them. Logically, the people PGI should be also colaborating with to create a simulation of giant combat robots are tank crews, fighter pilots and the guys from DARPA. To my knowledge, there is not a single person assisting the development of the game who has ever operated a tank, flown a fighter jet or designed a combat robot.

Furthermore, simulators are often intended and used as training software for drivers and pilots. Even EA's F1 simulator is used by F1 drivers at home in the off season to keep their skills sharp while their car is being built/tuned. Lockon: Modern Air Combat is a famous simulator which was designed with members of the Russian military and also later used by the Russians in their own simulators.

Bottom line

Let's look at some actual simulators out there. No, I'm not talking X-Wing, Ace Combat and so on. They are pure fantasy arcade style games. What I'm talking about is the *real* simulators which feature every aspect of the "real thing" which includes the bordom of starting up the machine, navigating it to where it needs to go, firing a few shots before turning around and going home, as well as the stress/terror of micromanaging everything you're doing while trying to kill someone who is trying to kill you. Games like Lockon, Orbiter and Silent Service... three of the most drab and boring games out there.
As WWII pilots said "flying a fighter is hours of bordom mixed with seconds of horror" and simulators are exactly that - Simulators are boring and frustrating with steep learning curves and hours of tutorials before playing missions where you navigate somewhere doing nothing before being killed in a few seconds.

Thank f%$k the MWO is not a simulator. It would not be nearly as fun as it is now, and people would drop it in a matter of minutes in frustration. If anything, MWO is, in my opinion, an FPS that feels like a simulator even though it isn't one in the true sense. But it is this that makes me love the game. I like the degree of immersion that occurs when your view is limited to that of your cockpit. I like not being able to see around corners, and the ability to hide behind smoke and behind buildings knowing that while I might know where the enemy is, they can't see me, I can't see them and either of us could move at any second. It's the thinking ahead and planning, the flowing and change of tactics that, win or lose, is where the fun lies for me and I pity anyone who wants to play in 3rd person as they'll never get this experience.


~~~~~ TLDR ~~~~~

Call MWO for what it is: it's an FPS, it's an MMO, it's a build/customisation game, it's a team game and this is where the fun and challenge is. But please don't call it a simulator. Simulators are cr4p boring frustratingly difficult games.

TLDR: This game is not DCS, therefore we shouldn't complain about bad design decisions.

[Inconspicuous]

Cpt Beefheart, on 22 March 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

~~~~~ TLDR ~~~~~

Call MWO for what it is: it's an FPS, it's an MMO, it's a build/customisation game, it's a team game and this is where the fun and challenge is. But please don't call it a simulator. Simulators are cr4p boring frustratingly difficult games.

For someone working so hard to define terms I find it odd you use MMO so loosely. 8v8 in a non persistent world is most definitely NOT an MMO... Please don't call it an MMO. MMOs are time wasting grind fests...

[Valore]

LMAO, I expect a reaction in this thread similar to someone going in the midst of Mecca during the peak Hadj season, standing on his soap box, and announcing:

CALM DOWN, ALLAH IS JUST A MADE UP THING, RELIGION IS NOT REAL.

I hope you get stoned to death, horribly painfully and slowly, for expecting any sane reaction from a thread like this

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

if mechwarrior was a simulator i'd be going to the mall to play it because there's no way in hell i can afford all that gear.

[Cpt Beefheart]

Sir Roland MXIII, on 22 March 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

I always thought of MW as a quasi-simulator, not a true sim'. As someone who enjoys both sim' games and otherwise I can see elements of both here. I agree that 100% simulation involves a great deal of tedium, however not all of the ingredients of simulation are boring, and I would love to have more sim' elements than we have now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a sim fan, but I like the MW series for different reasons than I like simulations. If I want to have fun learning how to successfully perform an engine turn without losing speed in a twin engine plane, a simulator is where I'd turn. But if I just want to pick a robot apart limb from limb and immerse myself in a fantasy universe, Mechwarrior is the place to be.
Even though the MW series is marketed as a simulation, it's purely for commercial/market purposes ("come pilot your death robot of death, mayhem AND death in a game that immerses you and feels real") rather than actual reference purposes ("immerse yourself in a sci-fi universe and blow s#!t up").

Edited by Cpt Beefheart, 22 March 2013 - 11:40 PM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Cpt Beefheart, on 22 March 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

~~~~~ TLDR ~~~~~

Call MWO for what it is: it's an FPS, it's an MMO, it's a build/customisation game, it's a team game and this is where the fun and challenge is. But please don't call it a simulator. Simulators are cr4p boring frustratingly difficult games.

For those on the short bus(yet typing huge mile long walls that took me forever to crop btw), it's called a MOBA game. Basically, it's a strategy small size PvP based arena. FPS games have no strategy. MMOs are quite a bit bigger than 8vs8 and/or have persistent worlds. Simulators have more things to do in them than just PvP in an arena. I don't know why people are so late to the punch with this genre. It isn't new at this point. It's a F2P MOBA title.

[Kvalheim]

If this game was trying to be a simulation 100% the last route they would have gone is F2P multiplayer

[Tedarin]

I would be ok with if they called this Mechassault Online, the watered down version of Mechwarrior.
But now they have the rights to "Mechwarrior" and they're just trying to make some fast cash. And they're hindering some other company making a real Mechwarrior game.

[speculation]
And they're probably going to go full 3rd person later on and remove 1st person, now they no longer need to put resources in cockpit graphics/animations
[/speculation]

[Kvalheim]

Quote

[color=#959595]One poster mentioned something that I thought was more than fair. List some of the ideas we've been toying with in order for it to work. These are just SOME of the ideas we've been discussing:[/color]

• Camera is locked horizontally to the torso. This is not a peek around corners mode.
  
• Camera is locked vertically to the torso, you can only look up and down as far as your torso can.
  
• When approaching cover (to rocks/building etc), the camera pulls IN so FoV is greatly reduced when standing close to something.
  
• 3rd Person is not a free-cam.
  
• HUD will be significantly reduced if not completely removed.
  
• LOS targetting is NOT affected by 3rd person. If you cannot target it from 1st person, you cannot target it in 3rd.
  
• ONLY the targeted enemy (Press R) can be identified in 3rd person... all other HUD indicators are turned off.

[color=#959595]Again, these are a few of the ideas we're working on. Please keep that in mind when posting.[/color]

[MuKen]

Post a gigantic essay because people are using the term "simulator" too loosely. Conclude by using the term "mmo" to describe this game.


I don't know how to respond.

Edited by MuKen, 23 March 2013 - 01:31 AM.

[Forestal]

Bluten, on 22 March 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

For those on the short bus(yet typing huge mile long walls that took me forever to crop btw), it's called a MOBA game. Basically, it's a strategy small size PvP based arena. FPS games have no strategy. MMOs are quite a bit bigger than 8vs8 and/or have persistent worlds. Simulators have more things to do in them than just PvP in an arena. I don't know why people are so late to the punch with this genre. It isn't new at this point. It's a F2P MOBA title.

It's a "Mech Warfare Squad-Sim"-- just like the way the SWAT series was a police procedural simulator dumbed down to fps form, or the Three Kingdom series are still battlefield simulations despite having ridiculous amounts of building, farming/mining and people management... Spare me the False Dichotomy Fallacy, please.

MWO doesn't have to simulate EVERYTHING mech/battletech-related to be a simulator, just what it needs to be a MOBA for the "Mechwarrior" franchise.

Edited by Forestal, 23 March 2013 - 01:45 AM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Tedarin, on 22 March 2013 - 11:45 PM, said:

I would be ok with if they called this Mechassault Online, the watered down version of Mechwarrior.
But now they have the rights to "Mechwarrior" and they're just trying to make some fast cash. And they're hindering some other company making a real Mechwarrior game.

[speculation]
And they're probably going to go full 3rd person later on and remove 1st person, now they no longer need to put resources in cockpit graphics/animations
[/speculation]

They're not hindering anyone. The MechWarrior license sat unwanted in the gutter for a very long time. Even companies like EA, which is known for taking anything they can find just to milk it for all its worth, didn't want MechWarrior. No one wanted this license and no one was interested in making or funding a new game from it. You say that because of this game, we won't get another one. Simply not true. If a better company was going to touch it, they would have years ago. IGP/PGI picked up what was more or less rotting in a dumpster and unwanted by other companies. It's like finding a good movie in the public domain that was disowned. I'm sure that "now" people will want the license or want to make MechWarrior games, but that'll be because of this one, not coincidentally out of the blue. In other words, too late. They didn't want it before, they don't deserve it now or after MechWarrior Online becomes a hit.

[Valore]

Bluten, on 23 March 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

They're not hindering anyone. The MechWarrior license sat unwanted in the gutter for a very long time. Even companies like EA, which is known for taking anything they can find just to milk it for all its worth, didn't want MechWarrior. No one wanted this license and no one was interested in making or funding a new game from it. You say that because of this game, we won't get another one. Simply not true. If a better company was going to touch it, they would have years ago. IGP/PGI picked up what was more or less rotting in a dumpster and unwanted by other companies. It's like finding a good movie in the public domain that was disowned. I'm sure that "now" people will want the license or want to make MechWarrior games, but that'll be because of this one, not coincidentally out of the blue. In other words, too late. They didn't want it before, they don't deserve it now or after MechWarrior Online becomes a hit.

Isn't there a big difference between 'no one wants it because its crap' and 'no one was willing to throw silly money at it, because the owner, who probably paid too much for it, is asking a ransom price for something that isn't worth said ransom price'.

[Cpt Beefheart]

Bluten, on 23 March 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

They're not hindering anyone. The MechWarrior license sat unwanted in the gutter for a very long time. Even companies like EA, which is known for taking anything they can find just to milk it for all its worth, didn't want MechWarrior. No one wanted this license and no one was interested in making or funding a new game from it. You say that because of this game, we won't get another one. Simply not true. If a better company was going to touch it, they would have years ago. IGP/PGI picked up what was more or less rotting in a dumpster and unwanted by other companies. It's like finding a good movie in the public domain that was disowned. I'm sure that "now" people will want the license or want to make MechWarrior games, but that'll be because of this one, not coincidentally out of the blue. In other words, too late. They didn't want it before, they don't deserve it now or after MechWarrior Online becomes a hit.

I think people are kidding themselves if they expect MWO to become a 'hit' overnight, or to ditch the Beta label within the next 12 months. It's not out of lack of skill of PGI, or lack of popularity (there's already 1 million+ accounts, which is just enough of a worldwide market to call a product a worthwhile investment) but the fact that PGI, in all honesty, is *not* Blizzard/EA/Microsoft ect and is a small company of 70 or so people. I'll give PGI as much as they've, as you said, found a gem in a dumpster and are doing their best to make it more popular. While I would never play in 3rd person for the reason I don't enjoy it, if bringing a bunch of kids in that are going to invest in the future of a franchise I love is going to give it a foothold before it slips into obscurity, and I have the option to only play against 1st person "old gamers", so f*cking what?
This is not the last game in the series, and it's breathing new life into it. In the future, maybe, we might see someone like EA pick up the MW franchise and construct an actual simulator complete with a single player mode, training, sandbox ect that will offer MW fans a true experience of what it would be like to pilot one of these fictional machines. But until then, I'm grateful for the game that PGI are working on, and enjoy melting mechs piloted by humans to piles of virtual slag. The human pilot aspect is challenging enough, so I'm thankful that this *isn't* a simulator that would get quickly thrown into the "too hard basket" before it has any chance to revive Battletech.

Edited by Cpt Beefheart, 23 March 2013 - 07:48 PM.