patricia silverfox, on 04 July 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:
A lot of it had to do with three simple facts:
- The entire game was more of an action game than a simulation which is the feel that all games prior (I think MW3 was the last one that held this and it changed for MW4 and MW4:Mercs) retained
- The game ignored established Battletech lore from both the fiction and TT standpoint
- The story for the game was, to put it bluntly, abysmal and nowhere the standard set by prior titles
I could go into an even deeper review of it but I think you get the idea. Neither of the MechAssault titles were a true representation of the source material and, if anything, it played lip service to it and you could have just as easily swapped the skins for any other third-person action scifi shooter and still come up with the same game. For those who this was their first taste, and they somehow got here, I give you much credit but the fact is that the majority whom played it forgot about it and Battletech not long after finishing the game if they did at all (another strike against the game was that it was just so bad from a single-player standpoint that many never really finished it).
If this doesn't answer your question let me know what I should clarify and I'll try and do that for you.
A lot of this big stray from "real battletech" comes from the weird hardpoint systems that ignored all the previously establish 'Mech construction rules.