Which Mechs *Need* a Redesign?
#61
Posted 14 March 2012 - 02:44 AM
As it has that incredibly silly look that all 'mechs had in the '80s. But has the potential to look very distinct and cool.
The Earlier Kintaro KTO-18 , with 3 SRM6s, and 2 Med lasers would be ,although seriously ammo dependant, a visually cool 'mech when it engaged in a fight.
Later versions just got more and more effective as Clan/Los tech came online.
#62
Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:16 AM
All the Ost* mechs should be given redesigns, except the Ostwar, which is an AoW design anyway and doesn't really factor in.
The Vulcan, Assassin, Stalker, and Firestarter need help badly.
The Zeus looks terrific as the Zeus-X, with the little feather heat sinks. It's amazing that that tiny addition was all that was required to make it pop. Surprisingly, Dark Age minis actually depicted the Zeus perfectly. They're super cheap and make for a neat desk decoration.
The Cyclops and Highlander both can be saved if their designs are based around the MechCommander 2 depictions, which were surprisingly competent. The same can actually be said of a lot of homely mechs that showed up there.
The Wyvern is a hideous abomination. Strike it down, there's no saving it.
I would love to see the Warhammer as it appeared in the 2009 trailer. From my understanding HG actually backed down on that depiction. It's good to go, and it's gorgeous.
The Wolverine is an abomination. FD can fix it.
I want to see the Crab and King Crab in-game as FD depicted them.
Many assaults need help. Banshee is a boxy mess. Charger is an amputee wearing granny shades. Stalker is a phallus on legs.
The Firestarter has always struck me as a sort of close relative of the Commando, and I'd like to see that reflected if it shows up in MWO.
I'd like to see a gold option to replace the Atlas head assembly with one resembling the 2009 MW Trailer's Atlas.
Sorry for the train-of-thought style post, but it does compress everything I'd like to see in a quick way for the devs.
Devs, Paul, Alex, or someone, could you drop a post in this thread if you've read it? Thanks.
#63
Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:23 AM
#64
Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:25 AM
Fin.
#65
Posted 14 March 2012 - 04:02 AM
#66
Posted 14 March 2012 - 07:40 AM
#67
Posted 14 March 2012 - 07:52 AM
#69
Posted 14 March 2012 - 08:19 AM
Only problem is, some of the 3025 designs are kinda stupid too. Panther, Banshee, Enforcer, basically anything that looks like they tried to give it a face.
Oh, and I also think the 3025 Jagermech is damn cool. Mostly because it isn't trying to look cool - it looks like pure function over form to me, and I love that.
Edited by Stovebolt, 14 March 2012 - 08:20 AM.
#70
Posted 14 March 2012 - 09:20 AM
Hans Von Lohman, on 14 March 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:
Yeah, I know the concept of a giant robot is actually silly if you think about it logically, but if we're going that route, then I tend to prefer to be on the plausible side of the scale. In other words make them look like stuff you see in the real world army (with legs and arms) and not like the overpowered things we used to drawn when we were 6 years old when nothing but power mattered, and US battleship was better because it now had 8 guns per turret, and definitely had ot have at least 20 turrets.
Then, what about those 'Mechs that are intentionally designed to invoke certain human designs?
The Commando, for example, is obviously designed to invoke the image of an actual commando.
Likewise, the Hatamoto-Chi is clearly designed to invoke the image of its namesake (the hatamoto were a class of samurai "in the direct service of the Tokugawa shogunate of feudal Japan").
The crest on the head of the Centurion seems intended to be evocative of the late Roman ridge helmet.
And what is the point of either the Hatchetman or the Axman without their respective eponymous weapons?
Also, "Japanese mecha" encompases a lot, from the relatively-realistic "real robot" sub-type (exemplified by the "Guntanks" from the older U.C. Gundam, the "Destroids" from Macross, the "Tactical Armors" from Gasaraki, the "Armored Troopers" VOTOMS, the "HAVWCs" from Flag, and so on) to the more-outlandish "super robot" sub-type (exemplified by Gurren Lagann, Getta Robo, Zone of the Enders, and so on).
RX-75 Guntank (Mobile Suit Gundam: the 08th MS Team (1996)):
ATM-09-ST Scopedog (Armored Trooper VOTOMS (1983)):
HAVWC (High Agility Versatile Weapon Carrier, pronounced "havok") (Flag (2006)):
While I agree that BattleMechs should follow the "real robot" design philosophy rather than the "super robot" design philosophy, attempting to broadly "avoid trying to make them look like Japanese Mecha" is tantamount to "let's not bother making them 'mechs' at all - just make them particularly heavily-armed tanks, like a Bolo".
#71
Posted 14 March 2012 - 11:10 AM
I'm not a huge fan of the Ost series either, and the Quickdraw is undoubtedly the ugliest thing in 3025. Most of the others I can deal with. It may just be that I started before 3025 even hit, but the later stuff went downhill for me. Most of the 3050 Clan designs ranged from decent to great, with a few exceptions (looking at you, Warhawk), but the new IS 3050 designs were generally ick, and 3055 just continued the slide.
On the issues of hands/faces/etc - whether you like them or not, humans like to anthropomorphize things when they can. We paint eyes and mouths on war vehicles all the time. The entire CONECPT of the BattleMech is anthropomorphic - at no point will humanoid giants be more effective than the tanks and the like we currently use. Center of gravity and ground pressure guarantee that. So it seems rather ironic to me to complain about unrealistically anthropomorphic features on a giant unrealistic anthropomorphic vehicle even before consider that it's something that would probably be very common.
#72
Posted 14 March 2012 - 11:26 AM
#73
Posted 14 March 2012 - 12:10 PM
Edited by Risky, 14 March 2012 - 12:11 PM.
#74
Posted 14 March 2012 - 12:15 PM
I would like to see an updated Marauder, Warhammer, and/or Battlemaster.
#75
Posted 14 March 2012 - 12:40 PM
#76
Posted 14 March 2012 - 12:49 PM
#77
Posted 14 March 2012 - 12:59 PM
#78
Posted 14 March 2012 - 01:02 PM
#79
Posted 14 March 2012 - 04:14 PM
#80
Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:10 AM
13 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 13 guests, 0 anonymous users