211 replies to this topic

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

zverofaust, on 21 March 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

1) This game is still in development. A fairly early stage. It shouldn't be, but PGI is new and slow. But one thing that happens when a game is actively being developed is that ideas and direction are subject to change. Original plans don't work out and are modified; new ideas are brought up, discussed, filed away, and dug back up. Not a single game in the history of human artistic endeavour has ever, ever been an exact representation of what its creators imagined it would be when they started out.

2) Coolant Flush has been a staple of the Mechwarrior series since forever. It hasn't been in every game, but it has been in enough that most people with even a tertiary knowledge of the MW franchise knows what it is.

3) You complain about "advantages"; you know what else is an advantage? A weapon. And you know what other games have weapons? Call of Duty. Clearly, weapons need to be removed from MWO, because they are just copying other popular games by implementing them, and they give an advantage to people who use them.

4) #3 was a joke, and an example of the kind of runaway logic you're using to justify arbitrarily and subjectively vilifying certain features over others. I actually bought a Coolant Flush module (I refuse to refer to it by the absolutely ridiculous name they gave it) and plugged it into my Mech yesterday. I still haven't used it. I prefer building my Mechs so they're heat stable and I rarely overheat. Sure, it means my short-term damage output may be lower than others, but I can sustain my fire for longer. But you know what the most beautiful part about it is? MWO is designed in such a way that I am encouraged to make fundamental decisions like that, and they affect my gameplay. And Coolant Flush is simply another aspect of that.

Overall I find your argument hyperbolic and deeply ignorant; it amounts to little more than "PGI is catering to the wrong demographic. They SHOULD be catering to me -- I am their demographic, and if you don't listen to me, your game will DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM"

This is why I'm starting to refer to people like you as ultra-conservatives; all of the arguments you and others are making make it seem like you won't be happy unless PGI immediately halts any and all further development of the game, and MWO is kept in a limbo of non-progression exactly where it is. That simply isn't going to happen.

You imply I want MWO to stagnate when that's far from the case.

We need CONTENT, not crackpot ideas to cater to a non-existant player base.

[zverofaust]

Jade Kitsune, on 21 March 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

We need CONTENT, not crackpot ideas to cater to a non-existant player base.

But see, the difference between content and crackpot ideas is purely subjective to your own personal, nebulous opinions and beliefs. Which again goes back to the "I am your target demographic, do what I want" idea.

Edited by zverofaust, 21 March 2013 - 08:14 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

zverofaust, on 21 March 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

But see, the difference between content and crackpot ideas is purely subjective to your own personal, nebulous opinions and beliefs.

Wrong.

We need content, content = mechs, maps, modes, camo patterns, paints, and vanity items and community warfare.

content does not equal 3rd person view for a non-existant player base.

Edited by Jade Kitsune, 21 March 2013 - 08:15 PM.

[Davers]

Jade Kitsune, on 21 March 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

Wrong.

We need content, content = mechs, maps, modes, camo patterns, paints, and vanity items and community warfare.

content does not equal 3rd person view for a non-existant player base.

LOL

"What this game needs is more camo patterns and bobble heads!"

[zverofaust]

Jade Kitsune, on 21 March 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

Wrong.

We need content, content = mechs, maps, modes, camo patterns, paints, and vanity items and community warfare.

content does not equal 3rd person view for a non-existant player base.

Welp, I tried.

[benth]

zverofaust, on 21 March 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

Welp, I tried.

What do you consider to be content?

[zverofaust]

benth, on 21 March 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:

What do you consider to be content?

Anything that adds to the intrinsic value of a product, be it the introduction of new features, art assets, levels, modes of play, even the development of backstory and additions to the universe in which the game exists that alter perceptions of said universe and game.

[Roadbeer]

zverofaust, on 21 March 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

even the development of backstory and additions to the universe in which the game exists that alter perceptions of said universe and game.

Yet, if there was a Buffy MMO, I could just see him spend as much time on the forum screaming

CANNON
CANNON
CANNON
CANNON
CANNON

[zverofaust]

Roadbeer, on 21 March 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

Yet, if there was a Buffy MMO, I could just see him spend as much time on the forum screaming

CANNON
CANNON
CANNON
CANNON
CANNON

Why would I be screaming about cannons? There are no cannons in Buffy. They barely even use guns.

[benth]

zverofaust, on 21 March 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

Anything that adds to the intrinsic value of a product, be it the introduction of new features, art assets, levels, modes of play, even the development of backstory and additions to the universe in which the game exists that alter perceptions of said universe and game.

So the little ISN blurbs are content in your eyes?

If PGI only updated that for three months and nothing else, would that be considered the game getting content?

[zverofaust]

benth, on 21 March 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

So the little ISN blurbs are content in your eyes?

Yes, they are. I could literally not care less about them, but someone does, and someone is taking the time to update them and provide MWO with a subtle framework of existing inside a larger universe that adds value to the product as a whole. They are as much content as someone writing a book, or that crazy Halo movie miniseries thing.

Quote

If PGI only updated that for three months and nothing else, would that be considered the game getting content?

Now you're just being hyperbolic and intellectually dishonest, and trying to manipulate the flow of discussion into something that benefits your position. To answer you, though, yes, it would, but I doubt it'd be adequate for the crazies around here.

Btw, this forum drama is also content. User generated content, and people like me find it absolutely delicious.

[Jacmac]

Jade Kitsune, on 21 March 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

I've talked to several people today alone who would have spent money on more MC but have not because of Consumeables, rumors of 3rd person view [which we've basically been told is happening weather we like it or not] and overall mis-handling of what was promised and why many people bought founders to begin with.

True! I'm on hold, and a lot of players I'm teamed with regularly are in the same boat. There is too much uncertainty right now, and like the stock market, uncertainty is not good for business.

[R Hauer]

Question for the OP here, how did you interpret the statement "Our target demographic has always been (in very simple non-marketing terms): the male action gamer looking for a little bit more than your average shooter. You can lump in someone who likes anything from Call of Duty to Flight Sims into that bucket." to mean age 10-25? Is there a hidden word like "young", "youthful" or "radical" that I can't see due to formatting? Do all the cool teens these days dig ultra dope flight sims? I took the statement to be referring to an age range closer to 15-55, which seems reasonable enough. Your interpretation seems to be dependent upon the filter of your own preexisting feelings on the subject and not the actual content of the statement itself. You are basically applying your own version which omits the words "Flight Sims" and focuses solely on the words "Call of Duty" which immediately precede them. It seems like you are willfully ignoring content in favor of finding something to be angry about. This selective focus makes your diatribe highly subjective and page bait at best.

Edited by R Hauer, 21 March 2013 - 09:52 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

R Hauer, on 21 March 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

Question for the OP here, how did you interpret the statement "Our target demographic has always been (in very simple non-marketing terms): the male action gamer looking for a little bit more than your average shooter. You can lump in someone who likes anything from Call of Duty to Flight Sims into that bucket." to mean age 10-25? Is there a hidden word like "young", "youthful" or "radical" that I can't see due to formatting? Do all the cool teens these days dig ultra dope flight sims? I took the statement to be referring to an age range closer to 15-55, which seems reasonable enough. Your interpretation seems to be dependent upon the filter of your own preexisting feelings on the subject and not the actual content of the statement itself. You are basically applying your own version which omits the words "Flight Sims" and focuses solely on the words "Call of Duty" which immediately precede them. It seems like you are willfully ignoring content in favor of finding something to be angry about. This selective focus makes your diatribe highly subjective and page bait at best.

For the average joe, and for those marketing to the "COD" crowd especially, they're looking for young teen to late teen early 20's as a demographic.

Even Activison has said as much when it comes to marketing COD that that's the age range they're targeting the game for. That little "M" for mature" on the package doesn't mean anything, it's a "tacticool" shooter, and their targeted demographic is highschooler's.

The reason I "ignore" the Flight Sim comment is because, I can guarentee you that was an afterthought, that was something that was said to "appease" the fanbase.

PGI's gone into full damage control mode man. They're going to try to say whatever they can... but you cannot deny, that when a game company attempts to target the "Casual" crowd, they're going for the players that love CoD and Halo esque games that Mechwarrior won't draw in it's normal iteration.

You know, the last time this was tried. it was called "Mechassault" and it did fairly well on consoles [especially the first one since it was the first Xbox live game on the market] but it alienated the core fans of the Mechwarrior/Battletech franchise... as such while it saw a decent following, it lead to Microsoft canning Mechwarrior 5 and sitting on the IP for 10 years.

[Stovebolt]

Colonoscopies are expensive things, but at least I now know there's a DIY option.

[Commander Kobold]

Davers, on 21 March 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

Did you lose all respect for your parents when they told you that Santa wasn't real after lying for years for their own amusement?

Seriously though, I am sure that despite what people on the forums might say, it was a heavily requested item by people who played MW4.

If you truly feel betrayed, then don't spend any money. Or better yet, don't play at all and deprive their other customers of content (you). But hanging around like some bitter ex-girlfriend isn't how to handle this.

YMMV.

people need their big stompy robot fix, I know I'd be gone if there was a another (preferably decent) big stompy robot game (but all the ones being released are either gundam-ish or this weird one I saw on youtube that looked like CoD with robots<wasn't hawken>)

Davers, on 21 March 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

LOL

"What this game needs is more camo patterns and bobble heads!"

AND HATS

[Jetfire]

A TARGET is something you aim to hit. You don't TARGET your core audience unless they are enough to sustain and grow your business safely. You TARGET a wider audience by some margin. You try to get people into your boat by making it attractive and inviting. Anyone who thinks this thing could fund, grow and sustain soley on the Core Audience is deluding themselves. Anyone care to guess what the terms of the Mechwarrior IP liscence were from MS?

My guess is, $Umpteen million upfront, X% of profit or revenue, $Y minimum per annum.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Jetfire, on 21 March 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

A TARGET is something you aim to hit. You don't TARGET your core audience unless they are enough to sustain and grow your business safely. You TARGET a wider audience by some margin. You try to get people into your boat by making it attractive and inviting. Anyone who thinks this thing could fund, grow and sustain soley on the Core Audience is deluding themselves. Anyone care to guess what the terms of the Mechwarrior IP liscence were from MS?

My guess is, $Umpteen million upfront, X% of profit or revenue, $Y minimum per annum.

Yeah well, you don't "Target" that outside "possible" userbase by alienating your core users.

[Adrian Steel]

zverofaust, on 21 March 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

Now you're just being hyperbolic and intellectually dishonest, and trying to manipulate the flow of discussion into something that benefits your position.

[valkyrie]

Davers, on 21 March 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

LOL

"What this game needs is more camo patterns and bobble heads!"

Hey, I spent real money on my Classy Urbie. Coolant flush?

Ha, not a chance in hell. The point is, PGI can make money by giving us stuff like that rather than going "here's a bunch of gameplay 'features' you've rallied against for months but we put in for a non-existent playerbase! We know you don't like it, but you already paid us, so joke's on you, sucker!"

Edited by valkyrie, 21 March 2013 - 11:07 PM.