152 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Mystere, on 16 October 2016 - 03:45 PM, said:

You're barking at the wrong tree.

You did change definitions.

Your thread is based on the idea that BattleTech is one thing and that MWO is not it.

So is it, or isn't it?

[Davers]

There are so many ideas of what Battletech is, and how it should translate into a fps that it's s pretty meaningless label.

[Bud Crue]

Davers, on 16 October 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:

There are so many ideas of what Battletech is, and how it should translate into a fps that it's s pretty meaningless label.

Some folks made this way more complex of an issue than it needed to be.

If you believe that BattleTech is supposed to be the universe that MWO take place in, or even similar to the universe that MWO takes place in, then no this is not "A BattleTech Game".

The only aspects of the BT universe that exists in this game are the IS map, and the couple of paragraph descriptions of the factions located in the faction warfare screen when you first decide to join one. That's it, and that stuff applies exclusively to the CW mode, which less than 10% of the player population (at its Phase 2 height) every played according to PGI.

The point for a lot of people is that PGI suggested way back when that this game was going to be "immersed" in the BT universe, and for 4 years they have instead ignored that universe. Put yet another way: a few paragraphs of text describing factions, and a map consisting of planets that are mostly "description: unknown" does not A BattleTech game make. Its a lovely arena shooter, akin to a pvp Mechwarrior game, but it has very little to do with BattleTech or the BattleTech universe for good or ill.

[C E Dwyer]

BLOOD WOLF, on 15 October 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:

So some people think that when HBS battltech game comes out there will be some great migration?

Novakaine, on 15 October 2016 - 04:20 PM, said:

Oh it will be just watch.

I think there will be some who do completely leave though I think that will be a minority, some have no interest in a turn based game and so will stay.

Most will continue to play, though many will not play as often.

I think the danger is that with HBS Battletech arriving, many that continue to play will stop paying to keep this platform going, because they will care less, and that is the thing that matters most, how many continue to keep the lights on.

Personally I spent a lot more money on this game in the 2016 year than I intended because of HBS's new game. I want as many of the old TRO mech in it, and so the missing ones like the Wasp, Stinger, Crusader, Valkyrie, the Ost series, and maybe *sighs* even the Longbow I will certainly spend big on, or at least as much as I can afford.

They though unless a mech makes me go wow I must have that and that's very unlikely will be the only mechs I buy.

With Russ's refusal to make mechs bellow 40 tons these days he's already cost the company money, wales and lapsed wales like myself will throw $70 at the Wasp Stinger Valkyrie and Ostscout, ok maybe not the ostscout even knowing they will be terrible.

So my future spending on this game is going to be limited unless PGI change their minds about light mechs to a maximum spend of $210 in the coming years.

Without new blood to fill the gaps of those disgruntled people that won't, and those that are more like me, virtually spent out on what they want, this game will become drastically reduced, and come to an end in the next few years with or without HBs's new game.

I see HBS as both a good and a bad thing, for MWO. It means that asests from this one will live on, but it does cause the end of this game to arrive maybe a year or two quicker than it is going to without it

Edited by Cathy, 16 October 2016 - 04:34 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

That is like saying those little arcadey Star Wars games for your phone and such are not Star Wars games.

Does it feature BattleTech 'Mechs, weapons, and equipment?

Yes?

It's a BattleTech game. The end.

[Bud Crue]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 October 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

That is like saying those little arcadey Star Wars games for your phone and such are not Star Wars games.

Does it feature BattleTech 'Mechs, weapons, and equipment?

Yes?

It's a BattleTech game. The end.

I guess it is Robo Tech game too then.

[FalconerGray]

Davers, on 16 October 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:

There are so many ideas of what Battletech is, and how it should translate into a fps that it's s pretty meaningless label.

Including many of the features and signature traits that give the IP it's identity and support would be a good start.

Picture this: Someone makes an NFL game. There are some great ideas pitched at the start, like dynamic seasons, drafts, player progression through college leagues to retirement. But then when the game is released, there are none of those features, instead it's just an assortment of random players from random teams and leagues in the same game over and over again, playing positions they shouldn't play, with skills and abilities that don't make sense. And instead of it being true to NFL rules, it uses a bunch of different game modes that really don't belong, different systems, regulations and in the end, has very little in common with NFL at all.

But there will be a large portion of the playerbase that loves this, because the game is fast paced, excited and much easier to enjoy without having to deal with all that technical nonsense or storyline rubbish. And they will antagonize those who call out the developers for not making an NFL game by saying "It's called NFL:Online, has a field and ball - it's an NFL game, get over it".

Sound familiar?

Edit: See?

Yeonne Greene, on 16 October 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

That is like saying those little arcadey Star Wars games for your phone and such are not Star Wars games.

Does it feature BattleTech 'Mechs, weapons, and equipment?

Yes?

It's a BattleTech game. The end.

Edited by legatoblues, 16 October 2016 - 04:43 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Bud Crue, on 16 October 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

I guess it is Robo Tech game too then.

Sure.

On the other hand, with the Reseen stuff there's nothing directly ported over anymore.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Hey, I love these threads!

All the IP is from the BattleTech game. Saying this is not a BattleTech game is very immature and childish. Exaggerations, by definition, are lies and are not meant to be taken seriously.

This kind of thread does not help you be taken seriously.

(Oh, yeah, a P.S. for the crowds in denial: It's called "Mechwarrior: Online." Not "BattleTech Online," even though the word "BattleTech" is in the SUBtitle)

Edited by Prosperity Park, 16 October 2016 - 04:50 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 October 2016 - 04:44 PM, said:

Sure.

On the other hand, with the Reseen stuff there's nothing directly ported over anymore.

My only point above is that PGI once pushed the whole immersive CW experience...based in the BattleTech universe.. and I think that their subsequent development (or lack thereof) of the game has made a lot of folks who wanted that immersive experience feeling very much short-changed if not outright lied to. If you want to believe that this game is a BattleTech game merely because of the mechs, so be it. But there is a lot more to the BT universe than just mechs and I think that lacking content is what drives threads like this. Whatever. The above thread makes it pretty clear that a lot of folks who thought there was going to be more "BattleTech" in this Battletech game are still hoping for more.

[Y E O N N E]

Bud Crue, on 16 October 2016 - 04:54 PM, said:

My only point above is that PGI once pushed the whole immersive CW experience...based in the BattleTech universe.. and I think that their subsequent development (or lack thereof) of the game has made a lot of folks who wanted that immersive experience feeling very much short-changed if not outright lied to. If you want to believe that this game is a BattleTech game merely because of the mechs, so be it. But there is a lot more to the BT universe than just mechs and I think that lacking content is what drives threads like this. Whatever. The above thread makes it pretty clear that a lot of folks who thought there was going to be more "BattleTech" in this Battletech game are still hoping for more.

There is more to any setting than just the face it puts on. There are plenty of games wearing Star Wars skins that don't really have much to do with Star Wars, but it's still ridiculous to describe them as anything other than a Star Wars game.

If it makes people feel better, we can say it's BattleTech-themed. That should avoid the baggage.

[Davers]

Bud Crue, on 16 October 2016 - 04:31 PM, said:

Some folks made this way more complex of an issue than it needed to be.

If you believe that BattleTech is supposed to be the universe that MWO take place in, or even similar to the universe that MWO takes place in, then no this is not "A BattleTech Game".

The only aspects of the BT universe that exists in this game are the IS map, and the couple of paragraph descriptions of the factions located in the faction warfare screen when you first decide to join one. That's it, and that stuff applies exclusively to the CW mode, which less than 10% of the player population (at its Phase 2 height) every played according to PGI.

The point for a lot of people is that PGI suggested way back when that this game was going to be "immersed" in the BT universe, and for 4 years they have instead ignored that universe. Put yet another way: a few paragraphs of text describing factions, and a map consisting of planets that are mostly "description: unknown" does not A BattleTech game make. Its a lovely arena shooter, akin to a pvp Mechwarrior game, but it has very little to do with BattleTech or the BattleTech universe for good or ill.

legatoblues, on 16 October 2016 - 04:41 PM, said:

Including many of the features and signature traits that give the IP it's identity and support would be a good start.

Picture this: Someone makes an NFL game. There are some great ideas pitched at the start, like dynamic seasons, drafts, player progression through college leagues to retirement. But then when the game is released, there are none of those features, instead it's just an assortment of random players from random teams and leagues in the same game over and over again, playing positions they shouldn't play, with skills and abilities that don't make sense. And instead of it being true to NFL rules, it uses a bunch of different game modes that really don't belong, different systems, regulations and in the end, has very little in common with NFL at all.

But there will be a large portion of the playerbase that loves this, because the game is fast paced, excited and much easier to enjoy without having to deal with all that technical nonsense or storyline rubbish. And they will antagonize those who call out the developers for not making an NFL game by saying "It's called NFL:Online, has a field and ball - it's an NFL game, get over it".

Sound familiar?

Edit: See?

Hey, I am not saying that, from a lore perspective thus game isn't a catastrophe.

But the guy who ignored the IS, timelines, and made all his own mechs and never used stock mechs is still playing "Battletech".

So while I am not satisfied with how the game has developed, I don't think I would just say that its not BT.

[Bud Crue]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 October 2016 - 04:58 PM, said:

There is more to any setting than just the face it puts on. There are plenty of games wearing Star Wars skins that don't really have much to do with Star Wars, but it's still ridiculous to describe them as anything other than a Star Wars game.

If it makes people feel better, we can say it's BattleTech-themed. That should avoid the baggage.

The more I think about it, the more I like that. Seriously.

Where the game currently states:
"A tactical, 'Mech-based online shooter set in the rich Battle Tech Universe"

The modified form of:
"A tactical, 'Mech-based online shooter set in a BattleTech Themed Universe."

Would probably satisfy the lorenerds and BT fanboys as well as dorks like me who focus on definitional minutia.

That said I think a lot of folks are missing the point of the outrage (faux or legit): that while of course this is in some sense "A BattleTech Game", what people are pissed off about is PGI's apparent insistence to have as little of that BT content in the game as they can get away with. Some want more BT, some want immersion. They aint getting it, and they feel mislead. That's really all there is to it.

[Y E O N N E]

Bud Crue, on 16 October 2016 - 05:14 PM, said:

The more I think about it, the more I like that. Seriously.

Where the game currently states:
"A tactical, 'Mech-based online shooter set in the rich Battle Tech Universe"

The modified form of:
"A tactical, 'Mech-based online shooter set in a BattleTech Themed Universe."

Would probably satisfy the lorenerds and BT fanboys as well as dorks like me who focus on definitional minutia.

That said I think a lot of folks are missing the point of the outrage (faux or legit): that while of course this is in some sense "A BattleTech Game", what people are pissed off about is PGI's apparent insistence to have as little of that BT content in the game as they can get away with. Some want more BT, some want immersion. They aint getting it, and they feel mislead. That's really all there is to it.

Oh, I get the frustration. I just think it's such a silly thing to crusade over the name, though, and to think that the name precludes certain changes from being made when it does nothing of the sort.

[Ghogiel]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 October 2016 - 04:44 PM, said:

Sure.

On the other hand, with the Reseen stuff there's nothing directly ported over anymore.

All of MWOs designs are basically reseens >_>

[Y E O N N E]

Ghogiel, on 16 October 2016 - 05:39 PM, said:

All of MWOs designs are basically reseens >_>

GOOD.

Battle pod looked ridiculous.

[FalconerGray]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 October 2016 - 05:18 PM, said:

Oh, I get the frustration. I just think it's such a silly thing to crusade over the name, though, and to think that the name precludes certain changes from being made when it does nothing of the sort.

It is a silly detail to focus on, but there is a valid complaint behind it. It's possible that some of us that are unsatisfied with MWO have a hard time articulating exactly why it is that we aren't satisfied. I run into that problem every now and then.

I do play MWO a fair bit. A lot, by my own standards. Besides about 6 hours total on a friends PS4, this is the only game I've played in the past 18 months or so. And I enjoy it, I really do....but I would enjoy it more if I wasn't constantly reminded of all the things it doesn't have.

[oldradagast]

Yeesh.

All I can say reading the rage and venom on posts like this is that I'm glad I wasn't raised on Battletech so I don't have decades worth of baggage on the topic. I know people who do, and there is literally no way that anyone could make a Battletech video game that would suit them because it's always something: The clans are too powerful or not powerful enough, the game should be exactly the same as tabletop but in 1st person mode even though that would be idiotic and would never work, mechs are too customizable, but customization is what makes the game fun, and on and on it goes.

PGI has plenty of screw-ups on their hands, yes, but I am reasonably certain based upon the complaint threads on this forum and the Battletech grognards I know in real life that there is no way anyone could make a Battletech or Mechwarrior game that they'd like - and even if some of the old-timers did like it, another batch would hate it. So much frustration and anger; you can't go home again, and there's no way to recapture that amazing feeling of what the game was like years ago. Taking it out on PGI won't help anything, nor will hoping that MWO burns since, if it does, this will probably be the last title in that series for long, long time. Maybe nobody cares, and maybe some folks are fine with that just so they can say, "I told you so," but it changes nothing.

Edited by oldradagast, 16 October 2016 - 05:57 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

legatoblues, on 16 October 2016 - 05:42 PM, said:

It is a silly detail to focus on, but there is a valid complaint behind it. It's possible that some of us that are unsatisfied with MWO have a hard time articulating exactly why it is that we aren't satisfied. I run into that problem every now and then.

I do play MWO a fair bit. A lot, by my own standards. Besides about 6 hours total on a friends PS4, this is the only game I've played in the past 18 months or so. And I enjoy it, I really do....but I would enjoy it more if I wasn't constantly reminded of all the things it doesn't have.

Preaching to the choir. Even for somebody like myself, with no history with the franchise, there are many things I wish this came had. I long for a re-imagined version of this setting that is better rooted in reality, and a game with a greater focus on simulation. But, I'm not going to say "we can't have XYZ because that wouldn't be BattleTech." BattleTech is fluid, dynamic. It has changed in the past and it will continue to change.

[Gas Guzzler]

Bud Crue, on 16 October 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

I guess it is Robo Tech game too then.

Really? Do they use any Robo Tech names? Anything Robo Tech aside from basic designs that served as inspiration for Alex?