67 replies to this topic

[PerryRaptor]

If there is not going to be destructable objects in-game I might as well continue playing Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries instead! Part of the draw to playing Mechwarrior is to shoot and blow things up!

I want tanks, missile and laser turrets, and missile launchers firing...so I can blow them up!

[Wolftrap]

O yes...don't know if anyone remembers but in MW4:Mercs the world you go to to fight Jade Falcons had these stupid little monkeys running around and I(for some unknown reason) wanted to blast them.

[BulletChief]

blood, civilians, animals:
- no... it only attracts stupid gore-***** kids and adds nothing, zero, niente, null to gameplay.

destructible environment like tree, rocks, lamp posts, etc.:
- yes, absolutely.

[Rejarial Galatan]

what about anti mech mines?

[Backblast]

Seriously, if you think blowing up civilians and animals is a good idea, you should probably get your head checked.

[Aeryk Corsaer]

NO ANIMALS!

[LtColClaymore]

i would love to use the destruction to my advantage

any one remember Mw3 intor with the vulture standing on look out in a old apartment .
go i would love to pup up with my jumpyets and make ome day a living hell xD

or end up getting that building on top of me hahaha


buig city envormoments to
like in the Unreal engine video ! that was awesome!

Cars that bounce.. building collapse. shattering glass and concrete.
*Drools by the idea of it *


but well people and but no to animals

people. should be. well the players? if there is an option to take over turrets or tanks perhaps?
or cars. so you could do well somthing xD?

Edited by LtColClaymore, 05 July 2012 - 02:03 AM.

[Wyr]

I think anything on the battlefield should be destructible. Otherwise it subtracts from the immersion. If there are hogs in the marsh, then by all means, I want to be able to destroy them. But blood is not needed. If a pig is hit by a military grade laser fired by a Mech it should evaporate in a few milliseconds. Even projectile weapons would utterly annihilate the poor thing hit. So blood is redundant, unless there is close combat, and you hit the swine in close range, or run through it, jump on it, etc.
Detonating cars and fuel tanks would be insanely good.

[JaYmZzz]

Elks and deers running across the woods. Bears and of course BADGERS!!!

Edited by JaYmZzz, 05 July 2012 - 02:11 AM.

[Schtirlitz]

You want to cook snacks from them?

[JaYmZzz]

Schtirlitz, on 05 July 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

You want to cook snacks from them?

With MAH LAZORS!

[Sky walker]

People,
you do realize that hit from laser into an animal or human would instantly vaporise it? And hit from LBX/AC would instantly turn it into sub-atomic particles so spread in explosion/dust that you wouldn't see much of it, certainly wouldn't have any blood on the armor of your mech?

I know it's a sci-fi setting but... keep at least a little bit of realism. Mechwarrior isn't a carmageddon!

PerryRaptor, on 04 July 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

If there is not going to be destructable objects in-game I might as well continue playing Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries instead!

This

[Chunkymonkey]

I wanna hide in a thin cave and blow out the side of the wall in a ambush...and cave everything in and kill myself.

[GrimJim]

No to anything living, yes to everything else.

If the game was about being a Taliban fighter & you rape villages for a living, a zombie let lose in a shopping mall, or Mongol Hordesmen who slaughters livestock to deny your opponent material supplies I guess killing the living would make sense.

But the game is about wacking giant robots not kids on playgrounds and their parents during their morning commute. Its really just a distraction. Inclusion impacts the gameplay little with more outstanding negative effects like shrinking your player base and attracting unwanted attention from lunatic (but LOUD) fringe organizations like PETA.

And don't give me any crap about "military realism." Typically in Succession War operations, populaces were evac'd long before the rompy stompies got anywhere near a city.

[JaYmZzz]

GrimJim, on 05 July 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

No to anything living, yes to everything else.

If the game was about being a Taliban fighter & you rape villages for a living, a zombie let lose in a shopping mall, or Mongol Hordesmen who slaughters livestock to deny your opponent material supplies I guess killing the living would make sense.

But the game is about wacking giant robots not kids on playgrounds and their parents during their morning commute. Its really just a distraction. Inclusion impacts the gameplay little with more outstanding negative effects like shrinking your player base and attracting unwanted attention from lunatic (but LOUD) fringe organizations like PETA.

And don't give me any crap about "military realism." Typically in Succession War operations, populaces were evac'd long before the rompy stompies got anywhere near a city.

Relax dude!
All we are talking about is forest beasts or birds for authentic wood environment. No civil casualties! Take it easy bro!

[Tannim78]

Seabear, on 04 July 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

As a hunter I do not want to see a lot of dead animals in the game. For many people the fact that such are shown would be cause to castigate the game and its players for no other reason than "it's cruel". Does not matter one bit that the critters are make-believe as that's the way some folks think. The second reason I do not want any animals in the game is that any animal whose home territory is invaded by 12 to 24 clanking machines of war weighing up to 100 tons would leave the area as soon as possible. Third is the fact that such "fluff" would cause great problems in the programming of the game. I would rather see more mechs included than Bambi !

I so agree there.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

I don't really see the point of animals. Unless we are talking about giant threatening birds that can wield weapons.

[Menkare]

The problem with adding all the little details like people and animals is that they will consume system resources that are better used for other things. Not to mention tying up an enourmous amount of bandwidth just to make sure they appear in the same place and at the same time to all the players in a certian battle.

Destructable buildings are one thing, and I think a good idea, but people an animals just aren't needed.

[JD Makane]

Destructible stuff is fun and all, but not necessary. Blowing up mechs is the name of the game.

[Rejarial Galatan]

thing is, if your in a wooded environment like say, yellowstone national park, for example, there are going to be animals in the area. and if you have a huge lumbering warmachine its going to scatter them. animals will run and birds will take flight. If you have a volley of missiles enroute to your target, whats to say that the flock of birds that took flight in fear of one mech, dont accidentally arrive at the same point in space and time as YOUR volley of missiles? While, yes, this is could be horrific to sensitive players, and could be a PR night mare, its a potential. The main down side and reason to NOT have animals in the game, is coding, I wager, it would be a nightmare to program in, and thus not worth it.