232 replies to this topic

[Red Beard]

Catamount, on 13 December 2011 - 04:00 PM, said:

I've been scratching my head over this statement for the past five minutes, and I still don't get it. Exactly what is the difference between depth and complexity?

I was going to type out a really lengthy response, but then I saw this...

Quote

I think he's simply referring to the fact that more people can pick up and play simple games than can pick up and play games that are more complex. If your average eight year old can pick it up and play it with really no time put in to learn it, your game is aiming at the LCD - basically, a larger market.

That seemed sufficient, and, I figured that it would get the point across...but obviously there was some lingering doubts...

Such as this...

Haeso, on 13 December 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

It's a hollow statement that can be anything that supports his argument.

Again, I began feeling the need to respond, as some folks get things quicker than others, but then I saw this...

Quote

like the game othello, or maybe chinese checkers - easy to get started playing, simple, easily understood rules - but a serious depth of gameplay.

And this...

Pht, on 13 December 2011 - 04:32 PM, said:

I can't answer for him, but I think depth means there's a lot of variation possible in the game play. Complexity means that you have a LOT of stuff to keep track of and master in order to play a game.

The two do not have to go hand in hand.

At this point, I can only say that if you still don't understand the difference, you should just give up trying to.

Thanks to Pht for the leg work.

Catamount, on 13 December 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:

MA was not a bad game, not in the sense of simply being fun; it was just a really bad MW/BT title

Can you at the least appreciate the fact that many people were brought into the MW fold by MA? There are PLENTY of players that have the capacity to enjoy both styles of game. Nobody deserves to be berated for enjoying the style of games that they do. If lore is the only thing about MA that has elitists riled up, then why not be hateful toward ALL MW games, cause none of them went by the numbers perfectly.

By the way, Catamount, I am not picking on you, just using your statement to make a point.

[Holmes]

I welcome more members to the BT world, but I just hope the simplicity created in MA doesn't ruin the depth and complexity (I want both, I suppose?) of MW, especially MWO.

Also, I have nothing personal against you at all Red, just very passionate disagreements with your views lol.

[Red Beard]

Holmes, on 13 December 2011 - 09:54 PM, said:

I welcome more members to the BT world, but I just hope the simplicity created in MA doesn't ruin the depth and complexity (I want both, I suppose?) of MW, especially MWO.

Also, I have nothing personal against you at all Red, just very passionate disagreements with your views lol.

Fair enough. You may find, over time, that our views are not TOO far apart.

[Vengeance1904]

IDK if this has been mentioned yet or not, but I am hoping this title will play more similarly to the original MW2 series of games which used a ACTUAL joystick (remember those?) and keyboard config. Those games were definitely more prominent in the 90s (ex. MW2 series, X-Wing series, Wing Commander series, etc.), and the simulation genre using that kind of control config took a total nosedive since the first X-BOX. I think it would be awesome if the current gen of consoles did something like Steel Batallion at least http://en.wikipedia....Steel_Battalion which just for the controls alone made it a great mech simulator.

[Haeso]

Red Beard, on 13 December 2011 - 09:19 PM, said:

Can you at the least appreciate the fact that many people were brought into the MW fold by MA? There are PLENTY of players that have the capacity to enjoy both styles of game. Nobody deserves to be berated for enjoying the style of games that they do. If lore is the only thing about MA that has elitists riled up, then why not be hateful toward ALL MW games, cause none of them went by the numbers perfectly.

This whole paragraph makes your 'still not getting it' bit hilariously ironic.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Tierloc, that wiki page you link is just plain wrong. As I pointed out, it shows WoW as having sold 4.7 million units as of THIS year...hey..guess what...according to Blizzard, that's just over 1/3rd of the actual number sold as of a year ago, who's got the numbers wrong? I'll lay money it ain't Blizzard who miscounted

I just spent a few hours searching the web and found..nada. And that wasn't just for MW2, I can't find information on Tribes either, or some other games that are no longer in production and haven't been in over a decade. The development teams are gone, the divisions within the publishing houses that put out the games no longer exist, hells, some of the PUBLISHERS no longer exist! Those websites and the information on them is gone. I'd be surprised if those companies even maintain internal records for those games, since it's been over a decade for most of them, and there's no legal reason to maintain the records on a discontinued product that long. Activision was very proud of the 7 million MW2 copies sold figure, just as Sierra was proud of the 250k copies sold within 24 hrs of release number for Tribes 2, but there's nothing on those anywhere online that I can find. Oh..and Red..MW2 was released for the PS and Sega Saturn in '96, MechWarrior2: Arcade Combat Edition it was called. I'd actually forgotten about that..never bought it myself, a MW game with Powerups..yeah..no thanks And it wasn't ever released with AOL, I think you are thinking of the early Neverwinter Nights that was on AOL.

Believe the numbers or not, PGI can get the information, I could too, so could you, but I'm not paying the money NPD wants for the sales figures for each of the MW titles I'd imagine they've already gotten them and are basing their MWO design plans on which of the titles were the most profitable, because that's the one to model a new title after. And from what PGI has stated so far as their vision and design plan..it sounds a lot more like MW2 as opposed to MW4 or MA. 1st person point of view, customizable Mechs, simulation as opposed to arcade style combat...yeah..it seems to me that PGI has done their research and is working on a game I'll actually enjoy, a Mech sim, not an arcade game with giant stompy robots. No offense, MA was fun, as long as I told myself that it wasn't a BTech based game, that isn't a Mech I'm in, and that playing like my 6 year old, just mashing buttons, is complex. BTW, he never did figure out that there weren't combos he could pull off like the other games he enjoyed, and we never told him they didn't exist

[Leonardo Monteiro]

I'm sorry guys

I don't understand how both points in this discussion "more arcade vs more simulation" cannot be easily matched;

Most simulators (ex. flight simulators) would enable you to choose your level of complexity/realism that you wanted in your game, raging from fuel (limited vs limitless), to weapon damage, to flight controls (Simple to complex)

Why can't we have adjustments that enable people to tailor their experience a bit?

Now, since this will be a competitive game, and I believe that we all accept that more complexity equals a bigger challenge, perhaps a more "arcade" style of setting will net you less points/less wealth, or something like that.

So in the begging, most players might simply choose to go arcade, and when they get immersed in the game, naturally choose to evolve into a more simulation style


To put this as example, i started playing combat flight simulator (the first one..) with all dumbed down settings.. then as i went on playing, i started to turn the settings to more realistic (i.e., complex, and simulator like), and by the end, i was playing on almost full realistic - and the funny thing is, after you go to full simulation, the dumbed down options seem like an afterthought, not even fun anymore

[Raeven]

Red Beard, on 13 December 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

Just your opinion. I happen to believe that MWO can be a very successful simulator with absolutely no mech customization at all. I doubt that will happen, but it is, by no means, a necessary element in order to be considered a simulator.

This I agree with completely. The 'Mechlab does not a sim make.

[Raeven]

Leonardo Monteiro, on 14 December 2011 - 02:28 AM, said:

I'm sorry guys

I don't understand how both points in this discussion "more arcade vs more simulation" cannot be easily matched;

Most simulators (ex. flight simulators) would enable you to choose your level of complexity/realism that you wanted in your game, raging from fuel (limited vs limitless), to weapon damage, to flight controls (Simple to complex)

Why can't we have adjustments that enable people to tailor their experience a bit?

Now, since this will be a competitive game, and I believe that we all accept that more complexity equals a bigger challenge, perhaps a more "arcade" style of setting will net you less points/less wealth, or something like that.

So in the begging, most players might simply choose to go arcade, and when they get immersed in the game, naturally choose to evolve into a more simulation style


To put this as example, i started playing combat flight simulator (the first one..) with all dumbed down settings.. then as i went on playing, i started to turn the settings to more realistic (i.e., complex, and simulator like), and by the end, i was playing on almost full realistic - and the funny thing is, after you go to full simulation, the dumbed down options seem like an afterthought, not even fun anymore

Again, totally agree with this post as well. Anyone ever play Air Warrior? It's now called Aces High. It is a decent flight sim with pretty Simulator controls as well as a "dumbed" down version that allows you to fly without worrying about trim, flaps, etc.

[Mchawkeye]

Yes, dumbing down the flight sim is one thing, but doesn't that give the arcadey types an inherent advantage? or if you split the servers, we'll be splitting the player base, which is far from ideal.

That said, I think, in terms of simulation, it's not actually going to be as complex as flying an aircraft. if anything, the most complex part would be, potentially, the customisation options. and they can be as complex (full mechlab) or as simple (standard mech types) as you choose. Anything in between. perhaps.

Actually piloting the mech will probably be no more complex than, say, Xwing, I'd imagine. And if you cannot handle that, well then don't know what. suffice to say, that was not an overwhelming game or even close.

I think the major simulation comes from the actions and nature of the world around you: realistic physics or not? well balance weapons vs well balanced armour? things, like buildings, blow up/fall down accurately? That's were I see the properly immersive nature of a sim coming into play.

Though, actually, cockpit complexity wise, I would like the many pointless buttons just to start my mech up (ala steel battalions), as that seemed like stupid fun.

[YenFan Liao]

Vengeance1904, on 13 December 2011 - 10:09 PM, said:

IDK if this has been mentioned yet or not, but I am hoping this title will play more similarly to the original MW2 series of games which used a ACTUAL joystick (remember those?) and keyboard config. Those games were definitely more prominent in the 90s (ex. MW2 series, X-Wing series, Wing Commander series, etc.), and the simulation genre using that kind of control config took a total nosedive since the first X-BOX. I think it would be awesome if the current gen of consoles did something like Steel Batallion at least http://en.wikipedia....Steel_Battalion which just for the controls alone made it a great mech simulator.

I would relish the thought of configuring my underused Hotas Cougar setup for a Mech setting....There's nothing more thrilling than the immersion you get from a set of throttle and stick

[PropWash]

I would still argue that both objectives can be meet.

On one hand, you need a simple and accessible product that has a shallow learning curve for the player who may not be familiar with BattleTech, MechWarrior, Simulations etc. This would be your general mass of casual players less affectionately known as the LCD (A term I really don't like)

On the other hand you have the hard core 'give me massive simulation depth and expansive game play options with the highest possible re playability and tactical variation' crowd.

What if, you have in game environments that facilitate both tastes.

In MechWarrior you have options to enable ever increasing depths of simulation that increase complexity.

For example, the model we use at VWE is similar to the following:

Basic Level: Everyone No heat, Unlimited Ammo, Unlimited Respawn (Pilot can enable advanced piloting control if they wish with pedals, etc in all levels)

Advanced Level: All pilots playing with heat, splash damage, ammo bay fires, limited ammo.

Expert Level: Advanced armor enabled, Heat, splash damage, friendly fire, ammo bay fires, weapons jam, limited ammo, no return, advanced radar, weather, night, etc.

Hypothetically, MWO could embrace a similar set-up philosophy. There could be maps and objectives that are at the Basic Level, but yield lower levels of benefit for the winners. Encouraging new pilots and players to move to the more advanced maps / missions / objectives.

The higher level objectives / missions would employ more advanced features and greater simulation depth across that particular battlefield, delivering more significant returns for those who are successful in the mission.

This way, casual players have a place to go and get a good pick-up or training game in while more advanced players can go be more 'productive' elsewhere.

And for the record, more people are smart enough to play in the advanced modes, so LCD breaks down pretty quickly.

The motive of the simpler modes is really to help a new or casual player feel successful on their first mission. Once they feel the thrill of success (many kills, lots of action), they generally become invested into the process and the product, and eagerly move forward with more missions and increased experience and skill sets.

[PropWash]

Or...what Leonardo said

[Vengeance1904]

YenFan Liao, on 14 December 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

I would relish the thought of configuring my underused Hotas Cougar setup for a Mech setting....There's nothing more thrilling than the immersion you get from a set of throttle and stick

No kidding My Logitech WingMan Attack/w throttlehas been quietly collecting dust for the past decade...

[Red Beard]

Kristov Kerensky, on 14 December 2011 - 01:58 AM, said:

Activision was very proud of the 7 million MW2 copies sold figure

Don't take it personally when I say that I just cannot see that number being solid. Perhaps, if they are counting EVERY single copy of MW2 across the board, meaning the PS and Sega Saturn versions, plus the extended versions and the pack-in versions as well. Then I might see it being a bit more realistic, not that my opinion counts. MA was only released on ONE console. Proportionately, I would have to give the best selling BT game to MA, but, again, I am biased.

Raeven, on 14 December 2011 - 02:33 AM, said:

This I agree with completely. The 'Mechlab does not a sim make.

A mechlab will only muddle the game and make for a large amount of useless configs. All the time and energy that they put into making a mechlab, they could be making the actual game better. But I say all of this as though my opinion matters.

Mchawkeye, on 14 December 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

That said, I think, in terms of simulation, it's not actually going to be as complex as flying an aircraft. if anything, the most complex part would be, potentially, the customisation options. and they can be as complex (full mechlab) or as simple (standard mech types) as you choose. Anything in between. perhaps.

I think that this statement comes as close to accurately describing what we will see as any other statement before it.

Quote

Actually piloting the mech will probably be no more complex than, say, Xwing, I'd imagine. And if you cannot handle that, well then don't know what. suffice to say, that was not an overwhelming game or even close.

Right. Again.

Quote

I think the major simulation comes from the actions and nature of the world around you: realistic physics or not? well balance weapons vs well balanced armour? things, like buildings, blow up/fall down accurately? That's were I see the properly immersive nature of a sim coming into play.

Wait for it....

Waaiiiittt....
God bless the Scottish

PropWash, on 14 December 2011 - 04:59 AM, said:

general mass of casual players less affectionately known as the LCD (A term I really don't like)

This is the flavor of the day for BT elitist fellas that see a need to berate casual players. I really don't like it either. It is in the same category as the statement..."Glad they didn't DUMB THIS DOWN for console users"

Some of the MOST intelligent people I know are avid console gamers. I have a good friend who is a certified financial adviser, and he is a dedicated Call of Duty player. He is married, owns a home and has two kids. Suggesting that a game has to be dumbed down to his level is a monumental insult, on many levels. There are simply different types of games to fit people's lives. Some people don't have a life that allows for time to spend deeply immersed into hours of a game that is dry and offers little in the way of constant excitement. I used to put out wild land fires, and when I would finally get off the bus and go home, all I wanted from a video game was "pew pew pew", not "Hmmm..lemme see here..."

Some folks work from home and have the opportunity to dissect a game's finer points for hours. Good for them. If that is what they enjoy, then I am glad there is a game for them.

Quote

And for the record, more people are smart enough to play in the advanced modes, so LCD breaks down pretty quickly.

I would agree. Some of the comments on these forums discount the fact that most gamers are not dullards and will catch on to the basics quick enough to keep up.

Well spoken PropWash.

[TheMagicMan]

I think the mechlab really adds to the feel of the mechwarrior series. Whether it is nearly superficial or allows complete customization I do think it should be present in some fashion, as long as it is fair (and I have faith that the Dev's would make it so).

Also a game doesn't need to be a sim to be complex. Look at WoW (though I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here). I would consider that a very in depth and complex game, and millions and millions of people play that. I wouldn't consider that a dumbed down game and the learning curve is pretty intense, yet people still play it. I've flown tight formation bombing runs successfully in online flight sims, and I still couldn't run an instance let alone a raid

Obviously this is apples to oranges but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

[MaddMaxx]

I would assert that the SIM in a Simulation starts after you put your butt into the cockpit/drivers seat of whatever machine your driving and begin to do what it is that machine was designed for. All the while taking in the view provided by whatever cockpit design is rendered to be a close approximation (or exact) of said cockpit/drivers seat.

Then one gets to enjoy the outside environment as seen from that cockpit/drivers seat, be it visually awe inspiring, visually exciting, dangerously exciting or undy/panty filling dangerous, blood curdling and or just "bleeping" awesome.

And of course, anything leading up to the actual loading of oneself into that cockpit/drivers seat can add to the level of immersion. Standing in a hangar/garage watching the Techs prep your soon to be ride or actually modifying said machine, via whatever means provided. Perhaps you always like to Fuel your own F-16, or F1 race car.

Or even something as mundane as YELLING at that stupid Tech to load those MG bandoliers with the utmost care as it will be your arse on the line, not his.

I like a good Sim and vote we get Simmy this time out. If they can make an easy mode and reduce the curve for those who require it, no worries but it always seemed more satisfying when it was the Vet's who brought the new warriors along and showed them the true nuances of what they can expect out of both themselves and their new found machines that separated MW from other Solo based Sim games.

I would like to think that the MW Community has that in them as a Default attitude and not, "Ahh a noob - easy meat" one see so much in other arenas. But that is just probably just me. My bad.

end ramble

Edited by MaddMaxx, 14 December 2011 - 10:00 AM.

[Red Beard]

MaddMaxx, on 14 December 2011 - 09:59 AM, said:

"Ahh a noob - easy meat"

Sorry, but you'll have to put me down as a carnivore. Mmmmm, meat.

Noobs will have to find a group to stick with and learn from.

[Thorn Hallis]

Red Beard, on 14 December 2011 - 11:28 AM, said:

Noobs will have to find a group to stick with and learn from.

Don't...type.."the clans"...don't type..."the clans"...can't resist...

[Raeven]

Mchawkeye, on 14 December 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

Yes, dumbing down the flight sim is one thing, but doesn't that give the arcadey types an inherent advantage? or if you split the servers, we'll be splitting the player base, which is far from ideal.

Not in AirWarrior. The full sim was harder to control, but once you did learn to control it you could pull much fancier manuevers than were possible with the "arcade" version. Things like landings, landing gear, etc. weren't automatic. Other things (I can't remember the specifics) gave you the ability to do tighter turns and faster manuevers, while the arcaders were stuck with a slightly slower more sluggish response times to their aircraft.