139 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Some have called for other Studios to simply take over the IP outright, but that simply is not going to happen, bar PGI just suddenly going belly up. And while my wallet is closed, ATM, I'm not advocating any kind of anti-PGI Occupy type movement.

I don't necessarily want to see PGI "give up the title" per se, as MWO for all it's flaws feeds a certain portion of the Mechwarrior fanbase. I would like to see them partner, like they have with HBS, with a more experienced, resource heavy Studio to produce the PvE part though, as I fear PGIs demonstrable lack of understanding of depth, immersion and their own playerbase, as seen through the continued shallowness of FW, would doom any attempt from PGI to make a PvE game worth playing.

This would allow Russ and Paul and company to keep focusing on what they seem comfortable with, the E-Sport FPS aspect, which obviously Russ wants to embrace whole hog, and allow for MW fans of Campaign Play to get a quality game, potentially. Giving us an Online 3 way Fix for our Mechwarrior needs (PGI = ESports, HBS = TBS, New Studio = PvE Campaign Game).

It would also be an efficient use, like with HBS, of the already developed Assets, Mech Models, even a few maps whatever.

And it is the only way the Founders will ever see something remotely resembling an immersive, deep campaign we were sold. The recent Town Halls have reinforced my belief that PGI simply is not equipped to make a good or timely PvE game, but that we will simply see a long drawn out and disappointing result, like FW, which PGI seems to think is a great success and fulfills their original pitch to sell Founders Packs, to a tee.

Thoughts?

[Lostdragon]

I don't think Russ or Paul would ever hand over the reigns. They both seem to be sort of egomaniacal control freaks that feed off each other. It would be best for someone else to do the PVE campaign probably, but it seems extremely unlikely imo.

Edited by Lostdragon, 12 July 2016 - 05:53 PM.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2016 - 07:49 AM, said:

Some have called for other Studios to simply take over the IP outright, but that simply is not going to happen, bar PGI just suddenly going belly up. And while my wallet is closed, ATM, I'm not advocating any kind of anti-PGI Occupy type movement.

I don't necessarily want to see PGI "give up the title" per se, as MWO for all it's flaws feeds a certain portion of the Mechwarrior fanbase. I would like to see them partner, like they have with HBS, with a more experienced, resource heavy Studio to produce the PvE part though, as I fear PGIs demonstrable lack of understanding of depth, immersion and their own playerbase, as seen through the continued shallowness of FW, would doom any attempt from PGI to make a PvE game worth playing.

This would allow Russ and Paul and company to keep focusing on what they seem comfortable with, the E-Sport FPS aspect, which obviously Russ wants to embrace whole hog, and allow for MW fans of Campaign Play to get a quality game, potentially. Giving us an Online 3 way Fix for our Mechwarrior needs (PGI = ESports, HBS = TBS, New Studio = PvE Campaign Game).

It would also be an efficient use, like with HBS, of the already developed Assets, Mech Models, even a few maps whatever.

And it is the only way the Founders will ever see something remotely resembling an immersive, deep campaign we were sold. The recent Town Halls have reinforced my belief that PGI simply is not equipped to make a good or timely PvE game, but that we will simply see a long drawn out and disappointing result, like FW, which PGI seems to think is a great success and fulfills their original pitch to sell Founders Packs, to a tee.

Thoughts?

I tend to agree here, if I had to take a wile guess, I might suggest Crytek if PGI wants to stick with the CryEngine.. FarCry 1-5 have been amazing single player games, that being said, the people that do Battle Field I hear do rather well with vehicle style combat... but if I am honest, what I want is much more sim-like less FPS like, I would love to see a company like 1C that developed the IL-2 Sturmovik game.

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 11 July 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

I tend to agree here, if I had to take a wile guess, I might suggest Crytek if PGI wants to stick with the CryEngine.. FarCry 1-5 have been amazing single player games, that being said, the people that do Battle Field I hear do rather well with vehicle style combat... but if I am honest, what I want is much more sim-like less FPS like, I would love to see a company like 1C that developed the IL-2 Sturmovik game.

Sturmovik, or ARMA3 is more the direction I would like to see. Let PGI cater to the CoD crowd, ya know?

[kesmai]

i´d like to see a coorperation.
i have the feeling selfjudgement and esteem combined with a kind of not cooperative appearance could be a hindrance on a certain side.

Edited by ARP Haruna, 11 July 2016 - 07:58 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lostdragon, on 11 July 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:

I don'the think Russ or Paul would ever hand over the reigns. They both seem to be sort of egomaniacal control freaks that feed off each other. It would be best for someone else to do the PVE campaign probably, but it iseems extremely unlikely imo.

A year ago I would have said the Unseen and a collaboration with HBS was unlikely, too. I don't disagree, but one can hope.

PGI is barely treading water keeping up with their ESport desires. Solaris is a logical extension of that. Any form of decent PvE really is an entirely different thing entirely, and completely outside of PGI's wheelhouse, experience wise.

And if PGI were to think the "long game" it would divest them of some focus on Mechwarrior, and allow them the ability to try another game, potentially, which we know Russ and Bryan are champing at the bit to do.

It's ironic that the game that has allowed them to grow from a broom closet studio to a decent sized small studio...is viewed by them as a straightjacket, suffocating them. Their actual programmers seem to have no issue with it, but Russ, Paul and Bryan have all seemed almost resentful of the IP since the failure to launch of Transverse exposed their reliance MW to stay afloat.

If they weren't resentful of it and wanting a way out, they would have done the intelligent thing long ago and reskinned and rebranded the already developed Transverse assets as Aerotech and tied it to the global FW. Although the way PGI has chucked previous quarter million dollar maps without incorporating them into game modes, does show a lack of concern in actually using their resources efficiently.

[C E Dwyer]

Lostdragon, on 11 July 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:

I don'the think Russ or Paul would ever hand over the reigns. They both seem to be sort of egomaniacal control freaks that feed off each other. It would be best for someone else to do the PVE campaign probably, but it iseems extremely unlikely imo.

Won't happen because of this, and it's pretty obvious that they can't organise a e-comp event either, from the mess of the live event, and the qualifiers from the current event.

HBS thing happened because people wanted the assets from this game, which clearly proves its a good one, but the truth is more likely to be purely reducing the cost of development.

I'm sure that people who work for P.G.I see it as something to put on the C.V as experience, in the hopes of working for a good game developer oneday

[kesmai]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

A year ago I would have said the Unseen and a collaboration with HBS was unlikely, too. I don't disagree, but one can hope.

PGI is barely treading water keeping up with their ESport desires. Solaris is a logical extension of that. Any form of decent PvE really is an entirely different thing entirely, and completely outside of PGI's wheelhouse, experience wise.

And if PGI were to think the "long game" it would divest them of some focus on Mechwarrior, and allow them the ability to try another game, potentially, which we know Russ and Bryan are champing at the bit to do.

It's ironic that the game that has allowed them to grow from a broom closet studio to a decent sized small studio...is viewed by them as a straightjacket, suffocating them. Their actual programmers seem to have no issue with it, but Russ, Paul and Bryan have all seemed almost resentful of the IP since the failure to launch of Transverse exposed their reliance MW to stay afloat.

If they weren't resentful of it and wanting a way out, they would have done the intelligent thing long ago and reskinned and rebranded the already developed Transverse assets as Aerotech and tied it to the global FW. Although the way PGI has chucked previous quarter million dollar maps without incorporating them into game modes, does show a lack of concern in actually using their resources efficiently.

i know it´s geting old, but instead of pumping money (and they did, i have a feeling that "endeavour" cost them at least 10 mil $) into their tranny excourse, they could have invest into their straightjacked. i do think we could have been a year ago where we are now.

[Bud Crue]

Short answer: YES!!

Why (long answer)? I just had a vision of how I think PGI would make a PVE campaign: They have an intern come up with a story arc involving the player having to go to a variety of different planets, each planet would have a one or two missions (maps). The end planet/mission would be a cold environment involving a large flat "polar" landscape with lots of crevasses, leading to cold "alpine" map, and ending in a "frozen city. Are you with me yet? Yep. the campaign would just be sequential run thorough off all the existing maps in accordance with a 'story' where enemy mechs are controlled by AI. That would be it, if PGI is left to its own devices. So yes, get another studio involved. Please.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

A year ago I would have said the Unseen and a collaboration with HBS was unlikely, too. I don't disagree, but one can hope.

PGI is barely treading water keeping up with their ESport desires. Solaris is a logical extension of that. Any form of decent PvE really is an entirely different thing entirely, and completely outside of PGI's wheelhouse, experience wise.

And if PGI were to think the "long game" it would divest them of some focus on Mechwarrior, and allow them the ability to try another game, potentially, which we know Russ and Bryan are champing at the bit to do.

It's ironic that the game that has allowed them to grow from a broom closet studio to a decent sized small studio...is viewed by them as a straightjacket, suffocating them. Their actual programmers seem to have no issue with it, but Russ, Paul and Bryan have all seemed almost resentful of the IP since the failure to launch of Transverse exposed their reliance MW to stay afloat.

If they weren't resentful of it and wanting a way out, they would have done the intelligent thing long ago and reskinned and rebranded the already developed Transverse assets as Aerotech and tied it to the global FW. Although the way PGI has chucked previous quarter million dollar maps without incorporating them into game modes, does show a lack of concern in actually using their resources efficiently.

If they were to go the Aerotech route, and it'd be a good one, as there has never been a game about Aerotech yet, I would almost suggest talk to the guys that do EVE online CCP Games, as when I played EVE it was well done.

[Simbacca]

The advantage of having a third good studio deal with PVE using PGI's models/artwork would also bring some additional revenue to PGI via licensing. And who knows - the ideas of PVE by the third studio could make its way into MWO - to help solve some of its woes.


EDIT: Plus there has been talk on the HBS Battletech Forums about joining more aspects of both games together.

Edited by Simbacca, 11 July 2016 - 08:33 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

It's ironic that the game that has allowed them to grow from a broom closet studio to a decent sized small studio...is viewed by them as a straightjacket, suffocating them.

Well to be fair, any IP can be a straightjacket, especially one that has been around for as long as this has, which is honestly why I would love to see Battletech "rebooted" for the Mechwarrior series. No IP is perfect, and unless you are the one writing it, adding something awesome to the IP is often seen as blasphemy by its supporters (and even then, it can go bad for you, just look at the Clans/Jihad disdain).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 July 2016 - 08:37 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 July 2016 - 08:35 AM, said:

Well to be fair, any IP can be a straightjacket, especially one that has been around for as long as this has, which is honestly why I would love to see Battletech "rebooted" for the Mechwarrior series. No IP is perfect, and unless you are the one writing it, adding something awesome to the IP is often seen as blasphemy by its supporters (and even then, it can go bad for you, just look at the Clans/Jihad disdain).

I don't disagree with that. But the if one feels trapped by or contemptuous of a property, you will hardly get one best effort, either. Russ has made it pretty clear the only thing he cares about for MWO is his dream of it becoming a "legitimate" ESport.

Their tone deaf responses and "progress" in FW spell this out pretty clearly. Thus, it behooves them, and benefits us, to "spread the wealth" to a studio who might actually do it right. And they end up getting licensing revenues for no work at all.

Sounds like a win/win, to me.

Which is why they probably will never consider it.

And even Randall Bills and company admit the Clans were handled poorly, in a significantly OP manner that didn't even fit with their own mythology. While the Jihad was a last ditch effort at a closing story arc with FASA closing shop, hampered by the fact they hadn't bothered to pay half their authors,, like Stackpole what they owed them, meaning it was rushed, poorly fleshed out off of some bare bones they had been building but never really solidified.

I'm honestly pretty shocked CGL actually makes money enough to keep the pen and paper TT IP alive.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 11 July 2016 - 08:51 AM.

[xVLFBERHxT]

nintendo...

pokemech go!

Edited by TrapJaw80, 11 July 2016 - 08:50 AM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2016 - 07:49 AM, said:

And it is the only way the Founders will ever see something remotely resembling an immersive, deep campaign we were sold. The recent Town Halls have reinforced my belief that PGI simply is not equipped to make a good or timely PvE game, but that we will simply see a long drawn out and disappointing result, like FW, which PGI seems to think is a great success and fulfills their original pitch to sell Founders Packs, to a tee.

Thoughts?

Well... I've been thinking... (and everyone on here groans in unison) what if we the fans/community organize let's say... a map of the inner sphere. And then we get a bunch of people to run stock mech matches and we assign values in terms of resources, etc for different sectors... Then we could have house loyalist armies fight for control of those resources which would provide them with additional arms and armor.

We could account for logistics... supply lines... with the resources (not like all this info isn't already available in the last 30 years of TT resources). We could also fill a couple slots with dummy (non-participating) mechs to stand in for priority targets, VIPs, supplies, etc to implement different objective based game modes.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2016 - 08:48 AM, said:

Russ has made it pretty clear the only thing he cares about for MWO is his dream of it becoming a "legitimate" ESport.

I wouldn't have minded that direction if they actually bothered to focus on that or at least do that portion well. The problem is like many including you have said, they have flip-flopped focus between e-Sports and Battletech purity.

I would love for PGI to not have the e-Sports portion of the game either, because Paul's dartboard doesn't help that either.



Don't get me wrong though, while I would play the e-Sports portion of Mechwarrior more, I would love to have campaigns from various parts of Battletech history, sort of like scenarios for TT, they don't have to be fully fledged single player modes, but just something to get people into the universe.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 July 2016 - 08:57 AM.

[Mawai]

I don't know whether PGI is capable of building a good MW single player PVE experience or not. I think they would need a lot more talent in the story department along with additional developers to build a decent full single player campaign in a reasonable time frame.

They already have a lot of art assets for mechs but a single player campaign would need a lot of additional maps as well as a decent AI implementation and at least one (probably several) good designers.

However, before you can take it that far ... I think we would need to know the licensing and legal constraints currently in place.

As far as I know, PGI has a very restrictive license for MW development. I was under the impression that it was limited to online only. I'm also not sure where HBS obtained their license. It could be a separate licensing deal with Microsoft (who I think are the current rights holder), it could have been a agreement with PGI, or it is possible that HBS acquired the license as part of the MechWarrior Tactics assets that were liquidated with IGP.

PGI makes promises or suggestions of promises ... however, they won't deliver on those unless it has the time frame to make money from the development (which makes sense from a business perspective). For example, PGIs original MW license was supposed to run out this year I think (dates are fuzzy since I am working from memory). I think they received an extension in 2014 until something like 2020.However, development of FW didn't really start until AFTER PGI had the license extension granted. There was a significant hold up on a variety of MWO development until after the license extension was in place.

I think there may be a similar situation with PVE. PGI has expressed an interest in doing PVE. It is on the list of things they want to do. This keeps people interested and watching PGI for this development. However, they can make these statements without actually having a license ... they can not release content and would likely not do any significant work on the feature without a license to do so. The whole tutorial may be a test bed for PVE technologies but an online game requires a tutorial to learn the game so the features are justifiable and the tutorials do not constitute a PVE game experience.

So ... if I had to guess ... Russ and co. may be negotiating for a license to produce and market a single player campaign game that would tie into MWO. Again my guess ... but given the lack of any real progress in this direction despite their claims of interest that have to date back at least 18 months (and their work on the tutorials) ... I'd have to guess that they don't actually have a license that includes a single player stand alone campaign game.

P.S. I could be completely wrong ... ... this is just speculation

[Scout Derek]

A partnership in making the campaign?

I can see that happening, HBS writes the story, PGI applies the graphics and coding.

I mean, PGI did them a solid with the models, I see why not that HBS would not do a solid for them.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 July 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

I wouldn't have minded that direction if they actually bothered to focus on that or at least do that portion well. The problem is like many including you have said, they have flip-flopped focus between e-Sports and Battletech purity.

I would love for PGI to not have the e-Sports portion of the game either, because Paul's dartboard doesn't help that either.



Don't get me wrong though, while I would play the e-Sports portion of Mechwarrior more, I would love to have campaigns from various parts of Battletech history, sort of like scenarios for TT, they don't have to be fully fledged single player modes, but just something to get people into the universe.

yep. Pick a path and do it, I believe pretty much sums up my position. Instead of bouncing around like a ferret on meth doing a little here, a little there, and generally leaving every aspect unfulfilling. PGI simply is lacking either the resources, or focused direction to do all of the above, themselves. Making mechpacks and a FPS shooter is what they have experience with...so IMO that is what they shoudl focus on. The rest just detracts from development of that facet.

Narcissistic Martyr, on 11 July 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

Well... I've been thinking... (and everyone on here groans in unison) what if we the fans/community organize let's say... a map of the inner sphere. And then we get a bunch of people to run stock mech matches and we assign values in terms of resources, etc for different sectors... Then we could have house loyalist armies fight for control of those resources which would provide them with additional arms and armor.

We could account for logistics... supply lines... with the resources (not like all this info isn't already available in the last 30 years of TT resources). We could also fill a couple slots with dummy (non-participating) mechs to stand in for priority targets, VIPs, supplies, etc to implement different objective based game modes.

I'm.....confused-

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

I'm.....confused-

So am I... I'll post a formal and well organized proposal after i finish sorting out the details in my brain over the next couple weeks and see if there's enough interest to justify the work it'll take to get it up and running.