475 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

LOL... you guys are crazy!!!

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Red Beard, on 12 November 2011 - 08:38 AM, said:

Correction again, all 19, never forgetting the MA titles.

****, I always leave out that GBA title, Phantom Crash. Didn't play it, but it still counts.

No, those are left out on purpose.

[Red Beard]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 12 November 2011 - 01:06 PM, said:

No, those are left out on purpose.

In some of our books, each MA title counts as three and the others count as a half.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

You got the wrong books then, I reckon.

[Kudzu]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 12 November 2011 - 03:56 PM, said:

You got the wrong books then, I reckon.

They're just the ones with pictures and a single simple sentence on every page.

[Pht]

Mchawkeye, on 08 November 2011 - 02:49 AM, said:

it has come to my attention that many people keep saying things like 'on the TT...such and such is true and there fore that should be true here'. This seems to be especially true of many of the mechanical aspects of the games, like targeting.

It's a topic that seems to pervade a lot of the topics on the board.

While I understand that, it isn't how I see it.

I see the Mechwarrior games being a separate branch of the Battletech universe, based on the same canon and background as the TT and the RP, related to both but born of neither. Mechwarrior the computer game is not trying to be an incarnation of the TT.


They are simply different systems attempting to describe the same actions.

Mechwarrior is a simulation. The constraints it works too have a different solution to the dice rolling systems employed outside of the computer. As a computer game, the challenges are different, both from a piloting point of view and a game balance perspective. I think it's silly to hold one up against another as proof of something being right or wrong; what works in computer world may not work on the TT and vice versa, and shouldn't be expected to.

I just think people should bare that more in mind when putting forth their expectations of the game.

Or am I completely wrong?

Lets see - the tabletop came first, before even the novels. The novels followed the tabletop in terms of what 'Mechs are like and can do.

The source books quite clearly state that the novels, fiction, and art cannot be construed as rules for the tt (which, again, is the *genesis* of the rest of the lore).

When we look to see how much a mech weighs, what it carries, how fast it moves... we look to the TT. When we look to see how a weapon or piece of equipment is set up and performs... again, we go to the TT.

The people that maintain the lore go to great lengths to keep the "fluff" of the canon and the TT rules (and the novels, to a lesser extent) consistent with each other.

Also, the novels and source outside of the TT do not give any useable baseline for how a 'Mech can perform - in that right, they're useless for specifics.

The foundation rock for the BT universe and lore is the TT game. Deciding to use something else as the basic foundation means you are not creating a mechwarrior game - you are making something else, based upon quite possibly purely arbitrary decisions.

-------------------


That said - an MW video game should not be a total, rigorous implementation of the TT rules. Instead, we look to the TT for a baseline that guides us in implementing the concept of the BT universe in video game form.

Things that are acknowledged compromises in the TT game specifically for TT play (such as the non-advanced ruleset for weapons ranges) don't make sense to port over; while the VG may force other compromises simply due to the nature of a video game.

Edited by Pht, 12 November 2011 - 05:23 PM.

[Red Beard]

Kudzu, on 12 November 2011 - 04:18 PM, said:

They're just the ones with pictures and a single simple sentence on every page.

You are just jealous that MA was the only good video game out of the bunch. Why couldn't the others outsell it?

[Pht]

Red Beard, on 12 November 2011 - 06:07 PM, said:

You are just jealous that MA was the only good video game out of the bunch. Why couldn't the others outsell it?

MA might have been a fun game but it was not a mechwarrior game.

You could just as well have taken a gundam game, changed the visuals and names to BT visuals and unit names, and slapped the name "Mech" (as in 'Mechwarrior) on it just as validly.

[MagnusEffect]

Pht, on 12 November 2011 - 06:14 PM, said:

MA might have been a fun game but it was not a mechwarrior game.

You could just as well have taken a gundam game...

Honestly, I wish they had. Who remembers this?
http://youtu.be/b55S5GJdez0
yeah... that happened

or this:
http://youtu.be/XWhycudlBc0

Not cool MS. REALLY not cool.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 12 November 2011 - 08:27 PM.

[Red Beard]

Uhm...what is it that you think is not cool? Just another couple of boss battles. I could dig up equally laughable footage from ANY other BT game. MA was made to be a REAL video game, not a half-breed simulation RPG. It actually played well too. Not like every other MW attempt at a game.

What a waste of a post...

Fail.

[T S Hawk]

Red Beard, on 11 November 2011 - 11:04 AM, said:

Ok, I see that what I said came across wrong. Please allow me to reiterate. I said "mess" because, in my opinion, I think it would create a mess if OVERLY adhered to in this VIDEO GAME.

Here's the thing. While some of my friends were rolling 2d20's to figure damage to their mechs, I was rolling mine in Car Wars. I loved the TT generation of PnP games, just like most of you. I played Car Wars and GURPS for a long time, and yes it was in a buddies attic. I loved the MW games attempts to be a simulation video game, but by that time I was already playing Coleco Vision, NES, Atari and the like, so the fact that MW was a simulation that was trying to be a PnP clone was really odd to me, as a GAMER.

In the end, these guys are the ultimate masters of both sides, so they are going to do what perpetuates their longetivity, not what a few thousand, rule book thumping fanboys cry about. They are going to make decisions based on what will carry the story and brand forward.

Ok that I can understand and in some way can agree with too.

[T S Hawk]

Red Beard, on 11 November 2011 - 07:02 PM, said:

Uh...no. You REALLY misunderstood what this gentleman said.

I thought I understood him quite well, where did I misunderstood him then RB? Looking at the boardgame and the video game as well as megamek they are all the same just using a different format for everybody who wants to play.

[Starkiller]

Red Beard, on 11 November 2011 - 07:55 AM, said:

Oh yeah, thats sounds like the makings of a REALLY FUN game. Missing all the time and scatter shotting a bunch. Cmon. Burn the TT rules and start over. The devs also remind us that "this aint your daddy's MW". Just stop with all of this TT rules BS. ALL BUT 1-5 percent of the player base even cares. Go paint a miniature or whatever else it is that you do. All of these TT suggestions will outright RUIN this MW game.

Fixed your numbers for ya.
For you n00bs that keep spouting TT rules don't work you are WRONG. MPBT (all 3) used TT rules as their baseline and they worked GREAT. Now sit down and let the adults continue this convo!

[Starkiller]

Red Beard, on 11 November 2011 - 11:04 AM, said:

Here's the thing. While some of my friends were rolling 2d20's to figure damage to their mechs, I was rolling mine in Car Wars.

Your friends weren't playing Battletech then.

[Starkiller]

MagnusEffect, on 12 November 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

Honestly, I wish they had. Who remembers this?
http://youtu.be/b55S5GJdez0
yeah... that happened

or this:
http://youtu.be/XWhycudlBc0

Not cool MS. REALLY not cool.

OMFG that is just the STUPIDEST **** ever. I never actually looked at footage from MA before, that stuff is just LAUGHABLE, Mechwarrior for the Pokemon generation right there, roflcopter.

[UncleKulikov]

I don't see the problem with taking the TT rules, and building a mech sim from them.

Mechanics in TT would simply be redressed in the game to fit the medium.

Things like variable accuracy, different ranges, location based damage. I don't think anyone expects a direct port from the pen and paper game. I don't know why you would.

We now have the tech to represent the events in an electronic game that the TT mechanics were designed to represent on paper; knowing this, I want them to do their best at bringing the TT rules to life in real time.

[Tsen Shang]

Red Beard, on 12 November 2011 - 06:07 PM, said:

You are just jealous that MA was the only good video game out of the bunch. Why couldn't the others outsell it?

Because MechAssault was the first Battletech mutant game released on a console, which is far more accessible than a gaming computer to most people.

Starkiller, he's a troll. Just ignore him.

[Starkiller]

Tsen Shang, on 14 November 2011 - 11:41 PM, said:

Because MechAssault was the first Battletech mutant game released on a console, which is far more accessible than a gaming computer to most people.

Starkiller, he's a troll. Just ignore him.

Hate to do it to you, but it was not the first on a console. Several titles were on Sega, NES, SNES and others back in the day. As far as neckbeard, yes he is, but someone has to educated the uneducated masses of gamers that think WoW invented the internets!

[Creel]

To be fair, I really enjoyed the MechAssault games. They weren't BT or MW, but they were fun.

This game needs to be nothing like them.

[Cake Bandit]

MechAssault was bad. Really, really bad, mostly because it was stupid. In all reality the controls were pretty tight, the gameplay was fast and fun, and the mechanics worked within their own system decently. Pretty mediocre so far as being a "game" is concerned. You could pick it right up, jump into the cockpit, and start tearing **** up.

It was a blatant attempt to open up the game to new users, but it made the mistake of ignoring everything anyone liked about the previous titles ever. Unfortunately, it was stupid. The plot was bad, boring, and really didn't have any impact on what you were doing at the time. It had things like that idiotic spider robot that went against everything the game told you about mechs prior, and then ignores it completely from then onward. It completely trivialized everything anyone who actually knew about the series had learned about what mechs were like by making them nimble, accurate, and generally feel like an arcade title. It used mechanics that didn't make any sense and should have been left behind when we all traded in our Super Nintendos

Then it introduced **** that made no sense, through either gameplay or story, and explained nothing about them. "FIVE CORES! IT'S BETTER THAN ONE!" The whole thing had all the depth and interest of the back of a two in one package of Pringles.

TL;DR Good things: It was easy to play. Bad things: LITERALLY EVERYTHING ELSE.