2
This is the first time I have ever really posted something in length about video games, so please bear with me. I my ideas will lead to a productive discussion and that they were conveyed clearly enough for everyone to understand. Many will entirely disagree with what I have to say or may be offended. I apologize ahead of time. I do appreciate you reading this.
I believe MWO/MW5 has great potential in becoming a well-refined, widely-accepted, and immersive game. Surprisingly, it's origins as a tabletop game set in the BatteTech Universe (BTU) lends itself to appropriate strategic and tactical options that are simply not existent in other FPS games. It is the amalgamation of several features that give this game incredible potential: section-based armor and structure targeting, hard-points, weapon weight, chassis weight, engine configurations, heat management, range modifiers, weapon classes, electronic warfare systems, modules, mobility, climate, terrain, and extensive lore. For nearly a decade, PGI has done an excellent job of packaging all of these features into a reasonably enjoyable multiplayer experience in the form of MWO.
Credit is also due to PGI for reviving enough interest in the BTU, enabling the financing and development of BattleTech (Paradox and Harebrained Schemes) and MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries (PGI). MWO in particular has enjoyed far greater success compared to other mech-based games i.e., Hawken, Titanfall 1&2, Brigador, AirMech Strike, etc. However, no one denies that MWO's player count is hemorrhaging and that all three games have lukewarm reviews. Nothing bad, but nothing to write home about. Moreover, it is precisely this cycle of doing, 'okay,' that many loyal fans want to break out of. Personally, I do not want this universe to enter the realm of Warhammer (sorry guys), whereby dozens of mediocre games are published on Steam. Quite honestly, BTU does not have the fandom size of Warhammer and our (literal) aging population does not allow us the flexibility to financially sustain this franchise.
Nonetheless, PGI has the capability of not only extending the franchise's lifetime, but further its commercial success. In order to do this, PGI will need to rely on the core features that distinguishes MWO and BTU from other genres; this primarily centers on the concept of the 'thinking-man's shooter,' which requires an immediate re-understanding. I argue that MWO's current state is a pseudo version of the 'thinking-man's shooter.' The current implementations of the aforementioned features in the second paragraph serve to as difficulty modifiers that limit the FPS nature of the game. Rather than serving to enhance the capabilities of engaging the opposing force, they often serve as the boundaries of limitation for attack. Hence, the common tropes of the game are NASCAR and non-existent team-work, which have continuously plagued the game since its inception.
Moreover, the implementation of many electronic warfare systems and communication have not been integrated in such a way that encourages overlapping builds and coordination. Instead, the design of the game is heavily centered on the modification of mechs on an individual basis, rather than their role within the lance. This has led to bland, unoriginal, and (unfortunately) necessary boating. This further damages any chance of communications, since the only command needed is to focus fire on a single target. The use of tactics are not necessary, since there is no incentive to operate as a team. Even stomps are just manifestations of numerical superiority on a particular angle of an enemy position.
Often, the solution to resolving these issues are the implementation of financial rewards, i.e. AMS, Lance grouping, ECM coverage, etc. All of these rewards are simply modifiers that do not reflect on actual in-game tactics. You cannot incentive through reward. It must be an integral part of conducting warfare. Currently, the game's current design is totally centered on the direct and physical destruction of the opposing force by a collection of individuals that are engaged in this task.
It is precisely that reason for the failure of Faction War. Despite the objectives suggesting you capture X or destroy Y, it is quite literally far more favorable to simply agree to kill each other. Furthermore, the capture of specific planets or zones does not provide an overarching benefit to the conduct of operations on a strategic scale. In fact, they are nothing like the lore or real warfare. There are no 'armies' or 'fleets,' just a collection of individuals, signing up for a bonus to join a particular faction and going at it. Sadly, this takes away from the potential for social engagement for the game.
All of this takes away from what BTU excels at: immersion. Without an overarching theme of teamwork, loyalty, tactics, and strategy, the game will always be hollow. I believe MW5 shows that soundtracks, graphics, complicated in-game finances, and particle physics aren't what make games truly standout. A return to the basic tenants of what makes the BTU franchise great are what will guarantee the continued success of not only the BTU franchise, but the continued enjoyment of current and future fans alike.
There are so many more things I'd like to write about. Perhaps I will in the future. I had taken a recent two-month break. Having come back, I still love the game but I want more out of it. I am a younger fan and MWO was what brought me into the BTU. Thank you for reading!
Edited by SoukouKiheiVOTOMS, 28 May 2020 - 10:36 AM.
