61 replies to this topic

[Armageddon]

For the record... I like the new designs.

Is it just me or do all the new Mech Redesigns have abnormally wide leg spacing?

For instance:
http://www.sarna.net...3025_Atlas1.jpg
vs
http://img.mwomercs....s%20Concept.jpg

http://www.sarna.net...025_Jenner1.jpg
vs
http://img.mwomercs....r%20Concept.jpg

http://www.sarna.net..._Hunchback1.jpg
vs
http://img.mwomercs....k%20Concept.jpg

http://www.sarna.net...025_Dragon1.jpg
vs
http://img.mwomercs....n%20Concept.jpg

I like the new designs; but has anyone else noticed this?

Edit: After seeing many replies I'm happy that everyone likes the new look as I do. I think it looks really cool for a new generation of Mechwarriors.

Edited by Armageddon, 23 November 2011 - 04:09 PM.

[Creed Buhallin]

I noticed it today with the Dragon, hadn't so much with the others. But I like the style - wider support base means more stability.

[Riptor]

The old designs might have less leg space but in most cases would have never been able to walk.. look at the original atlasses upper legs.. the way they stand makes it looks like his left leg was intentionaly build pointing to the side while its other legs upper part points straight forward. Or that hunchback... he wouldnt be able to walk anywhere but straight ahead.

On the other hand i think the new designs walking animations might look a bit more awkward due to the legspace.

[Tortango]

I hadn't noticed this but I like the wide-leg designs more, definitely looks a lot more like something that would actually work

[Ran Ito]

After 25 years or so of kicking a** the crotches have stretched out to compensate.

[MaddMaxx]

In the older designs, you would just shoot at the "Legs" and be assured a hit. With a wider spread you will have to select a Leg to target to be assured a hit. It also allows for tighter hit box geometry.

[Dihm]

I believe it is referred to as "Beast Mode".

Edited by Dihm, 23 November 2011 - 12:36 PM.

[Sesambrot]

I also noticed that with the Dragon today, however I think much of that impression comes from the PoV and the stance of the mechs...

The Jenner does actually fit quite well with the TRO, especially considering that the legs where originally attached to the torso, but especially for the Jenner, I find it way more important that it now looks cool in contrary to that godaweful piece of TRO-art!

Regarding the Atlas, especially considering the PoV in the original design I don't think it's too far off, and it actually adds to the bulkieness of the new design.

No point in denying it for the Hunchback tho, but on the other hand, if you have a closer look at the at the original picture, the crotch which holds the legs is ridiculously tiny, and the wide leg spacing of the redisgn probably comes from resizing that part of the mech to a size that actually makes it believable.

Edited by Sesambrot, 23 November 2011 - 12:56 PM.

[BlindProphet]

Just one thing...if you look at the pictures and adjust for size differences/scale/bad drawing/perspective you find that there's very little difference in the spacing. Most of the difference comes in with how wide the legs are in the original drawings vs the new looks.

[Xhaleon]

J Echo, on 23 November 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:

snippy snippy

Humanoids already compensate for slimmer hips by spreading their legs out to increase the width of the base, or at least men do. And like you said, smaller hips allow for better overall control. It's not like battlemechs can't bend their legs in and out, so having wider hips is pretty redundant. Of course, the game will probably have them walk a static pattern with no impact on gameplay, instead of a dynamic gait as neurohelmets should allow. Oh well.

[Sesambrot]

Xhaleon, on 23 November 2011 - 01:19 PM, said:

Humanoids already compensate for slimmer hips by spreading their legs out to increase the width of the base, or at least men do. And like you said, smaller hips allow for better overall control. It's not like battlemechs can't bend their legs in and out, so having wider hips is pretty redundant. Of course, the game will probably have them walk a static pattern with no impact on gameplay, instead of a dynamic gait as neurohelmets should allow. Oh well.

It's still a machine tho, a giant badass robot... I have no problem with them moving like that. On top of that, if they really did move in a more "organic" way, the pilot would have died from a whiplash within the first few steps.
And from a gameplay standpoint, look at MW4, the movements look pretty organic and dynamic, but if they hadn't cheated with the cockpits, thus using floating cameras with an interior-overlay instead of the mechs real cockpit, you would not even have been able to hit the big walls on Jungle while moving.
That's actually the reason why the first-person camera in MW4 felt so... ... just wrong...

[Xhaleon]

Sesambrot, on 23 November 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

It's still a machine tho, a giant badass robot... I have no problem with them moving like that. On top of that, if they really did move in a more "organic" way, the pilot would have died from a whiplash within the first few steps.
And from a gameplay standpoint, look at MW4, the movements look pretty organic and dynamic, but if they hadn't cheated with the cockpits, thus using floating cameras with an interior-overlay instead of the mechs real cockpit, you would not even have been able to hit the big walls on Jungle while moving.
That's actually the reason why the first-person camera in MW4 felt so... ... just wrong...

Not really. Does your torso move a lot when you walk around? It hardly sways at all, if you've got a graceful feminine gait like I do.
Being able to do a swing-around to get to cover faster is always a good thing, rocking you in the cockpit or no. They have seatbelts you know. And aerospace fighter pilots sure don't complain when they pull ludicrous G turns that the stats say they do on a regular basis. Mechwarriors have just a singlet and a vest, but it doesn't really compare.

I certainly did like the MW4 animations, as they seemed less floaty than those in MW3. The MW3 rocking and camera style sure was better and gave a better feeling of weight, but if you actually looked at the mechs, they're just prancing around like ponies. Must have been the planet's gravity. In MW4, the mechs always put their legs down as fast as possible, so much so that for some mechs full speed looked like power walking, which really is quite a bit more believable. Running like in MW3 is the gait that is liable to give you whiplash.

[Tweaks]

I personally feel like the new design give a meaner and "tougher" look to the 'Mech.

The original design of the Atlas for example, looks like a skinny football player (oversized shoulders over legs in tights)... While the new design looks more like a mean thug, which is more what it should be actually!

An assault 'Mech has to look heavy, mean and imposing. I don't feel the line drawings from the 80's represent that at all.

[cipher]

I hate the new leg-widths. It looks awkward and is totally not Battletech or Mechwarrior. The graphics is fine otherwise.

The Atlas and Jenner are borderline but the Hunchback and Dragon look ridiculous.

Some of us grew up playing Battletech (ie: the western version of Robotech), Citytech, Aerotech, and Mechwarrior. We were drawn into both the concept and aesthetics of mechs. But this concept art is NOT at all Battletech, The art is more like anime or Heavy Gear than Battletech or Mechwarrior.

I understand that you're trying to update the look. And I can grow to like the styling over time. But I can't get past those way-too-wide legs. They're fugly. Please narrow them.

Mechwarrior, MW 2, and MW3 got it right. Why can't you guys?

Thanks.

Edited by cipher, 23 November 2011 - 04:47 PM.

[phelanjkell]

cipher, on 23 November 2011 - 04:42 PM, said:

I hate the new leg-widths. It looks awkward and is totally not Battletech or Mechwarrior. The graphics is fine otherwise.

The Atlas and Jenner are borderline but the Hunchback and Dragon look ridiculous.

Some of us grew up playing Battletech (ie: the western version of Robotech), Citytech, Aerotech, and Mechwarrior. We were drawn into both the concept and aesthetics of mechs. But this concept art is NOT at all Battletech, The art is more like anime or Heavy Gear than Battletech or Mechwarrior.

I understand that you're trying to update the look. And I can grow to like the styling over time. But I can't even get past those way-too-wide legs. They're fugly. Please narrow them.

Thanks.

I completly disagree with your entire post. They look great, so much better than the original TRO.

[Garth Erlam]

cipher, on 23 November 2011 - 04:42 PM, said:

...Some of us grew up playing Battletech (ie: the western version of Robotech), Citytech, Aerotech, and Mechwarrior. We were drawn into both the concept and aesthetics of mechs. But this concept art is NOT at all Battletech, The art is more like anime or Heavy Gear than Battletech or Mechwarrior.

Mechwarrior, MW 2, and MW3 got it right. Why can't you guys?

Thanks.

I'm still trying to understand how you can like a Western version of Japanese 'Mechs, but hate a Western version of Japanese 'Mechs.

[cipher]

Garth Erlam, on 23 November 2011 - 04:51 PM, said:

I'm still trying to understand how you can like a Western version of Japanese 'Mechs, but hate a Western version of Japanese 'Mechs.

This is about width between the legs, not about western styled mechs.

But in reply to your comment, I fell in love with Loose's drawings in the original 3025 when I started playing Battletech in the 80s. In transition from Battletech to Mechwarrior rules, the cover-art of a Rifleman on the original Mechwarrior manual got this right. Infocom also got this right with Battletech: Crescent Hawk's Inception and Crecent Hawk's Revenge. Even the Mechwarrior games to follow from DOS days to Windows got this right.

So again, I ask you, why can't your concept art get this right? I can adapt to your new style for the mechs (I do love your version of the Atlas). But I can't get over the spread-apart legs. It's that simple. That's my opinion as a hard core Battletech fan since the 80s. By hard core fan I mean I still have all of the old tech manuals, compendium, box kits, and Battletech & Mechwarrior PC games on my shelves.

[GreenHell]

quit trolling. the art of the original BT was "STOLEN", from Japanese anime.
All art that followed was of similar design. Westernized Japanese mechs.

Also, this is a REBOOT. This is not your grandfathers BattleTech.
I don't care if you don't like it. This is the way things are going to be.
I embrace the new changes with open arms.

(Besides, the old hunchback always looked goofy anyways)
Are its hips wider than its shoulders? No?
Then there's nothing wrong.

Edited by GreenHell, 23 November 2011 - 05:59 PM.

[Xhaleon]

cipher, on 23 November 2011 - 05:26 PM, said:

snippy snippy

Made a new account just to express the concern, eh?
I know what that feel is, the Battlemechs of old had a very human-in-a-suit kind of look, and I like some designs precisely because of that look. I'm fine with the general look of MWOs new imaginings; I can't say that I don't like them because they don't follow this one aesthetic. I guess you'll have to elaborate a bit more on what else you don't like other than the hip width.

One concern from me right now is that the Hunchback's hips are going to look very silly in animation to me. Its hips are so wide that it isn't going to walk, its going to waddle.

And Garth, I'd say that if I were to interpret his meaning as to them looking like the designs of other works, is that the new MWO designs look... generic, by todays standards. The original designs had a very retro look to them, so for some people that campy aesthetic is very attractive compared to the more developed and mature aesthetic of most modern Japanese designs as a whole.

[Deliverator]

The new artist has said that he will be updating these mechs so that they are actually believable. Honestly most of the mech designs from BT would be incredibly off balance, to the point that they wouldn't be able to run or be in combat without ending up eating dirt.