Jump to content

Mechs Vs Transformers?


78 replies to this topic

#61 pcunite

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 17 December 2011 - 06:56 PM

View Postbarcode, on 24 November 2011 - 07:41 PM, said:

I generally hate, hate the way the 'Mechs with hands look, but they are an undeniable part of canon and as such cannot be entirely dismissed; especially in the IS-only era.


This is how I feel ... it was a stupid concept, but thankfully none of the video games explored this and for good reason ...
IT LOOKS CHILDISH ...

Edited by pcunite, 17 December 2011 - 06:56 PM.


#62 Anthony Kufahl

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 31 posts
  • LocationEdmonton Alberta, Canada

Posted 17 December 2011 - 07:01 PM

View Postwoodstock, on 24 November 2011 - 04:24 AM, said:

errr ... Well From the very beginning of the game, and all the canon books that came with them, a huge number of mechs had hands.

They used them for picking up other things ... ... well in any way a human uses their hands. Punching ... climbing ... ripping things apart.

If your only experience of the game world is through the MW computer games you would be forgiven for not knowing this but the computer games are really only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Battletech IP.

I am still holding out hope for us to be able to pick up massive iron girders / melee weapons and clobber other mechs with them.

Sadly we have been told this wont be in the game until they can work out a way to do it 'right'.

and once they work it out right the atlas's will be tossing the jenners around like the toys they are

#63 pcunite

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 17 December 2011 - 07:17 PM

View PostAnthony Kufahl, on 17 December 2011 - 07:01 PM, said:

and once they work it out right the atlas's will be tossing the jenners around like the toys they are


lol !!! please no!!! ha ha ...

#64 Serpentine

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 82 posts
  • LocationA station near the planet Rochester, former site of O'Shaugnessy Base for Armageddon Unlimited.

Posted 17 December 2011 - 07:32 PM

Well... it all truly comes down to the MechWarriors' skill of the Pilot, and the computing power of the Transformers' AI. I guess some well targeted missiles, and well placed shots from ballistics and energy weapons will do it.

#65 Texas Merc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Patron
  • The Patron
  • 1,237 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 07:38 PM

Many of the people that will play this game have never studied TROs etc and so they just see images and make judgements based on that.

A 'mech having usable hands DOES have advantages. First and foremost, Double Punch anyone? ^_^

also lest not we forget the long lost cousin of the battlemech, the agri-mech. Used mainly for working on farms and less than 20 tons, these things were treasured by farmers and set in motion the idea that mechs were actually useful and maybe beefing the thing up and putting an ac20 on it could kill some stuff on the battlefield. :ph34r:

Last but not least, comparing different universes of different lore is never a prosperous endeavor.


Texas Merc <----- looking for a good merc corp

#66 Gunman5000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 106 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 08:08 PM

View PostMacWarrior, on 25 November 2011 - 04:07 PM, said:


I would love a Mech Simulator, where you'll have to practice just to make it walk, like you would have to before riding anything else new. Wouldn't it be amazing if a pilot could make a Mech trip over just for messing with it's moving physics? Like, changeing directions @ speed would definetly make such machines quite unstable right? Awww forget it.. im preaching the wrong crowd here looool.



Actually that is truer to the original BattleTech canon (the roots for EVERY MechWarrior game) than any game has portrayed it. In the TT, which is what the canon itself is primarily based around, and what the video games have mostly tried to emulated since 1989, there are rules specifically related to a 'mech running at speed and attempting to turn sharply on different surfaces. The player must make a piloting skill role, which is largely modified by the pilot's "Piloting Skill", to see if he can keep the machine upright. While I definately do NOT want any kind of dice roll system going on in the background to determine if I can keep my Thunderbolt standing going around a corner, it would be great if they could find some means of implementing this into the game in a way that still makes it fun.

View PostJ Echo, on 17 December 2011 - 06:18 PM, said:

Fact: articulate = delicate. No war machine is ever built to be more articulated than it needs to be. A walking war machine would have as few joints as possible. Any built otherwise would be a fragile walking target which would be crushed by its own actions. Cartwheel? Crunch. Dive prone? Boom. Grab something? Well, grabbing wouldn't break you, but being shot at would break you, since you've made yourself delicate in order to be able to sip tea with your robot finger in the air, instead of inflexible and solid.

For this reason, the physical fact is that, given equal materials and power sources, the Gundam & Transformer would always, always lose horribly to the battlemech (assuming the Transformer stays in "robot mode" and not taking the form of a denser object such as a tank, which doesn't count because then it wouldn't be a giant robot anymore).


You seem to be making all of your statements on the assumption of current technology, what is to say that the materials used in the construction of Battlemechs is not capable of being both articulate and durable? I'm not disagreeing that given equal materials a solid object is stronger than an articulated one as you said, but they aren't made of equal materials and the comparisons between BT and the other anime/mecha I believe was based on this fact. Also articulation gives distinct advantages over non-articulation as stated numerous times about the uses of hands on Battlemechs. You seem to be deadset that a "BattleMech" in MechWarrior is something entirely different from a "BattleMech" in BattleTech (as evidenced in your post in this and other threads, not to mention your signature) and yet they are actually one in the same. Regardless I'm not here to debate that, I've seen how threads have devolved many times over because of just such a discussion (and I don't mean with just you, so please dont think I'm implying that), the OP was a question about BattleMechs being "too humanized" and questions about why there were hands based on the OP's own admittedly limited experience with BT/MW in general (in comparison to the entire BT universe that others are more familiar with). A discussion of what is more practical from a physics or military standpoint is irrelevant, I believe.

Also, while humanoid in shape and general function, they are mostly described as being similar but not nearly as functional/agile/articulated as a real human which would limit the supposed "fragility" of them.

Edited by Gunman5000, 17 December 2011 - 08:09 PM.


#67 Strum Wealh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 5,025 posts
  • LocationPittsburgh, PA

Posted 17 December 2011 - 08:28 PM

View PostBrenden, on 17 December 2011 - 05:38 PM, said:

You know what? ***** that, here's a Battlemaster.
Posted Image


Ironically, my first thought when I saw the above picture:
"That does bear a suspicious resemblance to a (BattleTech-ized) Zaku...!" :wacko:

Posted Image

(And, yes, I do know that the Battlemaster is actually based on a mech from Dougram, not the Zaku... ^_^)

----------

Also, RE: the Transformers comparisons:

1.) Optimus has respawn hax! :lol:
2.) Given the effects observed on the common vending machine and a few other appliances, what would happen to a BattleMech that was exposed to the AllSpark?! :blink:

----------

In all seriousness, though, many of the classic and iconic BattleMechs (mostly from the IS) are humanoids with hands - the Atlas, the Hunchback, the Dragon, the Axman, the Black Knight (yes, it is the same one from MW4), the Centurion, the Highlander, the Phoenix Hawk, the Awesome (yes, the left arm does, indeed, have a hand), the Battlemaster (pictured above), the Nova (for a well-known Clan example, albeit not as overall humanoid as the others), and many more.

The fluff describes the hands as being controlled by either a combination of actuated joysticks with pressure-sensitive inputs, or hand-mimicking gloves attached to the command couch, and being useful for such tasks as lifting equipment (handy - yes, the pun is intended :D - for recovering and transporting salvage) and offensive action (punching and use of melee weapons).

BattleMech hands have been there since the beginning, and there's nothing wrong with them being there... :ph34r:

#68 spartan 117

    Rookie

  • 3 posts
  • LocationLompoc,Ca

Posted 17 December 2011 - 08:47 PM

I like it. it doesn't have too much like transformers it gives the mech some personality.

#69 44th MAC Bagger

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 25 posts
  • LocationGermany /Rheinland Pfalz

Posted 18 December 2011 - 03:13 AM

Hmmmmm .......i think it was not "real" or "Fantasy" question...you are lost the theme in Technical details.........
If i will go in Battle i will "Identify" me with MY Mech...he was a part of my playstyle ,of my intension and my part in my Lance.
To reach a wide spectrum of any personel intense and Tactical spectrum ,you need different Chassis and different lookouts fore all these
Groups and Factions and here Lifestyle,
Dont forget...it's work in FUTURE :-) and use Fantasyfuture Technic......

#70 Soltenius Drake

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 03:53 AM

View PostMacWarrior, on 25 November 2011 - 04:07 PM, said:

'Ai caramba'.. 51 replies!! Well, i did red most of them, so thank you all for clearing things up. And appologies for my english.. it is not my native language.

Well, it's obvious i'm way out of set here. Im really not into Battletech boards, comics or novels. BUT, i'm 36 and i did bought the very first MW from activision and went as far as it did last. It was my favorite game all time, and i still listen to MW3 Mercs soundtrack often (best game soundtrack of all times!). So, my approach to the Mech universe was quite raw and simple, but above all i was 100% into the simulation part. They were slow, heavy, some would jump on jet's, and actually felt like "piloting" a battle vehicle, loaded with guns.
So, nowadays Mechs can do melee?? Jump on hidraulics, grab stuff up, and who knows, maybe they would tap dance too? ^_^ Hey, no pun intended, just kidding here. But really isn't my personal view for the thing. Back in the old times, Mechs were not Caterpillars, they were war machines.. an advanced, faster and fortified way to deal with hostiles in a battlefield. Surely not robots that you control from your own body movements (wooot??) They were piloted with a joystick, like any other "vehicle".

So, let me get it straight: if Mechs are able to jump around, pick things up, go for melee strikes, and move swiftly and elegantly.. won't it be just another FPS? What will make it differ from a Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 4? Oh right, Mechs don't bleed (not sure anymore lool).

I would love a Mech Simulator, where you'll have to practice just to make it walk, like you would have to before riding anything else new. Wouldn't it be amazing if a pilot could make a Mech trip over just for messing with it's moving physics? Like, changeing directions @ speed would definetly make such machines quite unstable right? Awww forget it.. im preaching the wrong crowd here looool.
Whatever is coming from Piranha crew can't be bad! I was just hopeing this would go Simulation all the way, but from most i read around, many would rather punch Mechs with their metal fists and than pick the flowers from the ring XD

If that's the case... well, this might be of interest too ->

.




Not to me thou... Mechs should be Simulated, not turned into another (armored) first-person-shooter :D

Will see.. thanks anyhow. And really sorry about my english :ph34r: cheers


I think you are taking the wrong view here. First off the sophistication of the human bodies design is a modern wonder of creation (whether you believe in God or evolution is another topic) robotical engineering in real life is trying to assimulate the potential of the human body into robotics today.

Example: You have your handless war machine mech with said heavy artillery and I have a Mech also armed with heavy artillery but I have the function of hands. The battle ensues and our ammo is exhausted cores close to overheat from firing particle beams and lasers. What is the heavy mech capable of in this scenario? The mech with hands can rip the pilot out of his cockpit for the victory. Now realistically there are trade offs because you are a handless warrior you are probably more heavily equipped so I would have to be the one to attempt close quarter tactics.

In the desert with no obstacles to hide behind I am a sitting duck and therefore dead but in a city you would still need to consider me a viable threat. No one wants a tiptoeing, lily pinching, prancing robot. They are still multiple ton Mechanized Warriors with many designs attempting to achieve maximum efficiency in their purpose. The only way to prove which is best is to show their worth out on the battlefield.

#71 Ansel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 05:18 AM

Um, I think the reason that battlemechs have hands might be because they fall over and need to get up without say cloging the barrel on a gun or bending it so it don't shoot so straight no moar. Just thought some hillbilly logic might help those who think hands on a mech are silly.

At least thats what I tell myself . ^_^

#72 Gunman5000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 106 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 05:31 AM

View PostJ Echo, on 18 December 2011 - 02:25 AM, said:

No, based on physics. Technology changes but physics don't.

Physics of this universe then, either way this is a separate fictional universe that we don't have all the finer details about. Yes for the most part the technology is based on real life science and practical understandings of the time but we don't know that the physics in this universe is EXACTLY like ours do we? Its conceivable, and sure it requires suspension of disbelief to some degree but really almost any Science Fiction universe does.

Quote

Erm, they aren't? Why would an non-articulated mech be arbitrarily made out of a weaker metal than an articulated one, within the same fictional universe? That doesn't make any sense at all. No, within any fictional universe using real phyiscs, an articulated mech will always be much weaker than a non-articulated one made from the same materials.

Simple misunderstanding, I was under the impression you were talking about between fictional universes. Yes within a single fictional universe an articulated machine would be structurally weaker than a non-articulated machine of equal mass and material, according to real life science. However this is a fictional universe, see above about suspension of disbelief and not knowing the intricate details of how exactly said universe functions.

Quote

Which fallacy I've repeatedly debunked, although you BTTT/cartoon fans consistently ignore it.


From what I can recall and what I've recently seen on this thread, you've only managed to debunk this so called "fallacy" (Of articulation having distinct advantages over non-articulation) from a strictly military standpoint and based upon "real world" science. Unfortunately both of those reasons is why many BTTT fans disagree with you. BattleMechs, despite the name, are not built strictly for military only purposes. Yes that is the primary concern, and yes many of them are meant to be true "walking tanks" with little other uses, but there are numerous examples of 'mechs being used for things that a non-articulated 'mech just simply CANNOT do (whether some of these things are something it was designed for or simply an act of necessity that being articulated simply allowed is something else entirely). As for consistently ignoring it, I'd say it's because both sides are too stubborn to admit that the other, while not necessarily 100% true, does have good points.

Quote

They are different and have been for many years, whether you BTTT fans like it or not, and whether you admit it or not. Go watch the intros for Mechwarrior 3 and Mechwarrior 4 and the 2009 trailer by Piranha.

They are different yes I'll give you that. But they are still in the same universe, follow the same canon, use the same mechanics (obviously with minor adjustments for either gameplay or technology limits), and generally are meant to be played in a similar manner. I have watched the intros many times, and just to be sure I wasn't mistaken I watched them again just now. MechWarrior 3 portrays the 'mechs exactly as the canon describes them, and the same way they work in the TT, hmmm... Both the Summoner (Thor) and the Timber Wolf (Mad Cat) are fully articulated, they lack hands because they are Clan 'mechs (same as the Lance Leader's Mad Dog (Vulture)) and the Clan's disdain melee combat and feel a war machine should do nothing other than participate in war (kind of seems like your view as well, just saying). The Atlas, though missing an arm, has its right arm also articulated, clearly showing a hand and fingers. Sure in game they weren't useable and the video showed him doing nothing other than lifting the arm up to fire weapons on it but its still there. Why bother to build that kind of detail onto a machine if it serve a purpose? The 3 Jenners, well they've never really had articulation to begin with.

Mechwarrior 4 I suppose is closer to what you mean, yet all those 'mechs are still represented in the BTTT and the canon in the same manner. Most, if not all, are Clan 'mechs again. And many of them show articulation of the arms, even if limited. As for previous mentions (in other threads, if I recall correctly) of them using different control schemes. There's nothing to say that the helmet they had on in the cockpit wasn't a neurohelmet, granted it looks like a regular flight/combat helmet, but even in canon the newer neurohelmet's are described in that manner. Also the control scheme is very similar to many designs I've read about, joystick, throttle, and pedals plus a multitude of toggles and switches.

Now the MechWarrior 5 trailer, I can see your point, yes they are no hands or anything on the Atlas, simply gun barrels. However the arms must still be articulated in order to use those weapons. In the trailer they are almost always pointing down at the ground, unless he feels the need to completely and utterly obliterate a relatively small ground target that he could probably step on, those weapons need to be raised up if used.

According to your arguement though it would be better to simply have a 100 tonne tank (which they do have) instead of a BattleMech. Less articulation means it is stronger and would therefore win, correct? Yet if played out, whether in MW or BTTT, the tank loses virtually every time (100 tonne vs 100 tonne with equally skilled players/pilots). Why do you think that is? One word, versatility. Articulation of a war machine, done properly, makes that machine more versatile than a non-articulated one. More versatility in an otherwise even matchup (similar materials, similar firepower, similar weight class, similar armour) means the more versatile one will win almost every time.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want a Battlemech that can do ballet, most people (even the hardcore BTTT "elitist") don't want that. Yes many of us would love to see melee combat implemented and the ability to actually use the hands designed into many of the 'mechs, but I don't anyone is looking for a gundam-esque approach. The way the 'mechs are portrayed in most of the game videos is the same way that most people have probably envisioned the 'mechs behaving. They aren't overly articulated, but they definately are more than just a simply walking turret. As for the novels that describe such ridiculous movements, they generally are due to artistic license taken by the author and normally are not considered to be "canon" or are attributed to being done outside combat with meticulously programmed routines (Battlemaster doing handstand I believe) or by special individuals within the universe that far exceed the capabilities of any regular (or veteran for that matter) mechwarrior.

View PostJ Echo, on 18 December 2011 - 04:34 AM, said:

View PostSoltenius Drake, on 18 December 2011 - 03:53 AM, said:

Example: You have your handless war machine mech with said heavy artillery and I have a Mech also armed with heavy artillery but I have the function of hands. The battle ensues and our ammo is exhausted cores close to overheat from firing particle beams and lasers. What is the heavy mech capable of in this scenario? The mech with hands can rip the pilot out of his cockpit for the victory. Now realistically there are trade offs because you are a handless warrior you are probably more heavily equipped so I would have to be the one to attempt close quarter tactics.


Wow, way to not listen. Wrong! Like I said, you'd have lost long before you ran out of ammo, due to your robot being ludicrously delicate from all of the complicated, fine machinery required to give it enough articulation to be able to grab things and do ballet and all of the other silly, pointless things that you want it to be able to do (instead of actually effectively fighting the enemy).

You seemed to have forgotten this next paragraph in your quote somehow

View PostSoltenius Drake, on 18 December 2011 - 03:53 AM, said:


In the desert with no obstacles to hide behind I am a sitting duck and therefore dead but in a city you would still need to consider me a viable threat. No one wants a tiptoeing, lily pinching, prancing robot. They are still multiple ton Mechanized Warriors with many designs attempting to achieve maximum efficiency in their purpose. The only way to prove which is best is to show their worth out on the battlefield.



Speaking from an engineering standpoint, its not hard to articulate something to grab it, it doesnt have to be overly complicated, or fine. Secondly where in that quote does he EVER say anything about doing ballet? He doesn't want to kick you (yes I realize this is a physical attack available in the TT, but its not in the post you responded to), or breakdance on your corpse. He wants to smash in your "delicate" ferroglass cockpit and forcibly remove your pilot, or at least whats left of him after getting crushed. Also he mentioned that there are trade offs for having the hands, a 'mech without them can obviously mount potentially more weapons, a 'mech with hands IS more susceptible to damage (damage to an actuator from critical hit locks whatever it is, hand, lower or upper arm, and shoulder. No hand, no actuator there, no damage). Finally, how is being able to grab a steel girder and physically ram that through weakened armour of an opponent in close combat (ie, city fighting around tight corners) NOT effectively engaging your enemy? True it has virtually no use from 500m away in open terrain, but up close and personal like city fighting is, that extra versatility just adds one more trick up their sleeve.

Edited by Gunman5000, 18 December 2011 - 05:40 AM.


#73 pcunite

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 18 December 2011 - 11:07 AM

Fine ... all you players running around in mechs with hands ... that'll be the first location I target to "disable" your previous hands (one shot ought to seize up an articulate rotor) ... then you can cry and call me "handling" instead of "legging" ...

^_^ take this the right way :ph34r:

#74 Soltenius Drake

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 12:07 PM

View Postpcunite, on 18 December 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

Fine ... all you players running around in mechs with hands ... that'll be the first location I target to "disable" your previous hands (one shot ought to seize up an articulate rotor) ... then you can cry and call me "handling" instead of "legging" ...

^_^ take this the right way :ph34r:



Fine :lol: and when we are battling in the city I will flank you from the side of a building with a good hard push to knock your handless mechanized warrior on it's side and while you and your mech is crying I've fallen and I can't get up that Civilian pervert fresh out of prison by the name of BIG BUBBA over there that was ducking for cover decides to climb into your cockpit :blink: and have you do the rump shaker for him :wacko: :D. Now that is a punishment worse then death ROFL.

Edited by Soltenius Drake, 18 December 2011 - 12:07 PM.


#75 Haeso

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 05:48 PM

View PostMacWarrior, on 24 November 2011 - 03:59 AM, said:

Pardon me but, aren't Mechs too humanized?
From an old activision MW lover point of view, these MWO machines seem a bit too humanized. The way they stand @ the pics, their body parts (some do seem to wear diapers?? *Atlas).

'Mechs, especially Inner Sphere lights/meds are incredibly agile, not plodding gun boats. If they were just walking tanks... they would be bloody well useless. A 100 Ton tank would crush an entire lance of heavies with it's profile, armor and weapon to weight ratio and all that, the only reason tanks don't dominate battletech is they made them much weaker using the lore to 'explain' it.

#76 Kristov Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 2,909 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 07:20 PM

Battlemechs, giant walking tanks...WRONG! Obviously some peoples only exposure to BattleTech and Mechs has been the MW2 and later versions of the computer games. MechWarrior by Dynamix, released by Activision showed Mechs with hands btw, it was 3025 Tech, all Inner Sphere, before the Clan Invasion, no Clan Omni's which tend to not have hands, please note that many Clan Mechs DO have hands, Omni and non-Omni designs alike.

J Echo, your arguments are..weird. From it's beginnings, BTech has allowed for and incorporated physical combat with Mechs, including Mechs specially designed to wield melee weapons in combat. Built into the core system LONG before any of the MechWarrior series were ever made. Activision WANTED to put it into MW and MW2, but they just couldn't get it work right. User interface was part of the problem, they didn't want to just do a punch/kick with combos like a Street Fighter system, it just wouldn't work, especially since the Mechs are not all humanoid designs to begin with. Think about it..a Battlemaster(seen in MW) can throw a punch, but a Warhammer can't..well..it CAN..but it's got no hands, just big PPC barrels. You only want to punch with those in the most extreme situations, true, but you CAN do it. Getting that to work out, both with the code AND aesthetically..they just couldn't make it work so they didn't do it. But..and this is important, they DID leave physical damage modelling in the game. Ramming, falling, being jumped on, these all damaged BOTH Mechs involved, as per the TT rules I might add. Ramming a Firemoth into a Dire Wolf was a silly and often fatal thing to do, the Firemoth would take enough damage to kill itself but the Dire Wolf would only be slightly rocked back and lost a little leg armor. Two Dire Wolves ramming each other on the other hand..knock back, serious damage to each Mech on the surfaces that collided. MW3 did this too, again, they just couldn't get the melee stuff to work nicely, so didn't include it, but left the damage from impacts in place. MW4..didn't even try to work on this, and the physical collision damage..yeah..about that..it's almost not there, and it's not a setting you can change, it's just not included. The MechWarrior series has always been short changed in this respect, as were GEnie's MPBT and the Solaris and 3025 games. At least in everything prior to MW4 you could DFA or ram enemy Mechs and hurt them or kill them. Funny thing in MW4..you can ram an enemy Mech all day and do no damage..but bump a friendly Mech and watch armor flake off like cheap makeup in the rain..go figure. I've actually KILLED 3 of my people in MW4 in the past few days that way..makes me laugh and cry at the same time.

Now, you have a nice sigline there J Echo, about how this is the MWO forum, not a BTech forum..but..before you take TOO much heart from that and use it establish that YOU are always correct and us BTech fans are wrong..PGI has stated numerous times, they are going back to the roots, BTech, to design MWO. They WANT to do physical combat, they just have to get it working right before they add it as a feature. Those types of statements by PGI are the only reason I'm sticking around these forums and waiting for this game. If I thought for 1 microsecond that they were just going to remake MW4 or, god's forbid, MA with pretty graphics, I'd delete my account and forget about this game totally, without a second thought or regret. Those killed the franchise and it seems that PGI is aware of this and wants to avoid making a failure. I'm sorry YOU want that J Echo, but hey, on the bright side, you aren't alone! I've counted at least 2 other people with the exact same view as you on the subject. I'd suggest you all hook up on MA but..you can't, so...you could d/l MW4 from MekTek and hook up on the..uh..whatever the system is, it's on the forums here somewhere. Me, I'll stick with just the single player MW4, just to get the feel of operating a Mech again..I know it's really basic and simplistic, but it's better then nothing..since I can't get MW2 or 3 to run on Win7..seriously..I had to go and find old WinXP codecs to just get MW4 to run! *sigh*

#77 Mason Grimm

    Com Guard / Technician

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 2,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationToronto, ON

Posted 18 December 2011 - 07:44 PM

Not really relavent to MWO but more like general so it goes in OFF TOPIC!

(clickity click, barba trick!) <---- if you know where this is from OMG you are old!

Also, play nice. There are a few of you whom I have seem inflammatory posts for on a repeated basis. Santa ain't the only one paying attention, ya dig?

#78 Swordbreaker7

    Rookie

  • 1 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 05:00 AM

Yeah this is getting a bit crazy guys.

My 2 cents

Mechs are cool. Battletech mechs are sweet, so are Gundam style mechs. I like them both, for different reasons. I don't know if we can really argue realism on either side. I mean realistically humanity most likely will never have mechs. So just enjoy what you like I guess.

Also Transformers are a bit different then Gundams. 95% of Gundams don't transform. Nearly all Japanese mechs are similar but not necessarily all the same. A Gundam Zaku model and Tenga Toppa Gurren Lagann (millions of lightyears tall) aren't exactly in the same boat.

#79 retroboy

    Member

  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 21 February 2012 - 01:23 PM

so humanized mech,s look to cutesy too you?
what about the Zaku? I think it looks pretty intimidating
http://1.bp.blogspot...600/zaku_02.jpg
not exactly a "gun on feet" but still more intimidating then Bay,s version of Bumblebee





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users