60 replies to this topic

[DrHat]

Hello!

Ladies and Gentlemen, Brothers & Sisters, Friends & Comrades - I may, in the following text, come across as a cynical, humbugging, malcontented and jaded pessimist, but that is only because I am one..No I'm just kidding..well not entirely, and yes I did indeed steal the modus operandi of that introduction from Marcus Brigstocke and Christopher Hitchens..both are people I admire for their separate reasons. Anyway on to what I was going to say:

The 2009 Expectations

Like so many of you, I've been itching and crawling the Internet for news and information about our collectively beloved franchise, Mechwarrior...Like so many of you I was hyped immensely about the initial video released in 2009 - which to me, clearly demonstrated a number of different things to me.

1. The game was to be built specifically so that you felt like you were in a giant robot, not that you were a giant robot.

2. Tactics and strategy would be important as shown by the UAV launch in the video.

3. Shiny new graphics!

4. Due to need to deploy tactical UAVs and not being able to find your enemy, as mentioned in the video, it would stand to reason that we would deal with semi-large or large maps.

5. Given the previous factors already mentioned, it seemed very likely that it would be a PC exclusive title and would be leaning towards simulation, which means a lot to me. It simply means the game is developed for the PC, but might be adapted for the console later..usually its done the other way around, which quite often ruins a game for me in many different ways.

6. It had the potential for a great and long campaign with high quality immersion.

7. The use of Unreal engine meant that there might be a potential for modding (!!!) and map making, which would unleash a plethora of potential and possibilities..oh and it has shown to quite often also create a great community.

My envisioning of the new mechwarrior was of an expanded, more story driven, larger and more feature packed version of MW2: Mercs (my first mechwarrior game, which also sold me on the franchise) - Without being mercenaries of course. I envisioned actual salvaging after missions being possible as something you could do manually and visually in order to get more out of salvaging, of course with the option to do salvaging at the press of a button if you didn't want to do it manually - I envisioned grandiose maps with massive forests, deserts, swamps and cities - I envisioned actual deployment where you would go through the process of landing with a dropship and having to walk out of the dropship. I envisioned a lot of things...We all have our dreams and I knew that part could not be fulfilled 100%, but hey..with todays technology, I'm sure we could meet half way at least.

The 2011 Reveal

Now I come here as a result of being linked here by my colleagues at work. I see this site and the first thing that jumps at me is "mechwarrior ONLINE"...My heart instantly sank and I got that cold chest feeling that one gets when you become very disappointed and sad at the same time.
Mechwarrior ONLINE ?! Thoughts flew through my head about Mechwarrior as an MMO. This would hamper a number of different things, like a campaign would be out of the question, oh and smooth twitch based combat, and destroy any likelihood of being or doing something unique by yourself - Not to mention there would be a great probability that the game would fall into obscurity like so many other failed MMO's out there because they all had dreams of making the next WoW while actually doing nothing new nor even remotely interesting.

Then I read the next piece of text somewhere on the right saying "NO!! Mechwarrior is now Pay 2 Win " -'Pay 2 win??' I thought. That means you buy things for RL currency, which means micro transactions, which means a great probability of the game being F2P (Free 2 Play) and sure enough, I saw one topic after the other, and comment after comment confirming thing.
This all felt like being kicked while you were down, because F2P just underlined that there would be no campaign, it underlined that the game would by definition be more of an action "arcadey" shooter, it also further underlined that there would be no modding nor any map making - the game would for all sakes and purposes be "closed".

The game, from my perspective, will end up being a dime a dozen. There will be nothing remarkable about it, save for perhaps graphics and giant robots. To some that may just be enough, and I don't hold that against them..There is really nothing wrong with wanting to play and be hyped about such a game. In fact, those of you are like this, are ahead of the herd compared to me and I say good on you - I have much much more demanding standards that just will not allow me to consider much less feel like there is a game for me behind this development model.

The only way that this will not happen, is if I somehow grossly misunderstood the usage of the terminology "Online" at the end of a title, and also misunderstood the model of "F2P" - Which would be a first. Both concepts are ways to bypass a large chunk of the game in favor of an online experience, which due to being F2P and due to probability, will be nothing to write home about...

Conclusion

As I began saying, this might all be because I am a jaded, high standard-demanding, humbugging malcontent that wants all or nothing. It is entirely possible that given the lack of economic viability with some game development models, what I want is simply not achievable unless you have an insufferably large and goodly chunk of money to spend for no considerable reason without any particular consequence. Whatever be the case, it does not change that to me, this is very bad news and saying goodbye to the series will be long and painful, but it has begun.

I am, however, very interested in getting feedback or hearing people's opinion.
Thank you for reading.

- DrHat

[Brixx]

DrHat, on 01 November 2011 - 02:26 AM, said:

The 2009 Expectations

Like so many of you, I've been itching and crawling the Internet for news and information about our collectively beloved franchise, Mechwarrior...Like so many of you I was hyped immensely about the initial video released in 2009 - which to me, clearly demonstrated a number of different things to me.

1. The game was to be built specifically so that you felt like you were in a giant robot, not that you were a giant robot.

2. Tactics and strategy would be important as shown by the UAV launch in the video.

3. Shiny new graphics!

4. Due to need to deploy tactical UAVs and not being able to find your enemy, as mentioned in the video, it would stand to reason that we would deal with semi-large or large maps.

5. Given the previous factors already mentioned, it seemed very likely that it would be a PC exclusive title and would be leaning towards simulation, which means a lot to me. It simply means the game is developed for the PC, but might be adapted for the console later..usually its done the other way around, which quite often ruins a game for me in many different ways.

If I may quote this:

1. You will experience this. You play from the pilots view, just like in the trailers. So I do not worry about this so far.

2. Even more in a multiplayer game this will be important. Like the tactical command view. Just because its Free 2 Play it does not mean it gets arcady. As it is a multiplayer game technical mumbo jumbo will perfectly fit in and I am sure we will see it in game.

3. Why not? So far we don´t know enough... but support of DirectX 11 does not sound too bad to my ears.

4. Still highly possible. A multiplayer game really asks for large maps.

5. PC only so far. Can´t be any better.

[Sly J]

I disagree, but I also completely understand where you're coming from. I guess only time will tell which one of us is right, although I agree with you that the absence of a traditional campaign is lamentable.

I will, however, say this: The Mechwarrior series will never die. If nothing else, the fans will keep it going. If you want an example, look no further than Mechwarrior: Living Legends.

[DrHat]

brixx, on 01 November 2011 - 02:41 AM, said:

If I may quote this:

1. You will experience this. You play from the pilots view, just like in the trailers. So I do not worry about this so far.

2. Even more in a multiplayer game this will be important. Like the tactical command view. Just because its Free 2 Play it does not mean it gets arcady. As it is a multiplayer game technical mumbo jumbo will perfectly fit in and I am sure we will see it in game.

3. Why not? So far we don´t know enough... but support of DirectX 11 does not sound too bad to my ears.

4. Still highly possible. A multiplayer game really asks for large maps.

5. PC only so far. Can´t be any better.

You are of course right sir, but please consider the context of what I wrote. That list is what I deduced when I watched the 2009 video - It has nothing to do with the likely short comings of the game, and in most cases its speaking from probability and experience.
Indeed the game could still be tactical, indeed the game could still have shiny graphics and indeed maps could be large..however those are not my main concerns. The rest of my post explains what my problem is.

The "PC Only" part though I didn't know though, and thats a big plus at least.

[UltraMagnus]

Drhat, I'm sure the developers will do their best to bring both battlefield and call of duty series to a halt because of this game

Read the FAQ and it will give you some hints of what's to come, and it seems nothing is 100% decided just yet.
I bet, when you start up the game you can choose to fight against the CPU, and not actually go online at first. so you can try out things. And in simulator mode, with a joystick. The 3 videos on youtube: www.youtube.com/user/mechwarrioronline
tells at least me, that this is going to be insanely spectacular. Just to operate that thing. woah! :-)

Also, who is there to say that there will never be a single player campaign?

[Youngblood]

Good luck out there, Mr DrHat! We'll have the fun for you! And then when the game turns out to be something that exceeds your expectations you can come crawling back to us!

[John Clavell]

The game is not even out, the website is less than 24 hours online and people are whining about P2W, ffs, let's at least give the developers a chance to layout their plans. The articel on PC Gamer talks a little about the Micro-transactions, I'm hoping it's more like Team Fortress 2 meets Battlefield 2/3 for the community / character upgrades. But only time will tell.

The interview does however spell out that much of what was tabled in 2009 is on the cards, all that has changed is the game is now F2P model, and the time setting. This is not an MMO imho, it's more like TF2 (which is F2P).

With the IP being in the developers hands and a small, if not start-up digital publisher there is a load of room to make this the game they want to make it. I'm really excited about this whole thing, it could be the best thing to happen to the franchise since Mechwarrior 2.

[Brixx]

DrHat, on 01 November 2011 - 02:48 AM, said:

You are of course right sir, but please consider the context of what I wrote. That list is what I deduced when I watched the 2009 video - It has nothing to do with the likely short comings of the game, and in most cases its speaking from probability and experience.
Indeed the game could still be tactical, indeed the game could still have shiny graphics and indeed maps could be large..however those are not my main concerns. The rest of my post explains what my problem is.

The "PC Only" part though I didn't know though, and thats a big plus at least.

I am not trying to proof you wrong or anything, you just asked for other opinions. Don´t take this as an offence but to me it seems as if you are considering everything that is about to come negative because of your point of view on a Free 2 Play Title. And of course I understand your worries as the game industry showed that F2P can fail horribly.

But I also do consider the possibilities of a online-focused Mechwarrior. Be it Free 2 Play or not. To my eyes this just does not necessarily mean anything bad. And if I still got you wrong... I am sorry. English is not my native language and maybe I kinda missed the intention of your post.

[DrHat]

Sly J, on 01 November 2011 - 02:46 AM, said:

I disagree, but I also completely understand where you're coming from. I guess only time will tell which one of us is right, although I agree with you that the absence of a traditional campaign is lamentable.

I will, however, say this: The Mechwarrior series will never die. If nothing else, the fans will keep it going. If you want an example, look no further than Mechwarrior: Living Legends.

I feel perhaps that I should justify my position a bit. The reason for my considerable doubt and heartache at all this, and the reason for why I personally feel that this is the end of the line for me, is because every other game I've seen that follow these models, have certain tendencies that always occur, they have certain feels and shortcomings about them that is always the case...empirical evidence is what drives me in this.
The probability that somehow this will be the exception, that mechwarrior will be the thing that sets a new standard...is so small, that I give it no consideration.

You are of course right that the fanbase is amazing and it will perhaps be my last "refuge".

[Dozer]

Online game development (MMO's particularly) so often illicites such polarised views from large segments of the community. Typically you're either a fanbois or a hater, and the reasoning ranges from blind emotion to cold dispassion. Too often it's a list of facts (often wildly subjective) to back a position, and no desire to revise that position even in the face of actual reasonable counter argument. It so often becomes a simple 'frame and blame game'.

Why not simply take the position that there is no position beyond trying to help the game succeed. Offer up some reasonable, factual and verifiable solutions rather than fields a laundry list of conjecture. That will most likely encourage more constructive dialogue, temper the emotions on both ends of the spectrum of opinion and hopefully make the game better for the majority of those wanting to play it?

Edited by Dozer, 01 November 2011 - 03:01 AM.

[DrHat]

john clavell, on 01 November 2011 - 02:53 AM, said:

The game is not even out, the website is less than 24 hours online and people are whining about P2W, ffs, let's at least give the developers a chance to layout their plans. The articel on PC Gamer talks a little about the Micro-transactions, I'm hoping it's more like Team Fortress 2 meets Battlefield 2/3 for the community / character upgrades. But only time will tell.

The interview does however spell out that much of what was tabled in 2009 is on the cards, all that has changed is the game is now F2P model, and the time setting. This is not an MMO imho, it's more like TF2 (which is F2P).

With the IP being in the developers hands and a small, if not start-up digital publisher there is a load of room to make this the game they want to make it. I'm really excited about this whole thing, it could be the best thing to happen to the franchise since Mechwarrior 2.

Sir, I am not whining..I am presenting my view on things, and indeed if you had put a little extra care into reading my post, you would see that I acknowledge that my view isn't the only one and that indeed, I could be just having too high standards that only very few people like me have.
I will not go through and explain where I get my view from again, since that is already in my first post - I did a great amount of throat clearing in order to get my view across and you are of course free to not agree, but please..do not call it whining, because it isn't.

[metro]

well hello S

Dozer, on 01 November 2011 - 02:56 AM, said:

MMO development so often illicites such polarised views from large segments of the community. Typically you're either a fanbois or a hater, and the reasoning ranges from blind emotion to cold dispassion. Too often it's a list of facts (often wildly subjective) to back a position, and no desire to revise that position even in the face of actual reasonable counter argument. It so often becomes a simple 'frame and blame game'.

Why not simply take the position that there is no position beyond trying to help the game succeed. Offer up some reasonable, factual and verifiable solutions rather than fields a laundry list of conjecture. That will most likely encourage more constructive dialogue, temper the emotions on both ends of the spectrum of opinion and hopefully make the game better for the majority of those wanting to play it?

Well hello Stranger! good to see ya Dozer!

[DrHat]

youngblood, on 01 November 2011 - 02:52 AM, said:

Good luck out there, Mr DrHat! We'll have the fun for you! And then when the game turns out to be something that exceeds your expectations you can come crawling back to us!

I could live with that happening. I could even live with having fingers pointed at me for being foolish and too quick to judge. In fact I would thrilled to be in that position, because it would mean I was proven wrong and that I finally had a new mechwarrior game to enjoy.
My view stands though.

[Dozer]

DrHat, on 01 November 2011 - 02:54 AM, said:

...empirical evidence is what drives me in this.

I'd like to see that empirical evidence backed by sound, unbaised research methodology. Afaik no-one has yet come out with any such thing as it relates to online gaming models, well nothing beyond the marketing plans of various self-interested parties. If there is I would love to read, if for no other reason than to expand my knowledge in the industry.

Edited by Dozer, 01 November 2011 - 03:03 AM.

[Brixx]

I am just not too worried about the Free 2 Play model as some of you seemingly are. I made negative experiences in the past but also more positive ones as time passed by. We just have to wait and see how things and especially the model they have chosen turns out and how its implemented. I do have a rather neutral point on this topic so far because I just don´t know as of yet. Nobody of us does.

Edit: Again, I am not trying to offend you because of your opinion as I fully understand your point of view. I just do have another opinion on it.

Edited by brixx, 01 November 2011 - 03:02 AM.

[DrHat]

brixx, on 01 November 2011 - 02:53 AM, said:

I am not trying to proof you wrong or anything, you just asked for other opinions. Don´t take this as an offence but to me it seems as if you are considering everything that is about to come negative because of your point of view on a Free 2 Play Title. And of course I understand your worries as the game industry showed that F2P can fail horribly.

But I also do consider the possibilities of a online-focused Mechwarrior. Be it Free 2 Play or not. To my eyes this just does not necessarily mean anything bad. And if I still got you wrong... I am sorry. English is not my native language and maybe I kinda missed the intention of your post.

No no please don't misunderstand sir, I did not take any offense at all and your post was justified. It is a possibility that I am being too negative, however I am unfortunately doing so with experience backing that up.
Believe me sir, I don't *want* to look at things the way I do, but history has just made me very skeptical.

I envy your positive outlook though, I genuinely do.

[DrHat]

Dozer, on 01 November 2011 - 03:01 AM, said:

I'd like to see that empirical evidence backed by sound, unbaised research methodology. Afaik no-one has yet come out with any such thing as it relates to online gaming models, well nothing beyond the marketing plans of various self-interested parties. If there is I would love to read, if for no other reason than to expand my knowledge in the industry.

When I say empirical evidence, I am taking reference from my personal experience as a gamer, and my professional experience in the gaming industry for a little over 6-7 years now. I make no claim that my views are unbiased much less without self-interest. I have an enormous self-interest and bias - This post is, after all, about my view as I see it and I make no apology for that, nor a claim outside of that.

What I am saying isn't scientific, it is self-serving and my usage of the terminology "empirical evidence" should be considered in that context.
In short, I don't look at this game from a scientific point of view nor do I look at it as whether or not it would be a viable way of marketing the game in accordance with everyone's broad interest here. I look at this game from *my* point of view, with *my personal* interest in mind. If someone shares that view, they can relate..if someone doesn't, they can argue the point with me. Simple.

[Tyra]

Please read the FAQs and the PC gamer interview. You might feel a little heartened by it. Also the devblog explains why they chose this route (basically no one would publish it, and it was this or no game at all)

I have my reservations (few f2p mmos are of any quality and the ones that are were p2p originally) but I'm willing to stick with it as it stands a good chance of actually being decent. I'm hoping for either a turbine model or a TF2 model with regards to the cash store. (cosmetics, storage, "hats" etc. Perhaps with an optional sub that gets you the entire game for 15 a month like a normal mmo)

I'm just worried it'll be another game I try for a few days then uninstall because the polish just isn't there. Which would be a shame for a MW game as I'd like a game I'd be happy to hop into for a few hours on a daily or weekly basis.

(the other reason they never last long are most lack explorable worlds and the ones that do are too grindy or have funky animations or just have something that bugs me too much. A lot of that won't matter in a mech game so I'm not too worried about that particular angle).

Edited by tyra, 01 November 2011 - 03:18 AM.

[Youngblood]

And their point of view can be found in the interviews from this thread:

http://mwomercs.com/...ead-this-first/

[Tyra]

Also, that 'pay to win' thread is a bunch of FUD and was started on misconceptions.

Here's a dev quote:

Bryan Ekman, on 31 October 2011 - 01:51 PM, said:

This is a great and very important thread. Rest assured we will address this in a future blog/announcement. I think people will actually be very happy with e F2P model we have developed.