232 replies to this topic

[Mchawkeye]

Dihm, on 16 December 2011 - 06:12 PM, said:

That's debatable, I played the beta. Worthy of the Star Wars 1-3 maybe. <shudder>

Really? Youch.

Have to admit, I didn't get the beta, but I have a few friends whose opinions I trust, and they seem to like it.

The only real complaint was that someone couldn't dress up like Bobba Fett but as a Jedi, with a light sabre.

Fair complaint, I figure.

[Gorith]

Dihm, on 16 December 2011 - 06:12 PM, said:

I dunno, I played WoW at launch. It's taken them YEARS to build up to what it is now, and it is completely different now than it was then.

Now, as to the second part, I'd love and want that too. BUT, gotta be realistic. This isn't Star Wars, this isn't WoW. And, honestly, I don't wanna wait another 3 years or however long it will take Warhammer 40K to come out, I have a feeling it will disappoint when it finally does. Long development like that tends to fail, at least it has in my experience.

You mean it took them YEARS to tear wow down to a pile of regurgitated instances with no difficulty whatsoever so that it appeals to the "I play therefore I should get everything without much work" crowd While at the same time using RDF to remove the need to be social in an MMO?

Anyway yea I hope WH40k will be good but we will see. As for MWO Indeed this isnt any of the other games and SHOULD target the niche of the CBT/MW fans while fixing the problems with the previous games (notable the mechlabs turning the game into "stack asmany ACs on the mech as possible and win" and "assault or go home") burying itself into the niche and NOT worry about trying to appeal to the crowd that likes super simple action games


also yea most of my friends who have gotten into the beta say its not that great SWTOR taht is

Edited by Gorith, 16 December 2011 - 06:36 PM.

[Rayah]

Jacob, on 11 December 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

I think devs already stated that they are making this as close to the "real" mech simulator as possible.

I thought they said they were combining elements from all of the old multiplayers?

[Uncl Munkeh]

An interesting topic in all, but I could live with little customization and something that gives realistic simulation of the fight. Make sure there is something for the Devs to do after day 0.

I don't care how many units of MW2 were sold. Nor MW3. Nor MW4.

What I want and do care about...I'd like to be sitting in my mech. I'd like simulation and some intelligent gameplay. My wishlist would be support for 3 monitors so I can get some more wraparound on the game. Joystick, sure. Flight controls, maybe. But make darn sure that the simulation is at least more advanced than MW4.

[Red Beard]

Pht, on 16 December 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:

It's not that MI didn't get the lore completely correct... it's that the game was clearly designed in such a way as to make it obvious that the lore wasn't, beyond the aforementioned visuals and names, used for anything but name recognition.

Fair. Issue not settled though.

Quote

LINK

To express that in 2010 amounts:

Current data is only available till 2010. In 2010, the relative worth of $70,000,000.00 from 1995 is:
$100,000,000.00 using the Consumer Price Index
$95,300,000.00 using the GDP deflator
$104,000,000.00 using the value of consumer bundle
$103,000,000.00 using the unskilled wage
$111,000,000.00 using the Production Worker Compensation
$118,000,000.00 using the nominal GDP per capita
$137,000,000.00 using the relative share of GDP

http://www.measuringworth.com/

First off, I really was not debating the 70 million USD portion, more like the 7 million units portion. I just cannot see that being realistic. I may be wrong, and I would be ok with that, but secondly I would point out that you used wikipedia. Yuck. Otherwise, not bad homework.

Quote

'mech variants that are shelved in a no lab game could be unshelved via a good lab setup.

Not significant. One works only with what the devs put forth.

Quote

Consoles are built for the "drop it in and play it" effect.

Not always, and that is changing in the opposite direction more and more. Games like Dark Souls and Skyrim are changing what console players want out of their games. Not shallow games by any definition.

Quote

Avid PC gamers, on the other hand, seem to relish the ability they have to not only play the game proper - and yes, until your average console user has to use a keyboard and mouse, there will be a controller disparity that does, in some genres more than others, make a real difference -

Disagree.

Mchawkeye, on 16 December 2011 - 05:51 PM, said:

Personally, I think they have hit it right, in terms of scope. Not to big, not to small but plenty of potential for expansion.

In this article, Mr. Brown alludes to the idea of online games never ending. I think we can see a glimpse of the larger picture here, and, we can all take educated guesses as to where the devs might want to take this game should it's core release see good success.

http://www.montrealg...0965/story.html

Quote

That, and I, like the gentleman with the burgundy beard, have a life that I enjoy, pretty much of the time. If BT was to go the full MMO, that would comfortably be the end of that.

Indeed, I cannot spend enough time or money to keep up with a game such as the one described. Perhaps in my youth, but even then, money was an issue. Smacks of a good pipe dream, and that's about all. We should just hope for a damn good video game, and be happy with one that meets us in the middle of "good" and "pipe dream".

God bless the Scottish.

Gorith, on 16 December 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

You mean it took them YEARS to tear wow down to a pile of regurgitated instances with no difficulty whatsoever so that it appeals to the "I play therefore I should get everything without much work" crowd.

What you just descrideb here is PRECISELY what a VERY good friend of mine left that game over. After he spent time building a character up, he complained that there was no longer any challenge. The battles were cakefests and most people were just playing the game to have something to do, and not to be challenged and enjoy a community. I won't even touch that game.

[Holmes]

Sorry, but I agree with the thing about console vs PC. Sure consoles have some games like Skyrim or whatever, but compared to what you can do on a PC? iD Software releases their engine with every new game for users to immediately start tinkering with, starting with the first Doom. Do you have any idea how long Doom's life was because of that? I'll give you a hint: People still play it today (although in small groups on updated source ports.)

Consoles are still very... "plug and play" although I will give you that they have been evolving since... say... the Super Nintendo.

[Red Beard]

Holmes, on 16 December 2011 - 08:26 PM, said:

Do you have any idea how long Doom's life was because of that? I'll give you a hint: People still play it today (although in small groups on updated source ports.)

I still play my old NES games. Games don't still get played so far after being released because people can dicker around with the code. It's because they are good games. Community mods are just fishing tools for future gaming devs. They have little to do, IMO, with the longetivity of a game. Only the game's quality can make it last.

[Mchawkeye]

I'm not sure why being easy to use "plug and play" is apparently a bad thing...?

I will say this, though; I've been playing games for decades. from old Ataris to new xboxs via megadrives and playstations and the brand spanking new laptop I'm writing this on via old Ataris (again, different Atari) to 486s, Pentiums Athlons and all sorts.
I have never, ever view console gaming as some kind of simpletons approch to gaming. some of the games I have played on my consoles have been moving, deep and complex and its reasonably typical of the PC ardent crowd to look down their noses at them. why? because, in order to play the game, you press 'yes' and 'next' a few times.
After that, you know what?
Games on the PC are plug and play as well.

[Gorith]

Mchawkeye, on 17 December 2011 - 04:28 AM, said:

I'm not sure why being easy to use "plug and play" is apparently a bad thing...?

I will say this, though; I've been playing games for decades. from old Ataris to new xboxs via megadrives and playstations and the brand spanking new laptop I'm writing this on via old Ataris (again, different Atari) to 486s, Pentiums Athlons and all sorts.
I have never, ever view console gaming as some kind of simpletons approch to gaming. some of the games I have played on my consoles have been moving, deep and complex and its reasonably typical of the PC ardent crowd to look down their noses at them. why? because, in order to play the game, you press 'yes' and 'next' a few times.
After that, you know what?
Games on the PC are plug and play as well.

Depends on your point of view honestly. "Dumbing" a game down for consoles is generally done By simplifying controls and completely removing certain features or in some cases changed completely to appeal to the masses or as they have said with the new Xcom game "Be more contemporary" (meaning minimal complexity and lots of "oooo pretty").

While not all console games are super simplistic MANY are and alot of PC gamers are irritated (and rightly so) that many of the franchises that were great PC franchises have had this done to them over the years just so corporations can get console sales or appeal to more people (Yes I understand it it's about making money that doesn't mean it makes it any less frustrating) .

So what you end up having is that when we see a game that looks like they aren't going to "dumb it down" we grab on and become very passionate about trying to convince the powers that be that they should focus on making an amazing game not going the "more people equates to more money so do everything we can to make it for everyone" route (There are enough that if you make a focused amazing game you will make profit AND get a loyal fanbase going for your future projects atleast thats my feeling on the matter)

Edited by Gorith, 17 December 2011 - 06:13 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

Gorith, on 17 December 2011 - 06:12 AM, said:

Depends on your point of view honestly. "Dumbing" a game down for consoles is generally done By simplifying controls and completely removing certain features or in some cases changed completely to appeal to the masses or as they have said with the new Xcom game "Be more contemporary" (meaning minimal complexity and lots of "oooo pretty").

While not all console games are super simplistic MANY are and alot of PC gamers are irritated (and rightly so) that many of the franchises that were great PC franchises have had this done to them over the years just so corporations can get console sales or appeal to more people (Yes I understand it it's about making money that doesn't mean it makes it any less frustrating) .

So what you end up having is that when we see a game that looks like they aren't going to "dumb it down" we grab on and become very passionate about trying to convince the powers that be that they should focus on making an amazing game not going the "more people equates to more money so do everything we can to make it for everyone" route (There are enough that if you make a focused amazing game you will make profit AND get a loyal fanbase going for your future projects atleast thats my feeling on the matter)

Any chance of some examples?

Also, it's fair to say that a massive amount of games on the pc are very simple too. Everything from Bejewelled to Farmville...

And sure, game developers change games up, sometimes bad, sometimes good. Fallout 3? General consensus (and mine) is it is an outstanding game, completely different to the isometric styling of the other Fallout games. Did that hurt it? no, made it even more popular. was that a bad thing? No. We got New Vegas. And probably Fallout 4; seemed like a smart move to me. Was it simpler than the other fall out games? I don't think so...

They are remaking Syndicate as a FPS too. And I think it will be AWESOME. or rather, I hope it will. One thing I am not going to do is get all up in arms about them changing the style of game. So what if it's a move designed to make the game more popular? So long as it is a good game.

if you ask me, it about how PCs are perceived; as the toys to the smart and engaged. And while I think that may have been true back in the MS dos era, hell maybe even ten years ago, it's not true any more. Better user OS's, the internet, it's levelled the playing field. you cannot sit there and tell me, with 60million or so daily players of freaking Farmville, the PC games are better and smarter by definition.

I mean, sure show me Falcon 4 on the PS3 and I'll show you a dumb downed game. Failing that, any game on a console that came from the PC was done to make money. Which was the primary motivation to make the game for the PC in the first place.

So if they do do something you don't like? Don't play it. Find another game that satisfies your particular cravings. There are plenty out there. There is no point crying of spilt milk.

Or ruined IPs.

[Holmes]

Examples? MechAssault for starters.

Shooting games is another one, I do believe that God awful Halo series started that 2-weapon bull**** that ruined Duke Nukem Forever (among other things.) Of course 2 weapons makes it more fluid on a game controller where you don't have the number keys and a wheel, but the fact that it affected PC shooters in the future is simply unforgivable. Not to mention, "matchmaking" is OK on consoles, but now PC games are using it? Why? PC gamers are capable of hosting their own servers and configuring them accordingly. When the company decides to pull the plug, that's it. Game over. When the game allows users to host their own server, it can, figuratively, go on forever. I could go play Quake III Arena in freezetag instagib right now if I wanted to, but if I wanted to play Halo 2 on X-Box Live? Nope, can't. Microsoft decided I'm not allowed anymore.

Could you even IMAGINE StarCraft II on a console? Those users would get slaughtered by a 300 APM meth-addicted Korean with a keyboard and mouse. The N64 version of Brood War was so terrible, I am glad they weren't allowed to play online against the PC users on battle.net (not that N64 had X-Band anyways.)

As far as I'm concerned, the only good thing about consoles is sports games, or playing with your buddies on the couch over a cold one. (And MegaMan.) If you want a proper gaming experience, you cannot compare it to a bleeding-edge PC with an awesome sound card connected to a bad *** sound system with a fiber cable with the lights off.. at least for the FPS genre.

Consoles are basically hardware-stunted PCs with less functions, less controls and control options, and on the flip side, less bugs and more mainstream. The PlayStation 3 is what, a Geforce 7? That became irrelevant half a decade ago. No thanks.

[Red Beard]

I don't need to say anything. Hawkeye said it all.

10 or so years ago, things were different. But consoles have grown up now. It used to be that you shoved a cartridge in and started hammering buttons. Not only are there more buttons on the "paddle" now, but you usually have more things to go through to start up a console game than a PC game these days.

I think Gorith is holding on to a rather bygone feeling, a feeling that PC gamers used to cherish. Feeling like "their games" were high brow and took more intelligence to play. That gave PC gamers a sense of separation and therefore validation. In terms of graphical capabilities, there is no question, the PC market will always hold an edge. The newest PC machines will always have the ability to play at the cutting edge. Other than that, especially with the next wave of consoles less than two years out, the line is more blurred than it ever has been. You can check emails and surf the net from a console. You can connect an Xbox controller to your PC. This entire debate won't even have a basis by 2013.

Ok, maybe you didn't say it all, Hawkeye.

[MaddMaxx]

KingCobra, on 16 December 2011 - 11:32 AM, said:

Well MadMaxx i will tell you what i wanted a MMO not a MWO the reason im saying this is Mechwarrior in one form or the other TT,PC,Megamech,ECT has never lived up to what i thought the Battletech Universe could be.I imagined a game that had character creation,skill sets,persistant galaxy&world mapping systems,pve tt&canon missions down battletech timelines,whole faction citys i could walk around shop for mech parts chat with players in the streats or in a lounge.Then i could walk or ride in a aerotaxi to the spaceport board my dropship go to my cabin or berth check the contracts boards then hop itno my mechlab and build configs for me and my team then have a simulator to run and test them.I also would have a battleroom i could walk into check the galaxy map system in a 3d interactive way to plan my battles and campaigns.Plus i would have a scrolling terrain system to fight on no more map borders just sector to sector fighting across the planets and galaxy.A real time map system for when i was on planet in a sector to see my bearings.Also realtime animations on planet drops and liftoffs would be nice.After all this and alot more i could add i would put a TT& Simulation feeling over it all.

In truth i dont want what we have had for the last 10 years in PC games,Mods,or even TT i think a whole new approch to Mechwarrior is needed to capture a new audiance of Fans and players.The one game i have to keep refering to is World Of Warcraft at the time it was first released nothing else was even close to what they produced and it became the most profitable and played game in history on PC i guess the word should be revolutionary.

And I cannot disagree with that assessment. I would just have to take the stance that although a dream come true, the 5-6 years development time and obvious Mech load of Cash required for such a thing makes it more than unlikely.

What we can do in the interim is let the Dev get MWO on the board so to speak and perhaps if well received it could be the catalyst for such a vision as you have. Other than being a tad fanciful, your hopes do not spark anything but what my hopes are as well. It is simplt a reality of the times thing and if I ever WON the BIG lottery, that is where I would spend it.

[Red Beard]

Holmes, on 17 December 2011 - 07:01 AM, said:

If you want a proper gaming experience, you cannot compare it to a bleeding-edge PC with an awesome sound card connected to a bad *** sound system with a fiber cable with the lights off..

So it sounds like anyone wanting a "proper" gaming experience needs to throw down about 3K USD? No way Gorith.

[Gorith]

Examples?

Crysis to Crysis 2
EQ to EQOA
The aforementioned SC port for the 64
dungeon siege
Dragon Age to Dragon Age2 (While the original was on console aswell it did a good job of also catering to the PC players the second one felt like that PC players were all but abandoned)


Other games that you can feel the limitations were put in place just so it could also be on console (note some of these are very good games but you can still feel it)
Skyrim (I love it but it's an obvious Console port)
Rage
Borderlands
Deus Ex: Human Revolution

I'm sure theres many more examples that could be made

[MaddMaxx]

The graphical WOW factor of today's games have spoiled some to the point where they forgo the real FUN because it looks so "cool"

I have an Mattel Intellivsion Console bought new in 1980. A character in most of the games is made up of 10-12 Pixels. I kid you not. But guess what, we break it out every once in a while, fire up a cartridge and it is always a BLAST and FUN as heck.

Fun is the winning formula. Without it, it becomes nothing more than a waste of that Dev Teams time. The PC based SIM game genre needs a boost, a game that is FUN and I fear we are running out of chances. Let's help the Dev, not always say they aren't doing it right.

ramble over.

[Holmes]

Red Beard, on 17 December 2011 - 07:10 AM, said:

So it sounds like anyone wanting a "proper" gaming experience needs to throw down about 3K USD? No way Gorith.

You actually hit the ballpark, I spent about 3 grand on this PC. But you can get a proper gaming PC for much cheaper if you don't care about SLI and liquid cooling etc.

If you want a proper gaming experience on a console you're going to be spending as much on a TV, so what's the difference? (Although you can watch movies on that too. I'm just saying.)

[Mchawkeye]

Holmes, on 17 December 2011 - 07:01 AM, said:

Examples? MechAssault for starters.

Shooting games is another one, I do believe that God awful Halo series started that 2-weapon bull**** that ruined Duke Nukem Forever (among other things.) Of course 2 weapons makes it more fluid on a game controller where you don't have the number keys and a wheel, but the fact that it affected PC shooters in the future is simply unforgivable. Not to mention, "matchmaking" is OK on consoles, but now PC games are using it? Why? PC gamers are capable of hosting their own servers and configuring them accordingly. When the company decides to pull the plug, that's it. Game over. When the game allows users to host their own server, it can, figuratively, go on forever. I could go play Quake III Arena in freezetag instagib right now if I wanted to, but if I wanted to play Halo 2 on X-Box Live? Nope, can't. Microsoft decided I'm not allowed anymore.

Could you even IMAGINE StarCraft II on a console? Those users would get slaughtered by a 300 APM meth-addicted Korean with a keyboard and mouse. The N64 version of Brood War was so terrible, I am glad they weren't allowed to play online against the PC users on battle.net (not that N64 had X-Band anyways.)

As far as I'm concerned, the only good thing about consoles is sports games, or playing with your buddies on the couch over a cold one. (And MegaMan.) If you want a proper gaming experience, you cannot compare it to a bleeding-edge PC with an awesome sound card connected to a bad *** sound system with a fiber cable with the lights off.. at least for the FPS genre.

Consoles are basically hardware-stunted PCs with less functions, less controls and control options, and on the flip side, less bugs and more mainstream. The PlayStation 3 is what, a Geforce 7? That became irrelevant half a decade ago. No thanks.

Mechassualt didn't do a darn thing to Mechwarrior. Mechwarrior and changing markets did it to Mechwarrior. I am no fan of mechassault, but at least I am sensible enough to realise that just because it was different, it doesn't make it bad. in fact MA1 and 2 got very good reviews, in general.

so, basically, your argument is that you want to live in the past? Servers get shut down because they are not popular any more, or at least not popular enough to warrant the time and money to maintain the servers. that said, your opinions on game servers are valid. but I cannot remember the last time I wanted to play an old game online.

It's also interesting to note that "less controls and control options" is aimed at machines that bought us Kinect, Wii and Move, arguably some of the biggest advances in controls FOR YEARS. what do PCs get? a 60buck mouse with more buttons on it. Way to push the envelope. Whilst there is no doubting that my Xbox pad has fewer controls than my keyboard, or my X52, I have never played a game i felt they have tried to squeeze to much onto one controller, or that I was missing something.

Halo, if you like it or not, was a watershed moment in the history of FPS. god forbid they did something sensible like suggest carrying around ten massive guns seemed a bit...off. anyway, also they didn't do that because of a lack of control options. They did that because of game balance. and, certainly in game one, the gun balance was excellent.

Again you are right about your cutting edge PC assesment. but to suggest that modern games on Xbox and PS3 look bad is simply bobbins. They look great on my 48inch telly. they sound fantastic running through my 5.1. what more do I want.
Not a darn thing.

[Mchawkeye]

Deus Ex HR is great on the Xbox.

And my TV did even cost close to three grand and it's cracking. I could have bought that, my 360 and still had enough change from 3K to go on a really, really good holiday.

[Gorith]

Red Beard, on 17 December 2011 - 07:10 AM, said:

So it sounds like anyone wanting a "proper" gaming experience needs to throw down about 3K USD? No way Gorith.

you can do it for under 1K actually

Besides you completely misunderstood where I was going with it.

Let's look at one of my examples. Dungeon Siege: The original DS was a very good Hack-n-Slash Diablo clone with a pretty good amount of customizeability a long story with some nice innovative (for the time) Class/lvl system and a nice open feel to it. The second was in the same vein but wasn't as good. Now comes DS3 well lets just take what made the first what it was and throw it all out and replace it with a Baldur's Gate:DA clone with a very rigid leveling system and a very forceful plot that can be beaten in about 6 hours then for good measure throw in claustrophobic feeling very short dungeons and gimmicky bosses. While were at that lets make it so PC players can play aswell... ohyea if you guys want to play multiplayer you all have to be on the same screen and money is shared and instead of letting you have a point and click interface you have a controller interface on your keyboard (bad enough I basically HAD to use a 360 controller on it).

Edited by Gorith, 17 December 2011 - 07:43 AM.