99 replies to this topic

[Shephard]

While I understand that WoT is popular, MWO closest analogue will undoubtedly be Chrome Hounds.

PvP based, Factional Warfare over a persistent world-map, wherein the faction players drop into instanced battles for control of the border regions between them. You take your mech (which you have designed yourself with a very in-depth mechlab) into the battle with the dual objective of either capturing the enemy base or destroying all opposing mechs. After the battle is over you receive payment depending on whether you won or lost and then you to pay to repair and re-arm your mech before the next battle.

This can be used to describe either game pretty accurately. Any other ChromeHounds players will know exactly what I mean.

[Thorgar Wulfson]

ive played WoT havent played Chromehounds. cant compare them now can i?

[aRottenKomquat]

I think many of the WoT comparisons come from us WoT players who are not happy with the direction the game is taking and hoping MWO will fill the void left by WoT becoming a sucky game. That's how I look at it anyway.

[Jakebob]

actually, WoT has pvp-based factional warfare over a persistent world map also, just not everyone participates in the factional warfare part.

WoT is a very good game, in spite of its drawbacks, and from what we know of MWO, there are some definite similarities... enough that the two games are able to be compared.

Also, how many people play WoT compared to ChromeHounds? (this is the first I've ever heard of ChromeHounds)

[Mu]

I bought Chromehounds the week before they took the servers down. Sigh.

[hornet331]

Jakebob, on 22 June 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

WoT is a very good game

i don't know what standards you have, but WoT is far, faaar away from a good game. The concept has potential, but the game and how its execution is mediocre at best.

[Blackfire1]

The game for what it is, is very good. The execution of the item shop and "gold ammo" is what really kills it. You buy power. Thats not how it should be.

I was dumb enough to buy chromehounds after the servers went down... I was sad. The "single player" training missions werea blast.

Edited by Blackfire1, 22 June 2012 - 10:19 AM.

[Kasseopea]

Shephard, on 22 June 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

While I understand that WoT is popular, MWO closest analogue will undoubtedly be Chrome Hounds.

PvP based, Factional Warfare over a persistent world-map, wherein the faction players drop into instanced battles for control of the border regions between them. You take your mech (which you have designed yourself with a very in-depth mechlab) into the battle with the dual objective of either capturing the enemy base or destroying all opposing mechs. After the battle is over you receive payment depending on whether you won or lost and then you to pay to repair and re-arm your mech before the next battle.

This can be used to describe either game pretty accurately. Any other ChromeHounds players will know exactly what I mean.

Chromehounds was for XBox360. And it doesnt make a big difference. In the end, you are in a vehicle which can take some dmg before exploding and is fighting vs similar vehicles. They differ in speed, armor/HP, weapons and some Utility stuff. Broken down to the core, WoT and MWO are VERY similar to each other, though MWO will be times better unless devs screw something royaly up.

[Jakebob]

It has flaws, but what they managed to put into a FTP game is impressive... the maps are good, the detail on the vehicles, the variety of vehicles.

The biggest flaw in the game is that your win/loss ratio (and therefore your XP / income) is frequently determined by how many stupid people are on your team as opposed to the other team. Seeing your highest tier artillery driver charge out into the center of the map and get blown away in the first 30 seconds for example. (saw that happen just last night)

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

If WoT was a good game I'd still be playing it.

time investment a good game does not make

[Name48928]

hornet331, on 22 June 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

i don't know what standards you have, but WoT is far, faaar away from a good game.

I played WoT for 3 months. Which is 3 times longer than I played WoW. The concept was interesting to me, the game mechanics were capable, the graphics were good, the support was responsive, and the business model wasn't despicable. All in all, I enjoyed playing WoT. Therefore, IMO, it is a good game.

The problem I had with WoT is the problem I have with most MMOs: The playerbase. Ping spam, team killing, and overall sh!t-talking in the mid-tiers eventually turned me off of the game so I quit.

Will MWO be a good game? We don't know. It's IMPOSSIBLE to tell at this point. We can certainly HOPE it will be a good game, but anyone who, at this point in time, tells you that MWO is better than WOT is speaking out their reactor vent.

Edit: I also played Chromehounds for about a month (until my free month of Gold expired). It was enjoyable. Certainly better than WOT. But, for me, it wasn't worth paying for XBL Gold.

Edited by MinionJoe, 22 June 2012 - 10:21 AM.

[Jakebob]

Kasseopea, on 22 June 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Chromehounds was for XBox360.

aahh.. that explains it... it's a console game (which I interpret as a 'kiddie game').

Real games are played on PC's.

[Major Tom]

I haven't played WoT or Chromehounds, I'm may have to make a thread comparing MWO to Diablo3.

[Jonneh]

why are people making all these butthurt threads about comparing MWO to its clostest F2P model-mate?

Yes, this game is based on the WoT model. Who cares? What does that even mean to any of you, why are you all so crazy about it?

Jeez.

[Jakebob]

If you want to see a truly badly run MMO, go play NavyField. (better do it quickly before it dies completely)

[Name48928]

Jonneh, on 22 June 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

Yes, this game is based on the WoT model.

Only to the extent that they are both F2P. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.

Other than the offering of Founder packs, we know nothing about what business model PGI has chosen for MWO.

[Jonneh]

MinionJoe, on 22 June 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Only to the extent that they are both F2P. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.

Other than the offering of Founder packs, we know nothing about what business model PGI has chosen for MWO.

Except that you can buy premium mechs, pay for "premium account" which gives you 50% more XP/Cash and that you play purely through 12v12 matches for which you get XP based on damage done and tanks spotted. Sorry, mechs.

Seems the same to me so far? Not one speculation so far.

[Aegic]

Chomehounds to me only remotely resembles MWO. Especially since a majority of it was played in 3rd person and people abused the armor plate reach around method to protect their cockpit. That was annoying. I was so tired of seeing those ugly hounds.

[Torcip]

Chromehounds did not belong on the console, that's why it died so quickly. From Software can make great games when they really try and Chromehounds was one of their best. It essentially was a mechwarrior game, it did have artillery though, which I wish MW:O will have at some point.

[Deathz Jester]