33 replies to this topic

[Yacking]

compare the two. The PC Mecha giant MW and the console Mecha giant ARM Core.

[Adridos]

Mechwarrior - rides of destruction, true warfare of the 31st century. You manage heat, weapons, operate those killing machines

ARM Core - Japans found a way to get integrated into some mega armor. They look and move like in anime and that simulator is there only because you can customize them to no end, but the rest is just oversized JFPS.

Edited by Adridos, 22 March 2012 - 04:16 AM.

[Kay Allard Liao]

Adridos, on 22 March 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

Mechwarrior - rides of destruction, true warfare of the 23rd century. You manage heat, weapons, operate those killing machines

Mechwarrior takes place in the 31st century

[Adridos]

Kay Allard Liao, on 22 March 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

Mechwarrior takes place in the 31st century

Did I say something different? Read again.

[Sears]

man, i remember the Armoured Core 1 demo for the PS1, it was a bit more clunky back then.

[Strum Wealh]

BattleTech/MechWarrior series: American-made "real robot" type series featuring fairly-ponderous, generally ground-bound mecha set (generally) in the 31st century against a neo-feudal backdrop

Armored Core series: Japan-made "hybrid robot" (somewhere between "real robot" and "super robot") type series featuring fairly-nimble, more-or-less flight-capable mecha set in various periods (depending on which particular game one is looking at as an example) against a backdrop in which a small number of corporations hold nearly all political and economic power

[Xinaoen]

I think of Armored Core as Japan's answer to Mechwarrior; a lot of the base concepts are the same, but they take it in a different direction. The mecha design is closer to Japan's idea of the "giant fighting robot," laser swords and all. Combat is more console-friendly, being based more on twitch action-game style controls rather than the Mechwarrior series' simulation-ish feel.

In Mechwarrior, you customize your ride by tweaking the loadout on a base chassis; in AC, you assemble your robot by combining individually non-customizable parts based on their stats. Parts have a wide variety of attributes, and the emphasis is on optimizing your design. Say that I want to fly all over the battlefield. I might pick a Booster with relatively low thrust, but high efficiency; a Generator with low maximum energy, but high rate of output; a Head with only basic sensors, to reduce passive energy consumption; and a variety of ballistic weapons, so that firing doesn't cut into my energy pool.

I enjoy both series; Mechwarrior is still my favorite, both because the lore is (much) better and because I'm a PC sim junkie. Armored Core is fun in its own way, though. I would say that the biggest barrier to entry is probably the controls; they feel really good once you've gotten the hang of them, but they're somewhat counter-intuitive and take some getting used to.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Bump for transer to "Off Topic"

Edited by Prosperity Park, 22 March 2012 - 11:35 AM.

[Cochise]

One is a game, the other is a sim.

[Moncai Icaza]

Both have good points but mech has had more of my life overall had a copy of AC1 which i was told was rental only in uk so when i saw in video store grabed it tbh rather than AC i liked chrome hounds that kinda had a real world tanks feel with the AC building style

Crome Hounds also had a little role warfare in the single player interested in using some of the tactics in MW:O

[Righ]

While I like seeing fans jump to Mechwarrior's defense so quickly, I do see quite a bit of bias hidden beneath some of these posts.

Mechwarrior on a gameplay level is a gritty, tactical combat simulator. This means things like heat management, timed shots, quick problem solving, weapon prioritization, and so forth. The Mechwarrior games are there to make the player actually feel like they're going to war in massive robotic war-machines. Armored Core on the other hand is more of an Arcadey fast-paced third-person shooter. It feels less like you are piloting a 'mech, but more that you are the 'mech itself. This isn't a bad thing, but it definitely isn't up the alley of many Mechwarrior fans. We ourselves are pilots. Many of us are 10, 15, 20 year veterans of war. War against nations, war against clanners. We become one with this universe.

[Hawkeye 72]

From an engineers perspective...

Mechwarrior: Could be possible in the next 20-30 years with proper funding and research. Biggest obstacle imo is balancing something of that size as a biped. Could def build a quad mech if it had a practical purpose

Armored Core: MIGHT be possible in 80-100 years...might...we dont have anything remotely close to the size of an armored core unit that can move in such a manner. I can't imagine something of that size changing lateral direction so quickly.

Edited by Hawkeye 72, 22 March 2012 - 09:50 PM.

[pursang]

Strum Wealh, on 22 March 2012 - 04:40 AM, said:

BattleTech/MechWarrior series: American-made "real robot" type series featuring fairly-ponderous, generally ground-bound mecha set (generally) in the 31st century against a neo-feudal backdrop

Armored Core series: Japan-made "hybrid robot" (somewhere between "real robot" and "super robot") type series featuring fairly-nimble, more-or-less flight-capable mecha set in various periods (depending on which particular game one is looking at as an example) against a backdrop in which a small number of corporations hold nearly all political and economic power

I've always thoroughly disliked those explanations, at least in the context of the BattleTech univrse. A BattleMech is not a robot, not by any stretch of the imagination.They share some similiarties yes, but to say that a BattleMech is a robot would be very imprecise.

Wikipedia]A robot is a mechanical or virtual intelligent agent that can perform tasks automatically or with guidance, on typically by remote control. In practice a robot is usually an [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromechanics", said:

electro-mechanical machine[/url] that is guided by computer and electronic programming.^{[citation needed]} Robots can be autonomous, semi-autonomous or remotely controlled. The word robot first appeared in the play Rossum's Universal Robots by the Czech writer Karel Čapek in 1920.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot

That is what a robot is. Yes, a BattleMech may be an electro-mechanical machine that has computers and electronic programming, but they are not autonomous, semi-autonomous, or remote controlled. It can't make its own decisions, even partially - they need direct imput from a trained individual who is strapped in the inside to act as its "brain". If anything, the closest thing that a BattleMech can be related to would be a bipedal AFV:

Quote

An armoured fighting vehicle (or armored fighting vehicle; AFV) is a combat vehicle, protected by strong armour and armed with weapons. AFVs can be wheeled or tracked.
Armoured fighting vehicles are classified according to their intended role on the battlefield and characteristics. This classification is not absolute; at different times different countries will classify the same vehicle in different roles. For example, armoured personnel carriers were generally replaced by infantry fighting vehicles in a very similar role, but the latter has some capabilities lacking in the former.
Successful general-purpose armoured fighting vehicles often also serve as the base of a whole family of specialised vehicles, for example, the M113 and MT-LB tracked carriers, and the MOWAG Piranha wheeled AFV.

http://en.wikipedia....ighting_vehicle

My two cents, anyway.

[Karyudo ds]

Hawkeye 72, on 22 March 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

Mechwarrior: Could be possible in the next 20-30 years with proper funding and research. Biggest obstacle imo is balancing something of that size as a biped. Could def build a quad mech if it had a practical purpose

I've talked with a friend about the concept of real robotics in combat but balance was never an issue. They are large but we have gyro's. The big problem was size, 10 meters isn't very tall but it's easily bigger than 1.5 meters so it becomes a big target. Bipeds also have the issue of becoming turrets when they lose just one leg. plus in a real city any window in any building could be hiding an RPG. You would ne unparallelled awareness of your surroundings to survive. Though we might obtain that. I think hexapods possibly similar to the Tachikoma's in GitS might be more in our reach, about that size and remotely controlled with basic AI backup for emergencies.

Though I would agree Mechwarrior feels a bit more real. I haven't played Armored Core in depth but the time I have spent felt like the machines were on display while in Battletech they're just bipedal tanks, weapons and not much more even though we like to look at them.

pursang, on 22 March 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

I've always thoroughly disliked those explanations, at least in the context of the BattleTech univrse. A BattleMech is not a robot, not by any stretch of the imagination.They share some similiarties yes, but to say that a BattleMech is a robot would be very imprecise.

Not entirely. It would require robotic's to function, joints, muscles, etc. They aren't remote but they would in a sense be robots, but in a way that is like calling an F-15 a machine. We don't really have another term for a machine like a mech since they don't exist...but I think "mech" is the perfect term. For me anyway.

[pursang]

Karyudo-ds, on 22 March 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Not entirely. It would require robotic's to function, joints, muscles, etc. They aren't remote but they would in a sense be robots, but in a way that is like calling an F-15 a machine. We don't really have another term for a machine like a mech since they don't exist...but I think "mech" is the perfect term. For me anyway.

Uh... I know that's what I sad pretty much?

Reading comprehension is grand!

Edited by pursang, 22 March 2012 - 10:31 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

pursang, on 22 March 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

I've always thoroughly disliked those explanations, at least in the context of the BattleTech univrse. A BattleMech is not a robot, not by any stretch of the imagination.They share some similiarties yes, but to say that a BattleMech is a robot would be very imprecise.

"Real Robot" and "Super Robot" are the terms for two of the major sub-genres of mecha - that is the terminology that was chosen to describe the genre.

That larger, piloted mecha such as BattleMechs (BattleTech), Mobile Suits (Gundam), Vertical Tanks (Steel Battalion), AT-ATs (Star Wars), Gears (Heavy Gear), and the Martian Tripods (The War of the Worlds) not true robots (and, in fact, all of those named are technically AFVs... and would be considered examples of the "Real Robot" genre... ) doesn't change the fact that the genre is labeled by those terms.

Besides, while you and I and most of the people on this forum may understand the difference, most laypeople don't... and can not and/or will not be bothered to learn the difference.

[Hawkeye 72]

Karyudo-ds, on 22 March 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

I've talked with a friend about the concept of real robotics in combat but balance was never an issue. They are large but we have gyro's. The big problem was size, 10 meters isn't very tall but it's easily bigger than 1.5 meters so it becomes a big target. Bipeds also have the issue of becoming turrets when they lose just one leg. plus in a real city any window in any building could be hiding an RPG. You would ne unparallelled awareness of your surroundings to survive. Though we might obtain that. I think hexapods possibly similar to the Tachikoma's in GitS might be more in our reach, about that size and remotely controlled with basic AI backup for emergencies.

Though I would agree Mechwarrior feels a bit more real. I haven't played Armored Core in depth but the time I have spent felt like the machines were on display while in Battletech they're just bipedal tanks, weapons and not much more even though we like to look at them.

Balance was more in reference to actual construction, not combat effectiveness. The gyro sounds great on paper but when balancing 100 tons its a whole new set of problems, never mind that 100 tons is now moving and subject to several outside sources of torque. People think "balance? slap a gyro on it" but its not that simpel

As for combat effectiveness, a primitive mech would be a giant target. Your sense of awareness won't be that much greater, especially in urban combat where attacks can come from multiple angles. It's not like sensors have advanced much or our guys in the mideast would be having an easier time.

[metro]

moving to off topic.

[LordDeathStrike]

Yacking, on 22 March 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

compare the two. The PC Mecha giant MW and the console Mecha giant ARM Core.

armor core is a fairly well made arcade game with mecha.

battle tech is a rich sci fi fantasy universe with some ok and crappily made sim games, and an atrocity of an arcade shooter on the xbox's.

i dont hate armor core games, but cmon, i get shot on any part and its 1 health pool? i cant lose parts like arms and pods? f that, put in some effort fools.

i much prefer the sim aspects of battle tech, even though some of the games were of dubious quality graphics wise, im calling you out mw2, good for its time but so ugly (ac and machine guns were flying dashes.....) and mw4, its actually uglier then mw3 on the same reso, 3 had better textures, cmon 4 step up.

[Hawkeye 72]

LordDeathStrike, on 23 March 2012 - 02:46 AM, said:

i much prefer the sim aspects of battle tech, even though some of the games were of dubious quality graphics wise, im calling you out mw2, good for its time but so ugly (ac and machine guns were flying dashes.....) and mw4, its actually uglier then mw3 on the same reso, 3 had better textures, cmon 4 step up.

Idk how you can hate on mw2 for its graphics? For a game in 1995 it looked great. A few missions even transitioned from dusk to night which is still rare in todays games. You acknowledge the game looked good for its time but call it ugly now. Thats like complaining about how computers sucked fifteen years ago when compared to todays computers...duh? Lol by that logic MWO is an ugly game because ten years from now games will look even better.

Each game has its merits, and asking this question on a MW forum is only going to produced biased yet expected results or a fight. I stick by my original post: the difference is physical practicality: what can you get the player to buy into/believe? Some people suspend belief for fun, hence why Arm core is on its 5th iteration. Others prefer the idea that mechs should behave more like glorified tanks, hence why Battletech has existed so long. .