232 replies to this topic

[Holmes]

Except that Microsoft Flight Simulator allows you to change weight ratios and distribution, fuel ratios, failures for thousands of instruments on a timed, triggered, or random basis.

Try again.

[Red Beard]

Holmes, on 13 December 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

Except that Microsoft Flight Simulator allows you to change weight ratios and distribution, fuel ratios, failures for thousands of instruments on a timed, triggered, or random basis.

Try again.

I would not really consider those the same type of thing, but ok. Ya got me tiger...

Thats like changing out a license plate or a dashcover in comparison.

Edited by Red Beard, 13 December 2011 - 12:44 PM.

[Holmes]

Red Beard, on 13 December 2011 - 12:43 PM, said:

I would not really consider those the same type of thing, but ok. Ya got me tiger...

Thats like changing out a license plate or a dashcover in comparison.

Yes, changing fuel and weight distribution or having a catastrophic engine failure is the same as changing a license plate. (????) You aren't a pilot, are you?

[Raeven]

Honestly, comparing Console sales to PC sales is a bad argument. Console sales have and always will outpace PC sales. It's only recently that there is a PC in nearly every household, during which time nearly every household had a console already. If MWO sold on the console, it would outpace every Mechwarrior title to date, even if it was a crap game.

Console sales will always outpace PC sales. That's why so many games sell to both markets now a days. They make their real money with a console sale, but can make all the great advances in graphics on the PC's.

MW3 was the most sim-like of all the mechwarrior games but failed due to lack of support and poor netcode. Microsoft looked at MW3 as a failure and decided to dumb down the game, not realising why it failed. I still load up MW3 and play through the single player game. The only thing I load up MW4 for is the multiplayer.

[Thorn Hallis]

Raeven, on 13 December 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

MW3 was the most sim-like of all the mechwarrior games but failed due to lack of support and poor netcode. Microsoft looked at MW3 as a failure and decided to dumb down the game, not realising why it failed. I still load up MW3 and play through the single player game. The only thing I load up MW4 for is the multiplayer.

It is really sad that Microprose went out of business. Would have been pretty interesting to see what their successors of MW3 and MC may have looked/played like.

On a side note, I remember an article in a german games magazine that Microsoft once planned to have Mechwarrior V delivered with "Longhorn" (that was Vista, right?) as a built-in game (like Solitaire, Hearts, etc.) at release.

[TheMagicMan]

I loved how sim-like MW2-3 were (well done Activision and Microprose), but once micro$oft got a hold of it the life like quality was lost. Then porting that to a console further diluted it IMO. Not to say mechassault wasn't fun, but in a fist fight MW2 would've beat it bloody I still think it should at least be accessible to new players, but please don't dumb it down for them. Make the learning curve worth it.

[Holmes]

@Redbeard.

I also find it interesting that you talk condescendingly about fans of the simulator features of MechWarrior vs. the arcade version of MechAssault (MA is an arcade game, come to terms with it, brother.) It's really rude.

I mean, that's like talking elitest about Pokemon over Magic the Gathering. One was intentionally designed and marketed for the LCD. Why would you be proud of that?

Edited by Holmes, 13 December 2011 - 01:19 PM.

[Mason Grimm]

Folks, you are teetering on having this thread locked as well.

Start behaving like adults instead of kids who are learning to use thinly veiled insults or I will simply shut 'r down.

Discussion of the OP topic is fine, discussion of each other, religion, race, political beliefs blah blah blah blah blah blah is not.

[Catamount]

Since when is being able to customize the measure of a simulator?

I still wouldn't consider MWLL to be a simulator, far from it, but that's hardly the reason. You can simulate a mech's behavior (or the behavior of any system) very accurately without allowing people to hand-pick the equipment. It's still a very desirable feature, and I think a necessary one to have a complete mechwarrior game, which neither MWLL nor MA comes even close to being, but it's hardly necessary for something to be considered a simulator in any sense of the word.


MWLL is hard to judge because of the present state of its development, but its doubtful, I think, that it will ever live up to the mech simulation of the better mechwarrior titles. MA isn't even in the same league. That said, the elements these games lack are far more fundamental than a mechlab.

Edited by Catamount, 13 December 2011 - 01:34 PM.

[guardiandashi]

I am going to say this...
as a game MA (Mech assault was a good game) as a battletech game IMO it was NOT a shining example to hold up, now selling the number of copies it distributed, and making the amount of PROFIT it did ... absolutely targets to try to get.

the problem is and this is purely intended as an opservation not an attack is that the community has different ideals of what we would like to see.

some people and I would argue red may fall into this camp, want a game that is the battletech sim equivalant of checkers really simple gameplay (in some aspects, no customization (I see a panther and I "KNOW" it is packing a ppc and srm rack) etc.

on the other hand some of us want to have more choices more complexitity etc I WANT my mechs weapons to NOT all automatically hit the exact location I am aiming for... close is good watching it be drawn skimming 2 cm across the head of my target to slam into the building is ok, shooting through the shoulder but not doing damage is bad.

being able to reconfigure my loadout like a tank commanded requesting 10 rounds of canister and 20 anti tank rounds vs 10 canister 10 anti tank, and 10 he rounds or a pilot looking at the specs for their next mission and requesting 2 runway busters instaid of the 1 and 1 incindinary round that is the "default" package or dropping the ammo load for a cannon in order to pack more bombs etc

am I saying my view is automatically "better" well of course to ME it is but are the devs going to agree? not unless they have a similar vision to what I have.

one issue is that MANY (not all) console games go down a path that is what I call "arcady" IE fairly sinple and basic gameplay that someone can walk up to and understan the concepts but not the neuances in about 30-45 seconds, go for "platform jumping puzzles and call it "complicated gameplay" and stuff like that. don't get me wrong one of my all time favorite n64 games I played on a friends console was "tetris sphere" but its not like it is a really HARD game to figure out.

[guardian wolf]

Tierloc, on 13 December 2011 - 11:43 AM, said:

I'm sorry you feel that way. Getting to ride around in one of these was awesome.

Where did you find these, is there any way I could look up their locations, I have searched and searched, but I cannot find one.

[Holmes]

Catamount, on 13 December 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

Since when is being able to customize the measure of a simulator?

I still wouldn't consider MWLL to be a simulator, far from it, but that's hardly the reason. You can simulate a mech's behavior (or the behavior of any system) very accurately without allowing people to hand-pick the equipment. It's still a very desirable feature, and I think a necessary one to have a complete mechwarrior game, which neither MWLL nor MA comes even close to being, but it's hardly necessary for something to be considered a simulator in any sense of the word.


MWLL is hard to judge because of the present state of its development, but its doubtful, I think, that it will ever live up to the mech simulation of the better mechwarrior titles. MA isn't even in the same league. That said, the elements these games lack are far more fundamental than a mechlab.

In the case of MechWarrior, yes it is necessary to be a simulator. Sorry.

But yes, it's certainly not the only missing elements from MA.

[Red Beard]

Holmes, on 13 December 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

In the case of MechWarrior, yes it is necessary to be a simulator. Sorry.

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.

guardiandashi, on 13 December 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

I am going to say this...
as a game MA (Mech assault was a good game) as a battletech game IMO it was NOT a shining example to hold up, now selling the number of copies it distributed, and making the amount of PROFIT it did ... absolutely targets to try to get.

By far, the best statement AGAINST MA a BT loyalist can make. Concise and direct, without insulting the fanbase or trying shove anything into anyone's face. Well put.

Quote

would argue red may fall into this camp, want a game that is the battletech sim equivalant of checkers really simple gameplay (in some aspects, no customization (I see a panther and I "KNOW" it is packing a ppc and srm rack) etc.

I don't know if checkers is a good example, as I do prefer depth, just not complexity. And you are right on about knowing the enemy mech and what it is packing. That is a critical element in real life battle. Mechlabs only create a frustrating mess of franken-mechs and all sorts of weird loadouts that are not even really part of the BT scheme. Knowing your enemy is a huge part of victory. Altering a mech is not something I find conducive. It robs a large level of the known strategy element.

[Gorith]

Honestly a proper tutorial could easily teach the basic concepts of even a simulator fairly easy...
For mechlab I am of two minds here one is That by lore mechlab should be overly difficult as there are no ONMIs out yet and that completely allowing people to customize turns mechs into little more than a "skin" at whatever tonnage. The other is That customization is good... Honestly I would like a very limited mechlab (and i don't mean like MW4) so mechs keep their individual feel

also it's nice to see two things. 1. mods that watch the forums and 2. a franchise i really like not getting "dumbed down" just so you can stick it on consoles and get more sales.

[Pht]

Damocles, on 11 December 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:

But I think the real anger (if thats the right term) over the MA franchise that MW/BT fans have is that (I could be wrong) a MW 5 was in development at the time and subsequently cancelled in favor of the M$ MA series.

There may be some truth in this claim - I had it at the time from a pretty reliable source that MW5 was in I think it's seventh playable "alpha" state when it got canned. Combine that with the fact that after-build support on mw4 was thin - I think MS only game the game one dev after "prime time" - and getting a patch for obvious bugs was a pain... would make one begin to really suspect this claim of MW5 being dropped for what they thought would be a game with a lower cost of implementation with expected higher profits.

There was also some speculation that said MW5 build was turned around and used as the base for MI, and the pictures that popped up later ... two of which you posted ... don't look to far and away from what MI looked like, and also it would have been stupid of them to not use an already purpouse built code in the xbox, which is nothing more than a PC with some capability trimmed away (namely, non gaming stuff).

Artifact, on 11 December 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

While I certainly can't speak for anyone else, if the gameplay is an arcade game, I will be playing for about 5 minutes. If it's a simulator, I'll be playing for 5 years.

Amen. Make a good basic game with depth of gameplay (and that doesn't mean a micromanaging required disaster), and you'll keep players around for a looooong time.

Red Beard, on 11 December 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

I have never heard that MA was the cause of the alternate MW game's cancellation. If anything, MA would have contributed to MW's release being that MA made piles of cash for MS.

Actually, MI wouldn't have driven the market for MW - mistitled as it was, it would have been competing in the same segment, and MS would have to have developed two codebases, with twice the cost, cutting into a single market segment.

Red Beard, on 12 December 2011 - 08:18 AM, said:

Some people think that MA was a heretical game for the liberties that Day 1 studios took in making new mechs and weapons.

Everybody I know who hates MI doesn't do so on the basis that they added new weapons and mechs - they do so because MI had zero respect for the lore.

Quote

MechAssault was a top selling BT game, going platinum in less than a year, and selling over 4 million worldwide through the course of it's life. Few, if any MW games can claim sales stats like that.

And you know what? Those of us who want - and have been wanting, since the MW4 code came out ten years ago - to see a good MW sim - don't care if MI sold a lot of units ... And, again, MI isn't an MW game visuals and names do not an MW game make - that's simply an unacceptable standard to define MW.

PropWash, on 12 December 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

As for the more Sim, less Arcade debate, this is one that has been beat-to-death internally during the development of MANY various BattleTech / MechWarrior products.

Our solution was actually to have 'both'.

Nice to see you again, PW!

I'm not interested in specifics, but how much cost, in time, man hours, and financially, did you guys have to expend to make what could almost be called two different games?

PropWash, on 12 December 2011 - 06:50 PM, said:

MekTek continued to develop some Tesla 4 style super advanced simulation concepts for implementation into Firestorm. While we may never get many of those functions into Firestorm, I hope they will be implemented into MP4 and see the light of day. There are some fantastic ideas that I really hope people get to try out in the BattleTech universe. If were lucky, a few of these ideas might make it into MWO.

Yeah; there's quite a lot of really cool stuff in MP4 that's not been implemented. I don't know how the heck Jeho manages to do what he does... he must not sleep!

Red Beard, on 12 December 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

What exactly do you mean by Lowest Common Denominator?

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.

Honestly though, I think a good MW sim, if really done to simulate what it's like to pilot a battlemech - would be more like the game othello, or maybe chinese checkers - easy to get started playing, simple, easily understood rules - but a serious depth of gameplay.

Edited by Pht, 13 December 2011 - 04:02 PM.

[Catamount]

guardiandashi, on 13 December 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

I am going to say this...
as a game MA (Mech assault was a good game) as a battletech game IMO it was NOT a shining example to hold up, now selling the number of copies it distributed, and making the amount of PROFIT it did ... absolutely targets to try to get.

I'm glad someone else agrees with me here.

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

[Catamount]

Holmes, on 13 December 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

In the case of MechWarrior, yes it is necessary to be a simulator. Sorry.

But yes, it's certainly not the only missing elements from MA.

So you're not saying it's necessary to be a simulator, but that it's necessary to be a Mechwarrior Simulator?

I think I could agree with that. The mechlab is enormously integral to the franchise. It has been for as long as I can remember (and I was kind of sad MWLL lacked it, even if it at least gives many different variants to pick from).

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

I do prefer depth, just not complexity.

Okay, I give up.

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?

Edited by Catamount, 13 December 2011 - 04:04 PM.

[Haeso]

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

[Holmes]

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

So you're not saying it's necessary to be a simulator, but that it's necessary to be a Mechwarrior Simulator?

Basically, yes.

[Pht]

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 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.

Holmes, on 13 December 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

Basically, yes.

I guess the 64,0000$ question is, than, ... how do you define Mechwarrior? What is it? ... and what's the standard to to be followed in laying out whatever it is?