21 replies to this topic

[Lazy Eye]

This is a long post, but please stick with it (esp. if you're from PGI/IGP).

Those of us associated with the #saveMWO movement have been repeatedly accused of being "entitled", "privileged", "arrogant" or some combination that amounts to the same. This is not the case.

There is a perception within the interactive entertainment business, that there is a split between "older" players such as myself, who basically grew-up playing on the PC and those who've grown up playing console games. For the sake of this post, I will refer to these groups as "PC gamers" and "console gamers".

My personal experience is that there is a distinct difference in the attitudes between "PC gamers" and "console gamers" which is expressed in the types of games they are used to playing and the games that they have a more natural affinity toward. This not an attempt to say that one is “superior” to the other, simply that this difference exists and is a commercial reality.

As a “PC gamer”, I am used to playing games that need a keyboard to play, because of the number of commands required. This is what I grew up with. Conversely, a “console gamer” will be more used to playing games with a limited command set or that requires button combinations or sequences – something that just simply breaks my head – because of the way gamepads have been designed since the earliest Nintendo systems. Again, this is not an attempt to say that “one is better than the other”, merely that these differences exist and that they are a commercial reality.

Almost all of the controversial features implemented, specifically: no 360 sensors, coolant flush, arm lock and 3^rd-person view are blatant, transparent attempts to create a game that is more attractive to the “console generation”. I know you’ll say I’m lying, but as an “entitled PC gamer”, I don’t mind if MW:O has these features, in fact, I would love it if MW:O was ported to the XBox One and PS4.

I want everyone to be able to enjoy a game that was a big part of my childhood and has given me endless hours of entertainment and fond memories.

The thing is, arm lock, no radar, coolant flush and 3^rd-person view aren’t part of what made MechWarrior so special to me and all the others who’ve publicly associated themselves with #saveMWO. The difference is like the difference between driving a car with automatic transmission and one with manual transmission. Yes, sure, it’s all driving and sometimes it’s nice to have the convenience of an automatic, but if you want a real, all-encompassing driving experience, where you are in control, there is just no substitute for a manual.

I want everyone to be able to enjoy the full depth of gameplay that MechWarrior has to offer, not just a slimmed-down, action-oriented experience that wouldn't be out of place on a console in the year 2000.

Now, I fundamentally disagree that it is necessary for PGI/IGP to cater to “console gamers” in the way that they have, by which, I mean that I firmly believe that the very fact that “it isn’t what they’re used to” can be turned into something that draws them into the game, instead of puts them off.

Clearly, PGI/IGP do not share this view, which wouldn’t be a problem IF:

• They just came out and said it.
  
• Made it clear when players first log-in that there’s two game modes: action and simulator.
  
• Genuinely treated it as an introductory mode.

This could be achieve by simply having a choice when a player first logs-in to the client: “choose your game style (this can be changed in the Options when in the Mech Bay)”

Action: “Choose this mode if you’re new to MechWarrior or are used to playing console games. This mode maintains the core elements of play, but has some restrictions.”
Simulation: “Choose this mode if you’re a MechWarrior Veteran or you’re ready to experience the full depth and complexity of the MechWarrior universe.”

There is plenty of precedent for this in many games across multiple platforms and it would make it clear that “there’s more to MechWarrior” than most other games.

Again, this is about exposing players to something more than they’re used to; to give them a hook to bite that will give them a gameplay experience like no other. This is the ambition that I and many within #saveMWO have for this game.

(Edit: Minor grammar fixes.)

Edited by Lazy Eye, 26 August 2013 - 01:19 AM.

[jozkhan]

It would certainly be a more sensible option. Doesnt War Thunder have arcade and sim options? Or am I thinking of something else?

I think it's a safe bet MWO will be announced for the Xbox One sometime between the two launch dates (Sept - Nov)

[Monky]

If the MWO team wants to take advantage of an arcade market that is fine with me - just leave me the game I'm here to play. Watering down what MWO currently is is a bad choice.

[StandingCow]

Very good post Lazy Eye... I am out of likes, but I owe you one.

[Huge]

Tell you what. When the 'console gamers' are hit up for 5 million dollars and beta test a game that constitutionally flounders and fails to meet their promises and still support them because they are holding your favorite IP hostage.

Then they get a say. Until then PGI is ruining the game they sold to us for the sake of the mouth breathers who are not going to be interested anyways because mech games have and always will be a niche no matter how much you dumb it down for the inbreds. The Far East audience deplores slow paces mech games so this is a fool's errand to cater to a crowd that does not exist.

[Asmosis]

3rd person is a staple of the MechWarrior series though. Sure, I played them all in 1st person since I like simulations but you can't deny it.

Trying to force what you like onto other people, and whinging and whining when you don't get your way isn't cool though. its not one size fits all. If they were changing the only game mode available from 1st person to 3rd person and not giving you the choice, sure that's a problem.

So is blatantly ignoring a large potential playerbase, a decision that could quite easily cost the future of the game. Don't be so narrowminded. You adapt the game to suit the majority of your playerbase, not the minority.

Edited by Asmosis, 26 August 2013 - 01:32 AM.

[fil5000]

Asmosis, on 26 August 2013 - 01:31 AM, said:

3rd person is a staple of the MechWarrior series though. Sure, I played them all in 1st person since I like simulations but you can't deny it.

Trying to force what you like onto other people, and whinging and whining when you don't get your way isn't cool though. its not one size fits all. If they were changing the only game mode available from 1st person to 3rd person and not giving you the choice, sure that's a problem.

So is blatantly ignoring a large potential playerbase, a decision that could quite easily cost the future of the game. Don't be so narrowminded. You adapt the game to suit the majority of your playerbase, not the minority.

He explicitly says that having an arcade and a simulator mode is what he wants. That's not forcing what he likes onto other people.

[Lazy Eye]

Asmosis, on 26 August 2013 - 01:31 AM, said:

So is blatantly ignoring a large potential playerbase, a decision that could quite easily cost the future of the game. Don't be so narrowminded. You adapt the game to suit the majority of your playerbase, not the minority.

Try actually reading the post in its entirety next time.

Thanks.

[ShadowSpirit]

Asmosis, on 26 August 2013 - 01:31 AM, said:

3rd person is a staple of the MechWarrior series though. Sure, I played them all in 1st person since I like simulations but you can't deny it.

Trying to force what you like onto other people, and whinging and whining when you don't get your way isn't cool though. its not one size fits all. If they were changing the only game mode available from 1st person to 3rd person and not giving you the choice, sure that's a problem.

So is blatantly ignoring a large potential playerbase, a decision that could quite easily cost the future of the game. Don't be so narrowminded. You adapt the game to suit the majority of your playerbase, not the minority.

Force opinions? Ignoring player base?

Did you even read the post?

[Max Liao]

3PV was a staple for the MW series because they were primarily single player games. (I didn't use it, but I undestand why it was there.) Personally, the only MW series game I really liked was MW1 - yeah, that one - 4 colors and all ... or was it 16 colors?

For PGI Mecha Combat Online, this game isn't bad. For any type of rendition of a BattleTech/MechWarrior game it's horrible.

BattleTech and the silly history, space-monarchies, tech limitations, lack of science and reality, and so on are what endear it to many of us 'grognards.' Trying to make it 'realistic' or arcade-y are not in the BT spirit.

Quote

If you are to recreate the Mona Lisa you don't do it by paining a topless 'Girls Gone Wild' college student. Sure, it may be more attractive and modern, but it's not right – it's not the Mona Lisa. You either reproduce the Mona Lisa faithfully, or you create a new painting with your own name. The same holds true for using the BattleTech and MechWarrior franchise names. Either recreate it faithfully, or create your own intellectual property.

They need to decide if this is going to be an action shooter or a simulation, because trying to please both sides is failing.

Edited by Max Liao, 26 August 2013 - 01:50 AM.

[Lazy Eye]

Huge, on 26 August 2013 - 01:25 AM, said:

Tell you what. When the 'console gamers' are hit up for 5 million dollars and beta test a game that constitutionally flounders and fails to meet their promises and still support them because they are holding your favorite IP hostage.

This is why I would like PGI/IGP to just come out and at least admit that this is what they're doing...

Huge, on 26 August 2013 - 01:25 AM, said:

Then they get a say. Until then PGI is ruining the game they sold to us for the sake of the mouth breathers who are not going to be interested anyways because mech games have and always will be a niche no matter how much you dumb it down for the inbreds. The Far East audience deplores slow paces mech games so this is a fool's errand to cater to a crowd that does not exist.

This is a really interesting point - this is the kind of game that *should* be right up the Japanese' street, but if what you're saying is correct, it would explain why MechWarrior isn't that attractive to them. On reflection, I think MechWarrior has more to do with Western cultural experience of tank warfare (something, historically, the Far East has never had), which Macross/Gundam is closer to the extreme-skill man-vs-world themes of oriental martial arts.

Regardless, my point is that if PGI/IGP hold to their view that the distinction exists and that they must reflect it in their game, they can (should) accommodate both styles of play in a transparent way.

[Kahoumono]

I don't think the community would be so up in arms against 3PV is if it wasn't forced on us. PGI/IGP quickly apologizes for bad communication then in the same post play the same game where they leave what was promised on the table but committing nothing...Its not impossible that I will spend more money buying MC, the timing just isn't right. Just come out and say it and everyone would decide to stay or go, don't waste my time that is all.

[Comguard]

The big myth that console games are less complex. If that was the problem they wouldn't have included the rather complex weapon grouping system, or the useless 3rd person view.

Really don't see why MW:O shouldn't be possible with a gamepad: left and right stick for leg movement and torso twist. D-pad for selecting weapon groups. 4 Buttons for avoiding shutdown, jumpjets, minimap, lock on. Enough triggers for various weapon groups - I really think . If this was on a console I would play MW:O there - maybe that version would have less crashes to desktop or graphic bugs (don't know why, Frozen City has still broken textures on my 7850).

The changes introduced have (big imo follows) only one reason, to make MW:O more like Hawken which is way more successful than MW:O. Just look at the Nvidia Homepage and see for yourself which game is sponsored and what game you can't even find on the Nvidia page anymore (or just with some heavy digging).

Quote

[color=#959595]Almost all of the controversial features implemented, specifically: no 360 sensors, coolant flush, arm lock and 3[/color][color=#959595]rd[/color][color=#959595]-person view are [/color]blatant, transparent[color=#959595] attempts to create a game that is more attractive to the “console generation”. [/color]

How does this even make sense? How is the independent movement of legs and torso different from 3rd-person shooters? Or the port of WoT for consoles even possible? How is the absence of 360sensors actually helping console gamers? Wouldn't it be the other way round? How does coolant flush help console players? Isn't a "Freemium" item more a thing of the F2P-Genre (and the Facebook-Games) which originated on the PC-platform?
Maybe because they can't handle heat scales? In what other PC-games do you have to handle heat like in MW:O? Console gamers have several genres, like the fighting games or sidescrollers, where timing is way more important than when I'm playing XCOM or Anno on my PC. So I guess they could handle "red bar is approaching critical level, should adapt playstyle".

It has nothing to do with console gaming, just about making this into a Hawken clone. That's why 3rd person is also completely useless for newbies, because it was never intended to help them, just to produce Hawken-like gameplay.

Obviously they couldn't decide if they want to produce a niche game where they can milk the hardcore (considering the success of the founders program I would guess the BT-fanbase is still large enough to sustain a dev of this size) or go mega-blockbuster. Now they are in a situation where the hardcore and the mainstream is alienated.

Why all their new gameplay additions turn out to be so half-***#d - in Germany we have a proverb for this, can't find an english one - but they tried and failed. Because they can't do better. Last part was not the proverb, just my own explanation for the development of this game.

[Burdin]

I'm not sure if this's about PC and console gamers or trend of theese days, make games simple, so everyone can play...
Basicaly I agree with Lazy Eye, if it's problem to make a game witch is complex for every one, gaming modes would be great.
I loved MW:O in the begining, when there was a collision model between Mechs, so if 2 or more Mechs run into each other, the smaller or both of them fall down, when you turned on thermo vision, it looked like in normal thermovision and not like old B&W TV, etc.

[Lazy Eye]

Comguard, on 26 August 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

It has nothing to do with console gaming, just about making this into a Hawken clone. That's why 3rd person is also completely useless for newbies, because it was never intended to help them, just to produce Hawken-like gameplay.

This is closer to the point I was trying to make. Hawken is an arcade-style game and is closer to the style of play you'd more "typically" see on consoles. As I said, this is about perception there seems to be a perception that MW:O needs to be made more like Hawken to be successful.

Please note I did not use the word "help", I used the word "more attractive"; I don't think 3pv is "helpful" to new players, it just makes MW:O look more like the game's they're used to playing, so they're more likely to give it a try. See the "Gundam" games on the PS3... (Of which, Hawken is basically a clone...)

[Farpenoodle]

Lazy Eye, on 25 August 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

Almost all of the controversial features implemented, specifically: no 360 sensors, coolant flush, arm lock and 3^rd-person view are blatant, transparent attempts to create a game that is more attractive to the “console generation”. I know you’ll say I’m lying, but as an “entitled PC gamer”, I don’t mind if MW:O has these features, in fact, I would love it if MW:O was ported to the XBox One and PS4.

I want everyone to be able to enjoy a game that was a big part of my childhood and has given me endless hours of entertainment and fond memories.

The thing is, arm lock, no radar, coolant flush and 3^rd-person view aren’t part of what made MechWarrior so special to me and all the others who’ve publicly associated themselves with #saveMWO. The difference is like the difference between driving a car with automatic transmission and one with manual transmission. Yes, sure, it’s all driving and sometimes it’s nice to have the convenience of an automatic, but if you want a real, all-encompassing driving experience, where you are in control, there is just no substitute for a manual.

I'm an oldschool PC gamer and grew up on the old Mechwarriors and stuff like TIE Fighter and X-Wing. I'm well familiar with the amount of buttons you used to need to press to play games those games. However you've picked some really odd things to single out as "not being mechwarrior" and "made for the console generation."

Arm Lock was on in basically every Mechwarrior game before MWO. And while I personally wouldn't have put in Arm Lock at all simply because of the pinpoint alpha problems, it's a very useful addition for many builds that more skilled players would play. A good player knows how to use the shift key when appropriate and it arguably raises the skill cap. To say that it's only there to serve the needs of the "console generation" is disingenuous.

No omnipresent radar arguably makes the game more interesting. If anything radar is the "easy mode." It's one of the things that made me fall in love with MWO. To me radar as it was in the previous games would be CATEGORICALLY WORSE than the current implementation of 3PV. Using 3PV to see more doesn't have **** on the old radar implementations. Might as well say goodbye to useful flanking maneuvers. Do we really want lights and mediums to have even LESS of a place on the field?

So yeah, on some level I agree with what you're saying, but when people say things like this I have a really hard time taking them seriously.

[Lazy Eye]

Farpenoodle, on 26 August 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

Arm Lock was on in basically every Mechwarrior game before MWO. And while I personally wouldn't have put in Arm Lock at all simply because of the pinpoint alpha problems, it's a very useful addition for many builds that more skilled players would play. A good player knows how to use the shift key when appropriate and it arguably raises the skill cap. To say that it's only there to serve the needs of the "console generation" is disingenuous.

No omnipresent radar arguably makes the game more interesting. If anything radar is the "easy mode." It's one of the things that made me fall in love with MWO. To me radar as it was in the previous games would be CATEGORICALLY WORSE than the current implementation of 3PV. Using 3PV to see more doesn't have **** on the old radar implementations. Might as well say goodbye to useful flanking maneuvers. Do we really want lights and mediums to have even LESS of a place on the field?

I made the mistake of assuming that everyone who read my original post would be familiar with the discussions surrounding those features.

Arm Lock: The official justification for introducing this feature and making it the default was to 'simplify' the controls and make it easier for joysticks/pads.

So, they took a feature that increased immersion by enhancing the feel that you're in a big walking robot with independent arms, which PC gamers (keyboard + mouse) could use most effectively and changed it to favour console gamers (joypads). The argument about toggle is ancillary, as the topic here is motivation; it's less about the ins-and-outs of the implementation and more about the reasons for changes.

360 Sensors: Arguing that omnipresent 360 sensors is bordering on straw-man; the current, limited-field, sensors require line-of-sight, so why wouldn't they make that the case for full 360 sensors? If they did, it would mean that players could still exploit terrain to execute a flanking maneuver.

3pv allows you to see things that even if the current radar implementation was made 360, you still wouldn't be able to see. And this is even before you consider any number of limitations you could put on sensors: active/passive, broader coverage == shorter range, detectability based on target size/tonnage/heat.

Also, with a radar, you actually have to shift your focus in order to see someone sneeking up on you. With 3pv you will see someone coming up on you through your peripheral vision... so sensors require skill (you have to remember to check your radar regularly), vs. 3rd person which is free (through peripheral vision).

And finally, what if light 'mechs could locate the enemy and maintain lock-on while being chased, providing targeting information to their team while getting out of trouble, instead of the current "I've got to stand there and get shot at in order to spot" - wouldn't that make lights better scouts?

I really, really struggle to see how that makes 360 sensors categorically worse than 3pv (it is arguable at best; I can make arguments that they would enhance gameplay).

Your point about "ninja" lights and mediums is exactly part of the "console" mentality that I'm talking about. Why should a 20-ton walking robot be able to move 100 metres behind ANYTHING undetected? "Because you can in CoD"? It's just generic FPS foo.

[Chronojam]

jozkhan, on 25 August 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

It would certainly be a more sensible option. Doesnt War Thunder have arcade and sim options? Or am I thinking of something else?

I think it's a safe bet MWO will be announced for the Xbox One sometime between the two launch dates (Sept - Nov)

Yes. War Thunder does a great number of things correctly.

[Farpenoodle]

Lazy Eye, on 26 August 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

I made the mistake of assuming that everyone who read my original post would be familiar with the discussions surrounding those features.

As if I haven't been around to read all the shitstorms about every little niggle the community has with this game. Trust me I'm very familiar with the issues.

Quote

Arm Lock: The official justification for introducing this feature and making it the default was to 'simplify' the controls and make it easier for joysticks/pads.

So, they took a feature that increased immersion by enhancing the feel that you're in a big walking robot with independent arms, which PC gamers (keyboard + mouse) could use most effectively and changed it to favour console gamers (joypads). The argument about toggle is ancillary, as the topic here is motivation; it's less about the ins-and-outs of the implementation and more about the reasons for changes.

It doesn't "favour" them at all. If anything it's a disadvantage. All it does is make it easier for new players to learn the game as well as having the side effect of helping certain builds become more effective in the hands of skilled players. As I already said, I'd personally rather not it be in the game simply because of the alpha issue. But it's not like the game suddenly became arm lock only and thus making the game less sim like.

Quote

360 Sensors: Arguing that omnipresent 360 sensors is bordering on straw-man; the current, limited-field, sensors require line-of-sight, so why wouldn't they make that the case for full 360 sensors? If they did, it would mean that players could still exploit terrain to execute a flanking maneuver.

If that was the case, I wouldn't be against it at all. However when most people talk about radar they're talking about wallhack see everything in range radar.

Quote

3pv allows you to see things that even if the current radar implementation was made 360, you still wouldn't be able to see. And this is even before you consider any number of limitations you could put on sensors: active/passive, broader coverage == shorter range, detectability based on target size/tonnage/heat.

If it were limited by LOS then yes, I agree with you.

Quote

Also, with a radar, you actually have to shift your focus in order to see someone sneeking up on you. With 3pv you will see someone coming up on you through your peripheral vision... so sensors require skill (you have to remember to check your radar regularly), vs. 3rd person which is free (through peripheral vision).

Seismic was a preview of what would happen if we had radar even with it's limited range. 9 times out of 10 when I would try sneak around behind a mech, if I ever ventured into the 400m range that Seimic used to be I'd find my target (or a buddy of said target) facing me by the time I got there. It was dumb. And if anything just promoted the ridge humping/poptart mentality. Thank god it got nerfed. It's now way more reasonable to perform flanking/backstabbing maneuvers.

Quote

And finally, what if light 'mechs could locate the enemy and maintain lock-on while being chased, providing targeting information to their team while getting out of trouble, instead of the current "I've got to stand there and get shot at in order to spot" - wouldn't that make lights better scouts?

Why would they need a light to maintain a lock when they can do that themselves with radar? Until Arrow IVs are in the game it'd basically be pointless. You could apply your "why would I have to stand there and get shot at while spotting?" argument as a reason to have 3PV as well. Which isn't to say I like 3PV, but that's the same type of reasoning.

Quote

I really, really struggle to see how that makes 360 sensors categorically worse than 3pv (it is arguable at best; I can make arguments that they would enhance gameplay).

Your point about "ninja" lights and mediums is exactly part of the "console" mentality that I'm talking about. Why should a 20-ton walking robot be able to move 100 metres behind ANYTHING undetected? "Because you can in CoD"? It's just generic FPS foo.

Funny thing. Before the advent of seismic I actually used to use my headphones to see if there were nearby mechs while running around solo. (Yes this was/is possible) Now I don't. Also, Halo also has what amounts to seismic. I really doubt it's more of a sim because you can detect someone coming up behind you. Lack of radar isn't an argument for the game being dumbed down or not.

[Lazy Eye]

Farpenoodle, on 26 August 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

It doesn't "favour" them at all. If anything it's a disadvantage.

As I've already said multiple times, it is about intent. It doesn't matter whether or not it does or doesn't do what they intend (I agree that it's actually a BadThing™ and doesn't help new players at all), the point is that they intended to dumb-down the controls and made it the default without and in-your-face-so-you-can't-miss-it indication that the option was there.

Farpenoodle, on 26 August 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

If that was the case, I wouldn't be against it at all. However when most people talk about radar they're talking about wallhack see everything in range radar.

But where did I say that I wanted Godar? I didn't. This is the very definition of a straw-man argument.

Farpenoodle, on 26 August 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

Seismic was a preview of what would happen if we had radar even with it's limited range. 9 times out of 10 when I would try sneak around behind a mech, if I ever ventured into the 400m range that Seimic used to be I'd find my target (or a buddy of said target) facing me by the time I got there. It was dumb. And if anything just promoted the ridge humping/poptart mentality. Thank god it got nerfed. It's now way more reasonable to perform flanking/backstabbing maneuvers.



Funny thing. Before the advent of seismic I actually used to use my headphones to see if there were nearby mechs while running around solo. (Yes this was/is possible) Now I don't. Also, Halo also has what amounts to seismic. I really doubt it's more of a sim because you can detect someone coming up behind you. Lack of radar isn't an argument for the game being dumbed down or not.

9 times out of 10... so pulling-off a surprise flanking maneuver isn't impossible, it's just a lot harder? It's gone from "easy" to "quite hard". A game mechanic that is more biased toward rewarding skill? Sounds like an improvement to me.

My own experience is that executing a surprise flanking maneuver is still quite possible, if you:

• Use cover AND
  
• Wait until your target is engaging/engaged-by a team mate.

Takes something that was a "lone-warrior" mechanic and converts it to something that requires teamwork AND skill. This all in a game that is supposed to be about teamwork...

Yes, taking out 360 sensors/radar DOES dumb-down the game and hampers teamwork.

Farpenoodle, on 26 August 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

Why would they need a light to maintain a lock when they can do that themselves with radar? Until Arrow IVs are in the game it'd basically be pointless. You could apply your "why would I have to stand there and get shot at while spotting?" argument as a reason to have 3PV as well. Which isn't to say I like 3PV, but that's the same type of reasoning.

Again, teamwork.

Indirect LRM fire is the most obvious and straight-forward example of teamwork you can possibly get in MechWarrior.
MW:O is supposed to be about teamwork. It is supposed to be about "role warfare".

At the moment, it is practically impossible for a light to act as a spotter for indirect LRM fire, as they can only do it while facing the enemy, but right now, if they are engaged by the enemy, they MUST withdraw quickly in order stay alive, which means they cannot call in indirect-fire support from their team, because they're back will almost certainly be turned to the enemy.

With 360 LoS radar, the Light could still provide value to their team while withdrawing - possibly even dissuading a pursuer/attacker - but only while still vulnerable to attack themselves.

360 LoS radar is not like 3PV at all and it is a misunderstanding of the arguments against 3PV to say it is:

Spotting for indirect LRM fire using 360 LoS radar is a something-for-something situation: you can do it, but you will be vulnerable to attack while you do.

3PV is a something-for-nothing situation: you can provide information to your team by looking over/around terrain without being vulnerable to attack.