60 replies to this topic

[John Clavell]

DrHat, on 01 November 2011 - 02:57 AM, said:

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.

No your post is well written, I'm not directing at you my thoughts on the 'people' generally in the community already who have started whining, I never specifically called you a 'whiner', but if that is how it seemed, you have my apologies. However, there has been many topics already discussing the P2W aspect, and you do touch on it. Irrespective of your personal view on the subject, I wish people with closed minds, and again, this is a general statement, would give the developers at least the time to layout their plans to the community before going nuts over P2W 'might's and if's'. This goes for you too, maybe not the P2W, but certainly about other aspects of the game you seem disappointed about. Give the dev's sometime to outline their plans, hardly anything is know yet.

Yes you most likely wont get a 'story driven' Single-Player game, and if that is something you really wanted, you have my sympathies. However, it seems apparent we will get a story-driven multiplayer game, that allows the community to interact with it, bringing it to life. I'm very excited about that prospect.

I played MW4 for 5 years solid, was it a good game? It was ok, the single-player campaign took what? A day to complete or less. It was pretty boring overall and had no re-playability, but cost lots of money to make. I sure as **** never played MW4 of 5 long years for the single-player. I played for the multiplayer, the NBT league, which added depth and community. This is what makes a good lasting game, not a $50 spend out for 20 hours of gameplay and a half baked multiplayer. I'd rather a game that will give continued support and evolution in the Sci-Fi brand and lore I love.

Single-Player games only give so much entertainment. Would you play Tabletop Battletech on your own? It's kinda boring right? Way more fun when there is other people to pit yourself against. Same goes for the computer games. People like to interact. And it makes better business sense.

[Thorn Hallis]

Cynic!

Nothing is eaten as hot as it is cooked.

[Sly J]

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

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.

I'd urge you to reconsider. I mean, think about it. Piranha Games spent two years trying to secure a stable environment in which to develop this game. That fact alone means that the developers are already fanatically devoted to the franchise. Based on everything that's happened, I get the feeling that Piranha Games is determined to make a new Mechwarrior game come **** or high water, and for me, that's a very comforting thought. I find it hard to believe that such a dedicated group would fall prey to the money grubbing tactics that a F2P model can encourage.

That being said, you have every right to be skeptical. In fact, given how much we all care about this franchise and the direction it's now headed in, it's almost our duty to be skeptical. It's our job to view every decision Piranha Games makes from here on out with a cynical eye, and it's their job to prove to us that they know what they're doing.

We may have differing opinions on this right now, but as they reveal more about this game over the coming year, we may very well find ourselves in the same boat.

[Dozer]

DrHat, on 01 November 2011 - 03:09 AM, said:

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.

Glad you cleared that up

Let me start by saying the problem that you see this as an argument. That immediately puts the whole discussion in an adversarial position. That makes it a debate, not a dialogue, where two people try to convince the other they are right. There in lies the problem, its a polarised position. Debate doesn't stimulate discussion between the parties, it simply highlights/reinforces opposing views, especially in those debating the topic.

Let's face it, we're all subjective. That can be tempered by simply saying 'I see things X', open the discussion then you (and others) explore both points of view in more detail and determine commonalities rather than dissimilarities. Then build on those, as those will help make for a better game and community.

Let's me try to illustrate if I can:

If I understand your basic position, the game has evolved into a state that isn't conducive to your gaming expectations. More specifically the P2W (F2P) model - in your experience - comes with certain disadvantages and those do not attract you to the game. Before we can explore the topic further could you explain exactly what those disadvantages are? You have yet to name them, so I'd like to understand more before commenting.

edit: Re-read the post and you mention: no campaign, more of an action "arcadey" shooter, there would be no modding nor any map making - the game would for all sakes and purposes be "closed". Could you elaborate?

Edited by Dozer, 01 November 2011 - 04:04 AM.

[DrHat]

tyra, on 01 November 2011 - 03:15 AM, said:

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).

You're right to the extent that I feel a bit better in knowing that at least they had their heart in the right place. It is great to know that they shared the same kind of thinking I did, but that is as much as I can say for it. I don't bear Piranha Games any grudge, I don't hold it against them that they aren't meeting my expectations.
I simply cannot change my perspective and feeling of seeing the end of this franchise, for me that is..I can't do that based on just good intentions and willingness to do the right thing.

The simple thing remains for me: The game will be an F2P MMO - *to me* that means nothing good will come of it, the reason being explained in my original post.

[Tyra]

DrHat, on 01 November 2011 - 03:39 AM, said:

The simple thing remains for me: The game will be an F2P MMO - *to me* that means nothing good will come of it, the reason being explained in my original post.

I'm just going to cross my fingers and hope it will be more like Lotro quality or Guild Wars quality (or apparently League of Legends though I've never played it) than ..well most f2p mmos I've experienced.

[garrett]

This is not an MMO in the open world sense. According to the PC Gamer interview "From a gameplay point of view, it’s the online component of those [previous] games. It’s match-based gameplay. So you go in, you fight, and you come out."

He also mentions "lots of territory change" which to me indicates that there will be some sort of out-of-combat faction strength map or whatever that's affected by combat outcomes and/or timeline events. Multiplayer BattleTech 3025 was going to use a similar mechanic.

[DrHat]

Dozer, on 01 November 2011 - 03:33 AM, said:

Glad you cleared that up

Let me start by saying the problem that you see this as an argument. That immediately puts the whole discussion in an adversarial position. That makes it a debate, not a dialogue, where two people try to convince the other they are right. There in lies the problem, its a polarised position. Debate doesn't stimulate discussion between the parties, it simply highlights/reinforces opposing views, especially in those debating the topic.

Let's face it, we're all subjective. That can be tempered by simply saying 'I see things X', open the discussion then you (and others) explore both points of view in more detail and determine commonalities rather than dissimilarities. Then build on those, as those will help make for a better game and community.

Let's me try to illustrate if I can:

If I understand your basic position, the game has evolved into a state that isn't conducive to your gaming expectations. More specifically the P2W (F2P) model - in your experience - comes with certain disadvantages and those do not attract you to the game. Before we can explore the topic further could you explain exactly what those disadvantages are? You have yet to name them, so I'd like to understand more before commenting.

The assumption here is that there is a "root cause" of my woes and that somehow that the best possible thing you can do is, as it were, find it. However that is an erroneous assumption - My view arises simply from having watched and tried a variety of MMO's and F2P games. Having experienced what usually follows from using these models and more importantly, what you give up in order to build a game according to these principles.

To say that I didn't like F2P games would be erroneous too. I like League of Legends, I like TF2 (I bought thought back when it was originally released) and I'm sure I've played other titles (I remember one game was this ship fighting game where you could get and crew various older battleships and combat ships from the real world navy and you'd fight with torpedoes, naval guns etc).

To say that I didn't like MMO games would be just as erroneus. I've played EVE Online since 2004, and I've even worked for the company that makes the game. Before that and during, I played Planetside for severaI years and ran my own Ultima Online shard for 7 years, and also played on the original UO servers.

It simply doesn't work like that. I think its better understood if you simply consider the various games that are out there either as an MMO or as an F2P, or even as a mix between the two, and then ask "Would I want Mechwarrior to be that" ...pick any game you like that follow these models one way or the other.
The argument against that may be "Well its mechwarrior, you can't compare it to any other game" - I'm not..I'm comparing the methods employed. I'm comparing the technology employed, the principles that most people use in relations to these kind of games. At least I can see the same ideas being used again and again for games that follow a given model. Nobody that I can think of, have been an exception to this.

You know how these games usually operate, you know how they feel, you know roughly what can and cannot be done. You also roughly know what does and does not tend to work, and also what the usual problems are and so forth. Do I want that for Mechwarrior? Certainly not..But for now I have to cut things short, lunch time and all that! Will reply more extensively next time.

Also, really quickly as for the point about "argument". I want feedback or even a debate..I want people to disagree with me, or even agree (although I prefer the former) and say why. I want my point of view to be challenged since that is the only way I test my argument and my point of view.

[Adridos]

I prefer Single player as much as you do, but the whole fact how many problems with the development they had has to have some flaws. I believe in them and I will love if they can do the 4th good F2P game on the market. Then, they can add our beloved SP as well, (with Adrian I hope) since they should have some story written from the first days of development.

[Sesambrot]

You know Hat, I think I can relate to your point of view.
It is kinda creepy, but my reactions where pretty much the same! I've got to admit though, that I started playing MW with MW3 and haven't played online except for MW:LL. That aside, I felt pretty much the same way you did when being assured that it would be "Mechwarrior: Online", pretty much for the same reasons you do. Therefore I don't really know how to argue about it with you, as I pretty much share your oppinion.
In contrary I reach a different conclusion than you. I don't like being to optimistic, because experience proves that this leads to dissappointment most of the time. However after the initial depression, about it being "... ONLINE", I looked at this page and soaked up all the information that was given to me, FAQ, Dev_Blog, every official information there is to find on this page!
Eventually I came to think: "Hey, it may not have a SP, but WTH?!? It's a completely new mechgame, and if they can keep their promise of making it as sim-like as possible, what reason do I have to complain? Sure not having a SP is a bummer, but playing online has always been a blast in MW:LL, so I shouldn't dissmiss this one just yet!"

There are concern about it's F2P nature, mainly two of them.

especially with F2P in the past, many turned out as P2W, which is no fun at all, because you basically have to sink more and more money into it, in order to keep up with everyone else. However, recently developers seem to move away from that P2W strategy, as they have noticed that they are unable to attract new players that way. World of Tanks, TF2 or the upcoming Firefall ( http://www.firefallthegame.com/home ) are actually good examples for that. IMO WoT is a good example on how to do a F2P right. They may sell certain stuff that seems to give players a little advantage, but none of this is gamebreaking or throwing of the balance of the game as a whole, and in fact it remains fun for everyone. And the Devs stating that there will be no purchaseable equipment that gives someone an advantage makes me believe they're going in the same direction, so I don't think this is going to turn into a P2W.

The other concern is actually more critical. This is just my oppinion, but I think developers still take quite a risk by deciding to make their game a F2P. I don't know how well that concept works, I'd need to have some numbers for that. The main reason I'm a little concerned about it in this case, is that I'm under the impression that the Mechwarrior-Sims have always been a niche game, in fact many people don't know about the games at all. And that's where I'm getting a little worried, especially F2P need a large audience to return a profit, and from what I can tell, that's what most MW games have always had the most problems with, to reach a wide audience. There is a very presistent fanbase around the whole franchise, but it's numbers that count here, and I fear the existing fanbase alone isn't big enough.

What it comes down to in the end is how well they manage to draw new players into this franchise, and if they manage to make the game accessible enough for newbies to not get frustrated very quickly. I am going to trust the statement saying that it's not going to be arcady, and in fact I think this is going to be an interessting MP-experience,
However, I'm not going to make any assumptions on how this project is going to turn out in the long run. As far as I'm concerened there's two possibilities:
1. It's a success, and everyone likes it, it draws in new players, and returns a good profit.
In the end this might lead to a reboot of the series as a whole mith more to come in the future, and is actually what I hope for

2. It fails, doesn't return the profit that's needed, and dies.
In that case all we can do, is enjoy the game as long as it lasts, and then wait for another ten years...

Either way, I'm definetly looking forward to getting more information about the project, and to see how this turns out in the end.

PS: Sry for my bad text-editing, I know it kinda reads like ****, but I'm just no good at that lol
I hope I got accross my points tho

[BigRed40Tech]

You know what the sad thing is? An Xbox/PC release of Mechwarrior 5 would have probably been very profitable for the developer and for Publisher.

But just not profitable enough. That is the thing that has been driving me nuts lately about the lack of real 3rd party exclusives for PC/Xbox, PS3, and I guess Nintendo.

PS3 sells the least gamers anyway. Tons of consoles, not many gamers. And if you look at the distribution of money right now between consoles and PC? The PC has been steadily catching up not to one console, but to ALL the consoles, combined. Nvidia in fact estimates that by 2014 the PC will once again be bigger then the entire console market. Steam, Origins, ect, have made the PC slowly become top dog again. It is bigger then anyone ONE console.

So, JUST having the title on PC and Xbox wasn't enough, they needed the token 200,000 PS3 sales. **** Publishers.

Edited by stormeagle, 01 November 2011 - 04:46 AM.

[BigRed40Tech]

aegis kleais™, on 01 November 2011 - 04:53 AM, said:

The problem is that chart doesn't take into account next-gen console release in 2013/4/5, which will re-boost sales and put PC sales back down to circa-2008 times.

The bottom line is that no major publisher picked the game up; the other side of the sword here is that is a less aggressive publisher, the developer is allowed to develop to their own timeframe rather than an unrealistic one enforced by the publisher.

I don't think the numbers will flip quite so heavily in favour of consoles for multiple reasons. Firstly, those consoles are going to be sold at a loss. Secondly, there are less profits on games sold at retail. The actual breakdown is pitiful, while most PC titles are DD now adays. The next consoles will be the last generations to use physical media, and probably wouldn't unless retailers were **** near forcing them to.

Next? Less of the new consoles will be immediately in the hands of the public, meaning less potential customers as well.

Also, all this doesn't mean the GROWTH of the console market. It might mean a revitalization of it, but that doesn't mean new people are necessarily coming in. It doesn't make more money on the games either. I personally sincerely doubt the numbers will go back down to the 2008 year. Too many variable are in favour of the PC, largely thanks to digital distribution being the key engine driving the PC now.

[DrHat]

garrett, on 01 November 2011 - 04:02 AM, said:

This is not an MMO in the open world sense. According to the PC Gamer interview "From a gameplay point of view, it’s the online component of those [previous] games. It’s match-based gameplay. So you go in, you fight, and you come out."

He also mentions "lots of territory change" which to me indicates that there will be some sort of out-of-combat faction strength map or whatever that's affected by combat outcomes and/or timeline events. Multiplayer BattleTech 3025 was going to use a similar mechanic.

After a bit of lunch I'm ready to go again!
Okay well, I suppose I have to make it clear that it is not any specific *kind* of MMO style or mechanic that I am fundamentally against (although they do exist!) that has brought down the axe for me. Its the fact that its an MMO to begin with.

Now that aside for a moment and consider a few things- MMO means various different things like no singleplayer game, no simulator aspect (not saying this part can't be done, but its doubtful that it will be) and generally speaking it *often* (not always) means that the game will feature a lot of the same thing over and over..you take your avatar (however its represented), you put it into a controlled combat environment, you duke it out for X amount of time - achieving nothing as a result of whoever wins (maybe something, but ultimately that something, means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of the game), and losing nothing of significance as a result of whoever loses (have to repair your equipment or have a "loss" marker on your record, isn't a loss..its a minor inconvenience)- Then you go back to grinding for better equipment until you decide to do it all over again. (Please consider the terms I use in a very broad sense, applicable to any game)

So one of the very few ways I could even be remotely interested in an MMO Mechwarrior, is if territory mattered to the minimum extent that it matters in a game like EVE Online, preferably even more so, and that the market was player driven, entirely and that the world was open and free to the extent that there would be no such thing as "PvP Flag" or "PvP Zones". then indeed perhaps I might be interested..Some might say at this point "Go play perpetuum then", no because that game isn't mechwarrior..it might seem like it, but it isn't Mechwarrior, and it never will be.

Now I've played a LOT of MMO's, not just the ones I mentioned earlier (those were just the ones I played regularly) - Beta tested many as well, and you can't help but start to notice patterns and sameness in the things you experience. You simply start recognizing the glaring differences in theme park MMO's and Sandbox MMO's. You start recognizing how awful combat systems are and how they are painfully obvious copies of one another.
For me I start noticing what I do- and do not want from an MMO. over 95% of the MMO's in existence, consist mostly of the things I do not want (and I'm not alone by that, most MMO's fail because people are thoroughly unimpressed with what is put out there). But see all that doesn't even matter since I began by saying that its the idea of Mechwarrior as an MMO that I am put off by, multiplayer sure, but MMO? No, thats a terrible prospect to me.

Someone said it really well at one point (I just went and looked, it was john clavell) that it was obvious that what I was after was a story driven, single player focused AAA title. Then add on some multiplayer capability (maybe even some co-op, or just multiplayer missions against the computer) and thats exactly what I was after. It really is that simple..

[Amarus Cameron]

Though I remain skeptical about many lore related aspects of this game (because I am a fanatical follower of FASA's Battletech, not Catalysts Classic Battletech, though I manage to get along while waiting for a true successor) I will indeed play it regardless of my misgivings.

Some may say that allows for the lowering of quality of battletech related releases, but I say nay. Indeed I believe that it allows for the continuance of the universe, if there is no money then there is no published future. I do wish for a published future as much as anyone else and that means supporting those willing to take a risk with the Battletech and Mechwarrior IP.

As for my other pent up hate mail type posts that have not been posted yet, they will be...once the developer gives me something to post about...say not letting me be what I am. A Smoke Jaguar warrior. But until then I will happily wait and watch as the game progresses.

Much respect to Piranha for picking up the banner, I will support your game regardless of my misgivings, as it is an honest attempt to create something fun, and most importantly something Battletech.

[Dozer]

DrHat, on 01 November 2011 - 04:15 AM, said:

The assumption here is that there is a "root cause" of my woes and that somehow that the best possible thing you can do is, as it were, find it. However that is an erroneous assumption - My view arises simply from having watched and tried a variety of MMO's and F2P games. Having experienced what usually follows from using these models and more importantly, what you give up in order to build a game according to these principles.

To say that I didn't like F2P games would be erroneous too. I like League of Legends, I like TF2 (I bought thought back when it was originally released) and I'm sure I've played other titles (I remember one game was this ship fighting game where you could get and crew various older battleships and combat ships from the real world navy and you'd fight with torpedoes, naval guns etc).

To say that I didn't like MMO games would be just as erroneus. I've played EVE Online since 2004, and I've even worked for the company that makes the game. Before that and during, I played Planetside for severaI years and ran my own Ultima Online shard for 7 years, and also played on the original UO servers.

It simply doesn't work like that. I think its better understood if you simply consider the various games that are out there either as an MMO or as an F2P, or even as a mix between the two, and then ask "Would I want Mechwarrior to be that" ...pick any game you like that follow these models one way or the other.
The argument against that may be "Well its mechwarrior, you can't compare it to any other game" - I'm not..I'm comparing the methods employed. I'm comparing the technology employed, the principles that most people use in relations to these kind of games. At least I can see the same ideas being used again and again for games that follow a given model. Nobody that I can think of, have been an exception to this.

You know how these games usually operate, you know how they feel, you know roughly what can and cannot be done. You also roughly know what does and does not tend to work, and also what the usual problems are and so forth. Do I want that for Mechwarrior? Certainly not..But for now I have to cut things short, lunch time and all that! Will reply more extensively next time.

Also, really quickly as for the point about "argument". I want feedback or even a debate..I want people to disagree with me, or even agree (although I prefer the former) and say why. I want my point of view to be challenged since that is the only way I test my argument and my point of view.

As a lecturer once said to me 'arguments escalate, dialogue informs'. I have no problem challenging views, I just need to understand their core concepts is all, hence the questions.

Firstly let me say that, in my experience, everything we do as human beings has a root cause. Only through reflection can we discover the foundations of or thoughts and actions and if you cannot acknowledge it then you may fail to fix the situation that you are facing significantly enough or change your behaviours to avoid in the future. So for me it's not an assumption, it's a logical method of self analysis backed by amble empirical and subjective experience. I can however see how you might see it as such because many people simply don't manage to obtain that level of understanding, we are often not conditioned (or willing) to do so. You took a personal position, at least from my perspective, in your OP which is why I viewed it as a root cause moment.

In this case you express the desire to take an observer perspective i.e. take a look at other F2P games and see what's been given up by using this model. I would say that indeed it is true that some games have given up a lot, cut corners and gone 'off lore' by using a F2P model. Very true. Other's however have not. We have both successful and non successful examples of these models. The crucial question is whether this designer will take that path. We don't know yet, at least beyond pure speculation, until they release more information. Therefore I caution taking any position at all (as you have done) until they do.

You clearly have a lot of experience in the industry, and as a gamer. I respect that. I also respect the position that the acts of the future are often dictated by those of the past. But I would posit that only if no lessons are learned and the situation is the same would the outcomes be the same, or close to. I would agree if they adopt the models, technologies, principles that other (failed) gaming developers have then it is likely they won't met their stakeholder commitments (including us gamers). But that's assuming that they do. If I read the underlying message you have it is that you believe they will? How can you be sure... note I can't be sure either.

As for you mention of other erroneous statements (not liking F2P & MMO's etc) that wasn't the intent. I was simply deriving some meaning from what was written, and you have kindly expanded on that. TY.

Edited by Dozer, 01 November 2011 - 05:18 AM.

[Dozer]

DrHat, on 01 November 2011 - 05:02 AM, said:

Someone said it really well at one point (I just went and looked, it was john clavell) that it was obvious that what I was after was a story driven, single player focused AAA title. Then add on some multiplayer capability (maybe even some co-op, or just multiplayer missions against the computer) and thats exactly what I was after. It really is that simple..

It's good though that you have identified this. Means you know exactly what to look for in the game. Better than me. I am still unsure exactly what I am after in most games...

Edited by Dozer, 01 November 2011 - 05:20 AM.

[Phytochrome]

I hope the MWO team gets some moderators in the forums soon and start establishing some sticky topics (that "READ THIS FIRST" topic is good, for example). Not that there's anything wrong with this thread, but I've noticed a lot of people posting without apparently having read up on the information released so far.

[DrHat]

sesambrot, on 01 November 2011 - 04:35 AM, said:

Large well written and worthwhile post that has been edited out so I can reply without destroying the forum..sorry

You very rightly give Living Legends credit as being a fun multiplayer game. It justly deserves praise for keeping my Mechwarrior hunger "fed" all this time, however the difference comes in here in that Living Legends is a multiplayer only to the point of a regular multiplayer game. Massive Multiplayer involves taking a different approach to a number of different game mechanics - often relating to making the game playable by a large number of players in terms of netcode, hit detection, interaction, movement and so forth - and having to do this means the game will drastically change,

As for F2P, yes the concern for me is much the same as you mentioned, but of course also with the inherent design choices that quite often comes with it. It means that you will suddenly have the silly notion of exclusive content, or even vanity items - or in the case of Mechwarrior..the ability to perhaps purchase or as someone said, rent mechs. Now vanity items aren't necessarily bad and can even be done rather tastefully where most of every vanity-oriented item is available to everyone but with a limited set of special things being the ones you have to purchase. That would be less than contemptible but still not to my cup of tea..
It also means that you will have a game that is designed to put emphasis on these things..a notion I don't particularly like - I can't pretend I have any great reasoning for this, but it occurs to me as something that is absolutely pointless and takes focus away from things more important.

Finally, and more interestingly, you touch upon a subject I actually wrote quite extensively about on the MekTek forums - which is that of making a game that is appealing to a wider audience for the sake of bringing more people to the franchise, increase revenue and as a result of that; market the game to more people and also making money to perhaps make a second installment that is more in the direction of what they originally wanted to do.
This is indeed a possibility, but it seems unlikely...I am however glad to see I am not the only one who considered this possibility.

Whatever the outcome, it still leaves me where I started..with a cold sensation of loss and disappointment. People do raise valid points and educating myself by reading the many links people posted and the information some have given, have genuinely given me a new perspective on things, a lighter one..but I am still where I started.

[DrHat]

Dozer, on 01 November 2011 - 05:14 AM, said:

It's good though that you have identified this. Means you know exactly what to look for in the game. Better than me. I am still unsure exactly what I am after in most games...

Well I'm into all kinds of games, not just that kind. For Mechwarrior its a case of "The more simulator the better" (mechwarrior +arcade = BAD! DrHat do not like!) ..add some great story to it and many different levels (I don't mean missions when I say levels), modding and mapmaking, and after that I'd be going into details..but do something like that and I would worship the makers of such a game forever.

[DrHat]

Dozer, on 01 November 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

Firstly let me say that, in my experience, everything we do as human beings has a root cause.

Thats a little too philosophical for what we're discussing. I could easily go off on the deep end about things like "The gift relationship" by Richard titmuss and how close to everything we do is ultimately for our own personal benefit to more or lesser degrees. However that isn't helpful at all in my opinion.

Dozer, on 01 November 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

The crucial question is whether this designer will take that path. We don't know yet, at least beyond pure speculation, until they release more information. Therefore I caution taking any position at all (as you have done) until they do.

As I attempted to convey in my earlier posts, there is absolutely nothing wrong with those who exercise greater caution than I in being judgmental. I can also fully respect those for whom this will be a great choice, or even have faith in it turning out will. It is just simply something I cannot do for reasons I've made (I hope) abundantly clear at this point..Good on you I say, it just not for me.

Dozer, on 01 November 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

As for you mention of other erroneous statements (not liking F2P & MMO's etc) that wasn't the intent. I was simply deriving some meaning from what was written, and you have kindly expanded on that. TY.

Ah, I misunderstood your intent then, but as I said..the concept is the culmination of those 2, into a kind of game where I feel it doesn't belong.