188 replies to this topic

[Meathook]

Johnny Z, on 09 June 2016 - 05:33 AM, said:

I cant stand team Fortress 2. It was ahead of the pack by being an interesting team based game that was free to play with no competition backed by Steam. Its not that good and is living off past successes.

Well, thats your opinion. Not everyone can like the same things. TF2 is still a lot more successful than MWO. MWO barely has any meaningful population, that really struggles to provide any ongoing competition, just look at the FP queues.

Quote

Your also wrong about every single other word in your reply. If the game play in MechWarrior was stale or like anything else you said I would agree with you. Its being held back by pro trolls in game and maybe on the forums to, and no advertising. A distant third is slow process of making the game feature complete and not a lot of prototypes.

Maybe you don't see it or don't want to see it, but how many rounds have do you have to drive on caustic racetrack to notice every game works out the same, customization is a farce and the outcome of matches can be predicted after 60 seconds about 90% of the games? "Held back", yeah, by PGI. Keep dreaming, Johnny.

Quote

Last of all if your suggesting that Overwatch is half the game MechWarrior Online is then I laugh loud and long. HA HA HA If a fairly minimal amount of time doesn't prove me right then obviously I'm wrong. If anyone is playing Overwatch in 6 months I will admit I'm wrong. Make that 2 months.

I'll take your word on that

[Zolaz]

[Iron Heel]

It seems Ive got another penny or two to throw in so,
I think a point some of you seem to be just glancing over is that PGI IS NOT Blizzard .
Where Blizzard, while my feelings on the matter differ from ATI's marketing arm, can afford to alienate a few hundred thousand to millions of customers as they diddle around with a classic franchise (Diablo) as the seek THEIR vision of what the game should be, PGI doesn't have the history or wiggle room an organization like Blizzard does.
If I don't open my wallet for a few years or more for Blizzard because I'm peveed with their output, they can probably weather that situation as they have other revenue streams to fall back on.
PGI needs to be more like the Blizzard North of old who is more willing to caters to their customers wants because they need to to survive..
Unless of course, their ultimate goal is to be bought out by an ATI or ZeniMax type organization.
But to be considered for buy out or even hostile take over, you have to have something worth the effort and MWO's player base just doesn't rise to that level..

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Rampage, on 08 June 2016 - 07:56 PM, said:

Blizzard does their own thing and does not listen to the QQ or develop a game based on it. If they did listen a little bit to the community then D3 would not have been the **** it turned out to be. And talking about an antagonistic approach to the community, you should have seen some of the comments that Jay Wilson leveled at some of the people who were most vocal in their criticism about the direction he was taking D3. He even mocked them at Blizzcom with the rainbow pony T-Shirts due to their complaints about the artwork. Turned out the fans were right and Blizzard sent Jay off to some closet somewhere while they spent the next 3 years trying to fix the game. Still every game company is entitled to one **** of a game among their other hits.

I think PGI would be better served by resist the kneejerk reactions to the forum and twitter QQ. They should read an evaluate constructive suggestions for changes to see if any of them fit there goals for the game. This community is a gold mine of ideas but some of them are so impractical as to be almost laughable and others are a direct contradiction of what another person or group wants. Obviously not everyone can have everything they want. That is where PGI should just set their goals and not deviate from them until they have made their game their way. Trying to please everyone is just a distraction that will keep them chasing their tails forever.

Rampage, on 08 June 2016 - 07:56 PM, said:

Blizzard does their own thing and does not listen to the QQ or develop a game based on it. If they did listen a little bit to the community then D3 would not have been the **** it turned out to be. And talking about an antagonistic approach to the community, you should have seen some of the comments that Jay Wilson leveled at some of the people who were most vocal in their criticism about the direction he was taking D3. He even mocked them at Blizzcom with the rainbow pony T-Shirts due to their complaints about the artwork. Turned out the fans were right and Blizzard sent Jay off to some closet somewhere while they spent the next 3 years trying to fix the game. Still every game company is entitled to one **** of a game among their other hits.

Look, I get the hate for D3, but to from what I know, that seems to be an exception rather than the rule. If D3 were the start of a new trend then I you might have a point, but Overwatch has not run into the same troubles that D3 has had, so I'm not considering that as part of the norm for Blizzard.

The Basilisk, on 09 June 2016 - 05:38 AM, said:

MWO has to become even less childish twitch shooter and more Mechsim.

If you think this game is anywhere near a twitch reaction shooter, then you haven't played a twitch shooter recently. Going from Overwatch to Mechwarrior is almost relaxing with how slow the pace is in comparison.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 June 2016 - 07:19 AM.

[Dawnstealer]

Maybe, just maybe, Blizzard has a few things that PGI doesn't:

• It's been an established mover and shaker in the game world since Warcraft over TWO DECADES ago.
  
• They have a budget that's millions more than PGI.
  
• They have free reign to take as long as they want to release a game because their fan base is absolutely loyal to the end product after, as mentioned in #1, two decades of game releases.
  
• They have probably 10-20x the number of employees as PGI

Seriously - this is like comparing a guy building a plane in his garage to Boeing and saying "Man - you suck, dude: you can't even build a 777."

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Kaeb Odellas, on 09 June 2016 - 03:11 AM, said:

Are you trolling, or merely ignorant? The only thing GoldenEye did was make a 3D FPS work on a console. That is it. Even then it did not compare to shooters on PC at the time. Quake was released a year before for gods' sakes.

If you think the only options for someone having a different perspective from you are trolling or ignorance...

As if you think you're omniscient or all knowing and there's no possible valid reason for someone having a different opinion.

Well, that doesn't need a response does it?

Suffice it to say that a lot of the new games I see being released that I see people swoon over look vastly inferior to some classic games that were produced more than a decade ago.

Take starcraft for example. Starcraft II was released and blizzard's devs didn't seem to realize that allowing units to cluster very closely together might have made it too easy for them to focus firepower. The original starcraft had a mechanic where friendly units bounced off each other, which meant a certain degree of micro was necessary to keep units clustered closely together and effectively focus fire. A lesson which the devs working on starcraft II seemed wholly ignorant of.

That's just one example but I can think of many in regard to newer games which a lot of people seem to think are great. But I tend to view as being inferior echoes of the classic games they mirror.

Like say dreadnought or star citizen. A lot of people seem very impressed by it. But to me I just look at it and think to myself: this looked like they might be good games. But now that I get a closer look, they're just !@#% in a lot of ways. Attention to detail and comprehension of fundamental game mechanics are severely lacking in a lot of new titles.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 09 June 2016 - 07:35 AM.

[GRiPSViGiL]

The Basilisk, on 09 June 2016 - 05:38 AM, said:

No....it isn't...or better it should not be...(ok PGI droped development of some of the sim elements)
It's more a tac sim.

But hey...there may be the problem right. Customer focus and identification.
MWO has to become even less childish twitch shooter and more Mechsim.

Without the social elements and interactions that would lend itself to an MMO, economy, chat lobbies, persistency nor the more advanced mechanics to lend itself to being a SIM like unit coordination, diplomacy, espionage, resource allocation etc. we have more of an arena FPSer in Tanks that happen to be robots. The focus on identification is just to describe what we actually have. Which matters to a lot of people. There isn't anything about this game I would consider SIM really.

Edited by GRiPSViGiL, 09 June 2016 - 07:53 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

The Basilisk, on 09 June 2016 - 05:38 AM, said:

No....it isn't...or better it should not be...(ok PGI droped development of some of the sim elements)
It's more a tac sim.

But hey...there may be the problem right. Customer focus and identification.
MWO has to become even less childish twitch shooter and more Mechsim.

How can you call this game a twitch shooter? That is laughable. Playing Overwatch/CoD/late Halos... those are twitch shooters, MWO is significantly slower paced. And really doesn't even require that you have lightning fast reflexes or perfect aim.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Dawnstealer, on 09 June 2016 - 07:29 AM, said:

They have probably 10-20x the number of employees as PGI

This is a bit deceptive, since Blizzard should have separate teams/studios working on separate games, meaning the team behind each individual game is not actually 10-20x the size of PGI, unless they were trying to pull an Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed, which I doubt they do.

[Variant1]

Jimmy Page, on 08 June 2016 - 02:58 AM, said:

Overwatch - very polished. Excellent gameplay. Well thought out characters with unique abilities. No lag. SMOOTH gameplay. World class UI. Excellent player stats page. Fast matchmaking by a world class gaming company.

Mech Warrior Online - All maps have a fog in them for "immersion" Terrible UI. Re quirks every two months because they have no direction. Rubberband Lag. Poor optimization. Bad hit reg. People openly hack with no fear of bans. Not much diversity in mechs. Bad map design. Lies to player base in first few years that killed player base and made them bitter. Created by a tier 5 shovelware company.

Okay heres where i have a problem with your post (no offence):
1. you did not state any negatives about overwatch. It doesn't matter how much you like a game there is usually something that bothers you about it. Even games i like i have some problems with certain elements in them.

2. You only stated negatives about pgi. Theres not one thing you liked playing mwo? why are you still playing then? By listing only negatives about it your points about pgi's mistakes only serves to straw man them.

Not gona lie MWO isint perfect, saying it has a troubled past would be an understatement, but you have to consider MWO is a free to play. This means they have a lower budget than say Blizzard, who have lots of moneys. Also Blizzard isn't an angel that you think it is, they have done plenty of shady things: They started introducing disgusting and insidious drm into their games, removing a legacy server on WoW that would do more good to them than harm, releasing greedy expansions for said game that would introduce power creep, speaking of overwatch are we forgetting that controversial tracer 'bozum' pose? Dont get me wrong i liked some of the blizzard games, heck i still play broodwar to this day, but i stopped buying blizzard stuff after Sc2 and its insidious drm.

One more thing on topic of Overwatch. Its a game you have to pay to play with freemium elements like micro transactions. This can be forgiven for MWO since its F2P, but for a game that costs 40$ i expect it to not have any micro transactions(which is scary considering more pay to play games today are starting to have freemium content) in-fact thats why i stopped buying new games altogether all i do is play this game and other old games. The micro transactions in overwatch are especially insidious since it's rng loot crates, ofcourse you can get them for free by leveling up but its clear that this is made to pressure people into buying since later on it becomes grindy.

Edited by Variant1, 09 June 2016 - 09:58 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Variant1, on 09 June 2016 - 09:56 AM, said:

but you have to consider MWO is a free to play. This means they have a lower budget than say Blizzard, who have lots of moneys.

You should probably include citations for this, because while they don't ever get a large influx of cash at one time like standard release games, that doesn't mean they make less money than standard release games.

Variant1, on 09 June 2016 - 09:56 AM, said:

speaking of overwatch are we forgetting that controversial tracer 'bozum' pose?

You mean the thing they quickly removed in response because it was a bit distasteful? At least quicker than PGI would've. Though PGI has been better since the removal of IGP, part of the problem is often they have feedback before release of stuff and still make the same mistake (the tournament being the most recent example).

Variant1, on 09 June 2016 - 09:56 AM, said:

This can be forgiven for MWO since its F2P, but for a game that costs 40$ i expect it to not have any micro transactions(which is scary considering more pay to play games today are starting to have freemium content) in-fact thats why i stopped buying new games altogether all i do is play this game and other old games.

The difference is, those micro-transactions are for purely cosmetic items, there is nothing stopping you from playing any hero, where as there is a HUGE obstacle to play all mechs in this game, or even all roles.

Variant1, on 09 June 2016 - 09:56 AM, said:

The micro transactions in overwatch are especially insidious since it's rng loot crates, ofcourse you can get them for free by leveling up but its clear that this is made to pressure people into buying since later on it becomes grindy.

You know what's insidious, charging 30$ for a single (and unique) variant in a game with over 300 different variants.....

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 June 2016 - 10:40 AM.

[LastKhan]

Comparing a multi-million dollar company to a small triple meh A company. No derp Blizz is going to be far more polished and stable cause they have the funds and people to do so. What does PGI have.. some really good artists and also Paul the nerfinator.

Overwatch seems interesting but i dunno. Is it possible for something to be so overhyped that you dont really want to play it? cause its how i feel about it honestly. Im also doing alot of time dumping into Total war; warhammer and stellaris which can also be a factor.

[Mole]

Why do we have seven pages of people trying to compare a gun and a hammer and asking "Why can't this hammer shoot worth a crap"?

[invernomuto]

Davers, on 08 June 2016 - 04:27 PM, said:

Yet BT has had super long waits between titles. I am not debating the quality of PGI's work here. I am only wondering what the licence people are doing wrong. Why isn't there a Total War: Battletech game for example? They don't seem to be doing a great job getting their brand out there.

Because the IP owner of the Warhammer franchise (Games Workshop) was - and I think still is - the market leader of 3D miniature gaming and did a very good job in diversifying and expanding their business in other areas, like videogames, in the recent years.
GW licensed their games to big developers (e.g. Relic for the Warhammer 40K series and now Warhammer to the Creative Assembly). It's also a good momentum for fantasy (Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, Games of thrones, etc).
Fasa did it with BT IP 2 decades ago and we had VERY good Mechwarrior videogame titles in the 1995-2002 period. E.g. MW2 for PC, developed by Activision was an AAA title, it was a truly awesome game for the time.
Then BT went out of fashion, IIRC there was a big mess with BT IP and so in the recent years we are crowfunding BT related games...

However, it happens that games goes out of fashion, BT was popular in mid 80s, it's likely that younger people know e.g. the Halo franchise and do not know anything about BT. Warhammer is more the exception rather than the rule.

Edited by invernomuto, 09 June 2016 - 01:08 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 June 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

This is a bit deceptive, since Blizzard should have separate teams/studios working on separate games, meaning the team behind each individual game is not actually 10-20x the size of PGI, unless they were trying to pull an Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed, which I doubt they do.

Hes right to some degree. CDPR had a total of 400 including out sourcing/contractors that has since double to 800 for the upcoming game Cyberpunk 2077. CDPR's direct competitors have employees numbering in the thousands for each title which is why some studios like Ubisoft has had to pump out a new game each and every year for some titles.

One of the smallest big name studios is actually Bethesda that has around 100 for its Fallout and Elder Scrolls titles not including talent which they have had huge amounts of for their games. But they are building onto an existing engine and treading well known ground for the last few releases.

Although the only one that is really open about financial details and many other details is CDPR and Bethesda saying they had about 100 workers on Fallout 4, and any other company is a lot of guess work and rumour.

Edited by Johnny Z, 09 June 2016 - 01:07 PM.

[Dawnstealer]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 June 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

This is a bit deceptive, since Blizzard should have separate teams/studios working on separate games, meaning the team behind each individual game is not actually 10-20x the size of PGI, unless they were trying to pull an Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed, which I doubt they do.

But they can also reassign assets at will - pull designers, programmers, and/or artists from one project and put them on another if there's a deadline crunch.

[Triordinant]

This is like comparing Wal-Mart to the mom and pop store on the corner, LOL.

[IQcreditscore]

meteorol, on 08 June 2016 - 06:05 AM, said:

lol what a ******** thread.



Did you miss the Diablo 3 launch by any means?

I honestly wonder how this (utterly terrible) thread would have looked like during the D3 release...

"Yeah PGI may be sh*t, but atleast they don't release a raging dumpster fire like Diablo 3."

D3 was a unbalanced, buggy, terrible mess on release. I mean... they originally announced a PVP arena "within a year" (even showed videos of it) for D3 but never managed to get **** balanced so they simply cut that idea, instead adding an absolutely unbalanced "brawling" clusterf*ck and never gave one more flying f*ck about it. And people are crying bait&switch in MWO lol. That's how balanced and polished Blizzard released D3. Not even talking about mind bogglingly stupid game design decisions like making most legendary weapons way worse than countless ordinary magical and rare weapons on release.

Honestly, i have been a Blizzard fanboy for years (since diablo 1 in fact), and i played Diablo 3 just yesterday, but Blizzard f*cked this thing up so big that most of their reputation is gone for me.

Failing to recognize that pvp is what kept diablo2 alive for so long was a far larger mistake than pgi could ever make. Why do they think people did mindless baal/meph runs for days?

[Kaeb Odellas]

I Zeratul I, on 09 June 2016 - 07:31 AM, said:

If you think the only options for someone having a different perspective from you are trolling or ignorance...

As if you think you're omniscient or all knowing and there's no possible valid reason for someone having a different opinion.

Well, that doesn't need a response does it?

Suffice it to say that a lot of the new games I see being released that I see people swoon over look vastly inferior to some classic games that were produced more than a decade ago.

Take starcraft for example. Starcraft II was released and blizzard's devs didn't seem to realize that allowing units to cluster very closely together might have made it too easy for them to focus firepower. The original starcraft had a mechanic where friendly units bounced off each other, which meant a certain degree of micro was necessary to keep units clustered closely together and effectively focus fire. A lesson which the devs working on starcraft II seemed wholly ignorant of.

That's just one example but I can think of many in regard to newer games which a lot of people seem to think are great. But I tend to view as being inferior echoes of the classic games they mirror.

Like say dreadnought or star citizen. A lot of people seem very impressed by it. But to me I just look at it and think to myself: this looked like they might be good games. But now that I get a closer look, they're just !@#% in a lot of ways. Attention to detail and comprehension of fundamental game mechanics are severely lacking in a lot of new titles.

Different perspectives are great and all, but perspectives are not equally valid. I will not, for instance ask for an opinion on a visuals from a person who was born blind.

I'm not saying GoldenEye was a bad game. You are perfectly valid in saying that it's your favorite FPS, as that an opinion colored by your circumstances and the experiences you had playing the game. That's all fine.

However, if you go and say something as completely ridiculous as

I Zeratul I, on 09 June 2016 - 02:01 AM, said:

Is there any real progress or advancement in overwatch from old fps shooters like golden eye 007 for N64?

I think it's safe to say you've either never played a single FPS in your life after GoldenEye and thus have no basis for an opinion, and I feel safe in placing your perspective on the quality of modern shooters squarely in the "worthless" pile. Or you're just being silly for the hell of it.

[Gas Guzzler]

Triordinant, on 09 June 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

This is like comparing Wal-Mart to the mom and pop store on the corner, LOL.