202 replies to this topic

[Alex Wolfe]

Strum Wealh, on 02 February 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

Already did that.
(Developed by the Draconis Combine in 3059, seeing mass production in 3065.)

Yes, that's exactly what this franchise needs to become a consolidated, coherent, marketable and instantly recognizable brand again, and break free from the anime mold that orignally spawned it! Giant swords! When one sees robots swinging giant blades at each other, one cannot help but think "hell yeah, Mechwarrior!".

Leaked gameplay video?

We need this. It's canon.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 03 February 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[HanaYuriko]

Rhinehart, on 02 February 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Need my hands. Gonna be picking the Clan Elemental ticks off the other Mech in my unit and crushing the bloodsuckers. At least I hope this is the first Mechwarrior videogame where I can actually do that. If not I will absolutely still play, but that is one feature I long to see.

[Strum Wealh]

Alex Wolfe, on 03 February 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

Yes, that's exactly what this franchise needs to become a consolidated, coherent, marketable and instantly recognizable brand again, and break free from the anime mold that orignally spawned it! Giant swords! When one sees robots swinging giant blades at each other, one cannot help but think "hell yeah, Mechwarrior!".

Leaked gameplay video?

We need this. It's canon.

Vibroblades are a take on swords.
Swords are a variant (some might sat a refinement) of the concept behind the hatchet.
Hatchets are, in turn, a variant/refinement of the concept behind a club/bludgeon.

Each of the above has been part of the BT (and, by extension, MW) universe for several years.

When last I looked, melee weapons on BattleMechs ≠ psycommu-controlled bit/funnel weapons.
Even the HOUNDs of Chromehounds (which seems to be what a fair number of people are imagining/hoping MWO will be like) had melee weapons in the form of "anti-HOUND piles" (sharpened pneumatic pistons, as seen at the 1:24 mark in Chromehounds' opening cinematic).

So... how, precisely, is having melee weapons on BattleMechs supposed to prevent BT/MW from being/becoming "a consolidated, coherent, marketable and instantly recognizable brand"?

[Alex Wolfe]

Strum Wealh, on 03 February 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

Each of the above has been part of the BT (and, by extension, MW) universe for several years

Ummm...

Alex Wolfe, on 03 February 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

It's canon.

I... realize that? Don't get your lower arm actuator in a twist.

Strum Wealh, on 03 February 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

Even the HOUNDs of Chromehounds (which seems to be what a fair number of people are imagining/hoping MWO will be like) had melee weapons in the form of "anti-HOUND piles" (sharpened pneumatic pistons (...))

Sharpened pneumatic pistons? Chromehounds?

And now we got on divergent courses. How is... Chromehounds... relevant at all? If we're speculating, should I link, say, Cyberbots? It has huge robots fighting, so it *might* not be dissimilar to mech combat. I want giant drills and being able to do an S-Rank Dragon Punch, like in Cyberbots. Oh, wait - actually, in Voltron I'm almost sure one robot fought by welding. Can we get a welding robot to counter the sharpened pneumatic pistons?

...jokes aside...

Strum Wealh, on 03 February 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

So... how, precisely, is having melee weapons on BattleMechs supposed to prevent BT/MW from being/becoming "a consolidated, coherent, marketable and instantly recognizable brand"?

...one of the major complaint of some people (not mine, mind you, but it is present) that pops up regarding mech designs is that something is "too anime-looking". While in Battletech as a whole there is a number of designs inspired (if not wholly lifted in somewhat unclear cicumstances) from various giant mecha anime, the image of Mechwarrior and Mechcommander games so far have been always going the "walking tank" route with the design, with clearly "anime" design elements subverted and made more gritty and militaristic. Giant swords may not quite fit.

Lastly, I personally believe that "all that canon is not gold". There's plenty of "bad" (read: unpopular) canon within every franchise, especially those that weren't written at once but subsequently within years (like Star Wars, Star Trek, Transformers, Spider Man, Warhammer... and yes, Battletech). It's all just written by people, they have many bright ideas but sometimes... something that in retrospect may be judged as not such a great idea. When doing a reimagining, remake or reboot, it's usually to people in charge to take what they believe belongs in the "image" of the series they have in mind, and leave what didn't "click" behind. Vide: midichlorians. Or the newest Mass Effect book, just to be topical. Or BT's own Mechagodzillamechs.

Stuff. Opinions. Lighten up!

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 03 February 2012 - 02:27 PM.

[Okie135]

I liked the blades that Justin Allard put on Yen-Lo-Wang's left hand. He killed a Rifleman with that thing.

[Karyudo ds]

Alex Wolfe, on 03 February 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

And now we got on divergent courses. How is... Chromehounds... relevant at all? If we're speculating, should I link, say, Cyberbots? It has huge robots fighting, so it *might* not be dissimilar to mech combat. I want giant drills and being able to do an S-Rank Dragon Punch, like in Cyberbots. Oh, wait - actually, in Voltron I'm almost sure one robot fought by welding. Can we get a welding robot to counter the sharpened pneumatic pistons?

Fun fact, MWDA's mining mech has a pile driver. I just love the irony of people not wanting to see Gundam in a series that started with ripping off anime and...actually continued that to a lesser degree with MWDA. Granted it would be nice they would stop that. So far these designs work for that. Oh also if you're actually interested in welding robots they are in Battletech and have been for awhile...what with Max Tech's gunpods (MOAR ANIME!!!) and the clubbing rules though yeah I don't really see any point to compairing this to things outside of Battletech completely.

Either way I still want some melee...Solaris was always a big part of Battletech and mech gladiator matches just don't seem right without smashing. If we ever get all that. Course Solaris was sans melee in MW2 and MW4 but eh... On the other hand Charging was mentioned as a possible skill. Though that could be just the damage related to MW-bumper mech action in general.

[Kururugi Suzaku]

Front mission had hands and melee weapons and didn't look like gundam in any sense...

[Alex Wolfe]

Karyudo-ds, on 03 February 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

Fun fact, MWDA's mining mech has a pile driver. I just love the irony of people not wanting to see Gundam in a series that started with ripping off anime and...actually continued that to a lesser degree with MWDA. Granted it would be nice they would stop that. So far these designs work for that. Oh also if you're actually interested in welding robots they are in Battletech and have been for awhile...what with Max Tech's gunpods (MOAR ANIME!!!) and the clubbing rules though yeah I don't really see any point to compairing this to things outside of Battletech completely.

Well... that's part of the point I'm trying to make. Battletech indeed started by ripping off anime (and hey, that never did come back to bite it in the rear, right?), but the digital series so far have been straying away from it - for more than two decades, I might add - and they didn't seem to be any worse off because of that. The image of the mechs that crystallized over the years on the gaming platforms was pretty consistent (walking and jet-jumping tanks with guns), and were mercifully (opinion!) spared the relative weirdness of quads, another blatant Robotech rip-off in the form of LAMs, the accursed proto-mechs, Jihad and Dark Ages... The "anime" mechs too, the biggest offenders causing legal trouble, were excluded from the roster soon, and the series progressed without them, with that influence dwindling.

The image of "MechWarrior" remained a constant since 1989, while Battletech was in constant flux for two decades, depending on what was going on in authors' minds at the time. MechWarrior (and by extension, MechCommander), while largely ignoring those developments, only kept the story as a background and kept iterating on the image of mechs that it first showed to the players. In a way, it sort of preserved the Battletech's original identity.

Suddenly, pistons.

Maybe sometimes a little bit of straying can help you find something good? Or... keep it? What's going on with Battletech and MechWarrior/Commander series has been a sort of parallel evolution, with only occasional cross-breeding. So, when importing ideas from one franchise to another, it would stand to reason that the developers cannot be satisfied with merely noting "oh, it's in the tabletop version". You also need to look at the big picture, and ask yourself: "will it blend"?

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 03 February 2012 - 04:21 PM.

[Syvenn]

Dunno if it's been mentioned yet but axeman have hands and they're pretty damn sweet... Punching a mech might be fun anyways.

"What's that? streak SRM's lock on? HAH I gotta fist!" And if they could be launched out and reeled back in like a grappling hook, even better! Hell I'd do that...

[empath]

Jack Gallows, on 01 February 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Might be incredibly silly, but I've always wanted to be able to chuck Urbanmechs at people with an Atlas. Physical attack, AC hit, and gets the Urbanmech in distance a lot faster. Plus, probably knocking over the 'mech you threw it at, win!

Used to be a sport with the old TT community: Flea Football.

Although you may have come up with a new one: Urbie bowling.
{provided a) the UM-R60 design is 'round' enough to roll, and 2) Alex somehow makes at least one design that looks 'tippy'}

[empath]

Alex Wolfe, on 03 February 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Well... that's part of the point I'm trying to make. Battletech indeed started by ripping off anime (and hey, that never did come back to bite it in the rear, right?),

Okay, look - let's get a little fact mixed in with your slander, there:

When BattleDroids was first being worked up, FASA *did* secure rights to use artwork, just rights to produce model kits, it being the closest match to 'lead miniature playing pieces' that they needed. They hadn't licensed the rights to reproduce the artwork in books because they initially didn't have any plans to make and sell books, just a board game.

Later when the whole Car Wars-esque rulebook expansion idea took off, (and here's where we have to speculate, since the NONE of the participants in the later lawsuit are talking), either FA$A misunderstood the scope of the license (since no one was an actual copyright lawyer) or deliberately ignored the limitations of the reproduction rights they held...and "never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" is such a useful razor to remember.

Quote

The image of "MechWarrior" remained a constant since 1989,

Despite having a big handful of different developers, Westwood Associates, Dynamix, Microprose, Spectrum Holobyte (almost), Microsoft Game Studios/FASA Interactive...no, no changes at all; funny that.

Maybe if you take off your rose-tinted glasses, you might realize that there WAS a fair bit of change and difference over the course of the various games.

...and I enjoy people crowing about "MechWarrior" when they mean the videogames almost as much as the CoD-fanbois crowing about "MW" when they mean 'Modern Warfare".


For me, MechWarrior has always meant this:

Quote

while Battletech was in constant flux for two decades, depending on what was going on in authors' minds at the time. MechWarrior (and by extension, MechCommander), while largely ignoring those developments, only kept the story as a background and kept iterating on the image of mechs that it first showed to the players. In a way, it sort of preserved the Battletech's original identity.

Um, you seem to be getting lost in nostalgia there, again, please recall that BattleTech's ORIGINAL identity was copy-pasta'd off of a handful of anime sources (basically since that was the ONLY source for giant robot artwork in the '80s)

Sorry if the real history conflicts with your 'perfect nostalgia-land' - I also prefer the 'heavy' look that evolved through the vidja games, and I love with a passion the current artwork that is coming out of the MWO project, but at least I'm not someone who wilfully denies fact and history and actual origins of the millieu I enjoy.

[Dlardrageth]

empath, on 03 February 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

Despite having a big handful of different developers, Westwood Associates, Dynamix, Microprose, Spectrum Holobyte (almost), Microsoft Game Studios/FASA Interactive...no, no changes at all; funny that.

Maybe if you take off your rose-tinted glasses, you might realize that there WAS a fair bit of change and difference over the course of the various games.

You should in all fairness also mention that there has been more than a little debate on how some of these MechWarrior "iterations" didn't do much more than appropriate the name/label. I wouldn't describe myself as a hardcore "TT zealot", but I still have second thoughts about MW4 being a "MechWarrior game", and let's not even mention MechInsult in that context... And that "fair bit of change and difference" could be seen as well detrimental as beneficial. If you go back to the original MW and pull the focus away from the bastardizations some of the computer games became later on, there you have an element of continuity for sure.

I am almost willing to bet, that if the BT/MW fanbase were more violently inclined, the FBI might have some extra unresolved car bombings in their databanks. Whose victims might coincidentally have been people responsible for some of the "MechWarrior" computer games and the brutalizing of the IP performed there. Often seemed the people tasked with that job knew Jack and sh**, and after Jack got fired and left town...

Quote

...and I enjoy people crowing about "MechWarrior" when they mean the videogames almost as much as the CoD-fanbois crowing about "MW" when they mean 'Modern Warfare".

Can't blame people for being daf... errr... uninformed, can you?

Quote

Sorry if the real history conflicts with your 'perfect nostalgia-land' - I also prefer the 'heavy' look that evolved through the vidja games, and I love with a passion the current artwork that is coming out of the MWO project,

Still sitting on the fence there partly, but at least it sure beats having a re-design that turns out to look like Mazinger or Gundam mecha!

[Alex Wolfe]

empath, on 03 February 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

Okay, look - let's get a little fact mixed in with your slander, there

I beg your pardon? My post was a defamation of what, again? Somebody's good name was at stake? I'm "slandering" whom now?

empath, on 03 February 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

Despite having a big handful of different developers, Westwood Associates, Dynamix, Microprose, Spectrum Holobyte (almost), Microsoft Game Studios/FASA Interactive...no, no changes at all; funny that.

Maybe if you take off your rose-tinted glasses, you might realize that there WAS a fair bit of change and difference over the course of the various games.

Uhmm... when it comes to mechanics, of course there were changes. When it comes to mech design itself, changes were minor at most. Battletech's evolution branched out over the years, while Mechwarrior's evolution remained constant, iterating on what the previous games have shown. Funny that, indeed.

What I mean to say is that there are many faces of BattleTech, but only one of Mechwarrior (game mechanics themselves being a different beast altoghether). Compare what BT has been concerning itself with, with the focus of Mechwarrior.





And yes, I realize that they are not the same machine, the point is how different design principles are on various BT's "sub-sections", besides "they are made of metal and have 1+d3 legs". MW developers, whoever they were at the time, concerned itself with only one segment (battlemechs), left the most obvious rip-offs behind with the Unseen legal mess or just never felt like picking them up (LAMs). Mechwarrior remained consistent and instantly recognizable.

empath, on 03 February 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

Um, you seem to be getting lost in nostalgia there, again, please recall that BattleTech's ORIGINAL identity was copy-pasta'd off of a handful of anime sources (basically since that was the ONLY source for giant robot artwork in the '80s).

Wow, enlightening. Which is also exactly what I admitted in the very post you're quoting?

Alex Wolfe, on 03 February 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Battletech indeed started by ripping off anime (and hey, that never did come back to bite it in the rear, right?)

Why do people quote posts they don't bother reading, I wonder...

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 04 February 2012 - 02:46 AM.

[Philipe von Rohrs]

Fists, i.e. Hand Actuators were a major game mechanic in Battletech .Good for pulling out trees or clobbering unfortunates with their own limbs.

Would be nice to do that here, but I suspect that may be too much to sort out..?

[Gabriel Amarell]

OK, how do you think a mech does a battlefield reload, there are not always cranes or gantrys around and even if support is available it is faster for the pilot to walk up to an ammo truck and pick up the reload module himself. There are also other uses such as salvage, and before you say, but the dedicated salvage vehicles do that; yes, of course they do but if your on a protracted mission behind enemy lines there are no support vehices. Hands serve a variety of utility purposes outside of combat and because of their utility many design's have chosen to retained them. Though certainly; cannonically speaking, hands do have combat uses those in combat uses are limmited, as are the utility uses. For this reason many mech design's have dropped the hands.

Its a design choice, utility that will likley be of use infrequently but may be very helpful under the right circumstances or weight savings to install beefier actuators or some other heavier component. Personally I love the look of hands, and Axe/Hatchet Man are some of my favorite designs. I also love battlemaster which if you read the technical readouts carries a PPC in the right hand. The PPC is described not as a part of the mech but rather as something that it carries in its right hand. What difference does it make? What if I wanted to change the weapon to an AC-10, Instead of installing one I can put down the PPC and Pick up the AC-10. Hand held weapons may be very rare in battletech but they do exist, and one of the advantages is that they can be changed between missions in minutes and not hours. This kind of utility may not mean anything in the computer games but it did in the old tabletop games and that is where battletech began.

In short, hands are certainly not a necessity in mech design but they can and do have uses, its up to the mech designers to make the call.

[STINK MONKEY]

How about a pair of hang on TESTICLES ,

[empath]

Alex Wolfe, on 04 February 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

I beg your pardon? My post was a defamation of what, again? Somebody's good name was at stake? I'm "slandering" whom now?

Well...okay, since you repeated the defamation of character by alleging illegal activity, see below.

you said:

me said:

, please recall that BattleTech's ORIGINAL identity was copy-pasta'd off of a handful of anime sources (basically since that was the ONLY source for giant robot artwork in the '80s).

Why do people quote posts they don't bother reading, I wonder...

yourself said:

Battletech indeed started by ripping off anime (and hey, that never did come back to bite it in the rear, right?)

WOW, you went and DID IT AGAIN?

Sorry for being subtle, let me connect all the dots for your simplistic clammer mind.

You use some pretty dubious terminology when you refer to FASA and the use of its first licensed artwork (Dougram/Macross/Crusher Joe), with the ADDED implication that they deliberately infringed on the rights of the artists/rights holders of said artwork.

"ripping off" has the connotation of WILFUL THEFT - which is NOT what FASA did, they licensed the art legitimately for the original purpose they were seeking, making boardgame miniatures.

The "...never did come back to bite it in the rear" also implies FASA engaged in illegal behaviour.

Accusing a person or entity of commiting a crime when no such crime occured is defamatory, and despite the reading and writing element involved with a forum post, it still seems to lack the permenancy involved when referring to "libel" so this sort of communication has previously been ruled (in some courts) as slander.

The ONLY way one could come to the conclusion that the whole 'Unseen' issue resulted from deliberate malfeasance is by concluding that FASA staff were aware of the limitations of the licenses they held and consciously decided to go ahead and publish books with the art included FULLY COGNIZANT that such would go beyond the scope of the FASA-held reproduction licenses, rather than possibility that a simple misunderstanding of what the licenses did and didn't permit or a miscommunication about further licenses being secured in time for publication.

Either FASA were deliberate thieves, or confused and inintentional misusers of partially-licensed artwork. Let's let Robert J. Hanlon judge which is more likely...or heck, go all the way back to Napoleon

Just simply saying "Battletech indeed started by ripping off anime..." is blatantly wrong on several levels, and could be seen as slander.

Unless you were accusing Jordan Weisman of conscious and deliberate theft?


But since you're so fond of cherry-picking the context out of my posts, I'm just gonna leave this as my last attempt to introduce fact instead of innuendo, and leave this thread for /dev/null...

[Alex Wolfe]

empath, on 04 February 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

Sorry for being subtle, let me connect all the dots for your simplistic clammer mind.

Classy. Real classy.

empath, on 04 February 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

"ripping off" has the connotation of WILFUL THEFT - which is NOT what FASA did, they licensed the art legitimately for the original purpose they were seeking, making boardgame miniatures.

I suppose I will take your advice and not use any colloquial strong words which may be misunderstood (as the term just as well may mean "something, such as a film or story, that is clearly imitative of or based on something else"... especially in art context. Like, say, pictures? The game is afoot), lest an armchair forum lawyer jumps at a the slimmest chance to accuse me of malicious intent, in caps nonetheless. Noted, as is the irony of the situation where one person accuses the other of accusing others of malicious intent while lacking evidence, while lacking evidence.

empath, on 04 February 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

The "...never did come back to bite it in the rear" also implies FASA engaged in illegal behaviour.

The details of the case are unclear, but the judges were unimpressed either way and FASA did lose the case. Whether it was negligence or wrongful intent it's anyone's guess, but it seems that they did at least fail to make sure they're in the clear legally, and it did come back to haunt the franchise for years, whenever someone tried to bring those designs back instead of leaving well enough alone because of their disputed legal status. I stand by my words, thank you very much.

empath, on 04 February 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

Unless you were accusing Jordan Weisman of conscious and deliberate theft?

For the nickname, you seem awfully quick to jump to conclusions and just attribute the worst intentions to others, mr. Wright. If pressed...

empath, on 04 February 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

CAPS

...I could only say I'm accusing you of being in need of brushing up on your forum etiquette.

Good day.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 04 February 2012 - 01:53 PM.

[Chuckie]

Mason Isnt this thread done yet..?

[Logan Solo Sinclair]

I like fists.