171 replies to this topic

[Adridos]

Steel Fox, on 24 August 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

Congratulations, you have identified why 90% of the audience this game will enjoy actually play it, and what sets it apart from Hawken.

And 99% of today's and the games released back at least 5 years.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

darkone96, on 23 August 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

I like how all the fanboys immediately side with MWO just because it's mechwarrior.

Not just that, but because we've already put money into this. We're not just going to drop our Founders package and move. Unless Hawken blows me away with free beta access I'll probably never even consider moving. I'm definitely not investing in both without playing both, and I already invested in MechWarrior over a month ago. I didn't even know Hawken existed until like... 2 days ago. Unless they give me free beta access to compare the games I'll be staying put.

[Centagon]

darkone96, on 23 August 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

I like how all the fanboys immediately side with MWO just because it's mechwarrior.

Anyways, MWO, is just a slower paced, mech simulator. I don't see how it requires strategy at all. To be honest, Hawken looks more fun to me. It looks more interesting. I don't care if it's fast paced or doesn't require as much "skill". I'll play whatever is more fun. The only unique thing about MWO is that it simulates a mech experience. That's it. Put your fanboyism aside and realize the truth people.

You know, I like MWO more, but I agree. Most people are going to think the way you are, and will prefer Hawken, and they're not wrong. The problem though is if MWO makes further concessions to cater to the people who would play Hawken instead. This will alienate the niche market MWO belongs in. I know for business this sucks, but if you start competing in a saturated market, you'll get even fewer customers. Look at WoW clones competing for the same market and failing.

[Joanna Conners]

Centagon, on 25 August 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

You know, I like MWO more, but I agree. Most people are going to think the way you are, and will prefer Hawken, and they're not wrong. The problem though is if MWO makes further concessions to cater to the people who would play Hawken instead. This will alienate the niche market MWO belongs in. I know for business this sucks, but if you start competing in a saturated market, you'll get even fewer customers. Look at WoW clones competing for the same market and failing.

The games that dominated the PC from the 90s through middle 2000s are hardly a "niche" market. If some people prefer Hawken, that's fine, but new fans will be attracted to the same thing about MW that the rest of us were. MW was always up against faster paced robotic mech games in the past and it didn't hurt business. They're two different genres.

[Zakatak]

I'm just curious.

Since when did "slow" mean "tactical" and when did "fast" mean "arcade"? Halo is a much slower paced game then Battlefield, but I can definetly tell you it that Battlefield is more tactical. Whose to say Hawken isn't tactical, just because it's faster? In the past, Mechwarrior has mostly been about sticking together, sending scouts ahead, focussing fire, and calling targets. It is a very simple tactic but it beats them all from what I have played.

[Joanna Conners]

Zakatak, on 25 August 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

I'm just curious.

Since when did "slow" mean "tactical" and when did "fast" mean "arcade"? Halo is a much slower paced game then Battlefield, but I can definetly tell you it that Battlefield is more tactical. Whose to say Hawken isn't tactical, just because it's faster? In the past, Mechwarrior has mostly been about sticking together, sending scouts ahead, focussing fire, and calling targets. It is a very simple tactic but it beats them all from what I have played.

Interesting. Which Battlefield? I'd have said Halo was faster at some points and Battlefield at others. I wouldn't say either one is more tactical than the other.

[Adridos]

Demona, on 25 August 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Interesting. Which Battlefield? I'd have said Halo was faster at some points and Battlefield at others. I wouldn't say either one is more tactical than the other.

Both are pretty much in teh same pace äjudging from Halo 1, only one I played), but Battlefield also has tie situations, where neither side can break through.

[Joanna Conners]

Adridos, on 25 August 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Both are pretty much in teh same pace äjudging from Halo 1, only one I played), but Battlefield also has tie situations, where neither side can break through.

Halo can result in ties as well. They're different types of shooters, but I don't think one is better than the other. You can't really compare.

[Rath Kelbore]

MuffinTop, on 02 August 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

Hawken is to Dane Cook as MWO is to Denis Leary.

So you strongly dislike both games???

[Cobra6]

Haven't played HAWKEN yet even though I am a tester, will fill in the poll later when I give it a shot.

Cobra 6

[Urban UK]

I Have always liked the mechwarrior franchise, but I think Hawken may get more players as it appeals to the fast twitch fps gamer

I'm myself prefer more sim like

[Kurayami]

hoboken devs boasted about "revolution in mech combat" etc while in reality they just tried to copycat tekki (maybe unintentionally - based on game so far its looks like they live in cave and never played any mech games) and failed. result is slow, dumb, boring, castrated ugly redesign of tekki with "astonishing graphics". it will of course find auditory among obvious part of CoD players and casual players in general, but for me and i believe for many others game is dead as it is now - the only real + against tekki is language. TEKKI is purely Japanese.

MWO on the other hand is what it should and planned to be. I dont see a reason to compare them and i'm glad that player base is different - there will be less problems with this aspect at least.

Edited by Kurayami, 04 October 2012 - 12:35 AM.

[Magnificent Bastard]

This thread is great but next time can we make a Super Mario vs. Super Meatboy thread? Because those games are so similar.

[MADEVIL]

I've been in the beta's for both and they are different from each other, all depends on what kind of game style you like.

[Cobra6]

I'm testing both at the moment and I can assure you both games are in a completely different ballpark. They are not competition at all not in gameplay, not in graphics and not in set-up.

Cobra 6

Edited by Cobra6, 09 October 2012 - 02:31 AM.

[deadering]

Mechwarrior Online and Hawken are two very different games. Any non-biased mech fan will probably give both a shot and probably enjoy the unique qualities the two have.
There will be a lot of people, myself included, that will play both: Hawken for it's fast paced shooter action (confirmed Occulus Rift support is a selling point for myself) and enjoy Mechwarrior Online for it's slow-paced tactical combat and customization.
Neither are as good as Chromehounds to me; then again they are both f2p and in closed beta.

Also try and have a less condescending poll. Add the options "Both will reign supreme" to which will reign supreme, and "Yes it looks like a great game" to the second poll.

Anyone heard of Reign of Thunder? I got into CBT and I personally think it is the worst of the 3.

[zer0imh]

the reticle vibrates when mecha is moving in hawken.

...my eyes!

[0101101]

Hawken - Like unreal
MWO - AWESOME

[devScott]

hawken = unreal tournament in armoured suits
MWO = rich battletech universe mech simulator

Both good for their own reasons.

[Remorhaz]

Having played both, the description of Hawken as a CoD/Unreal twitch style game is pretty spot on. Based on what I have seen, and understanding Hawken is just in Alpha, the combat style of MWO appeals to me more.