91 replies to this topic

[Logan Winters]

I for one am very excited.

I've been waiting for a GREAT mechwarrior game since I played Mechwarrior 3

Not saying that this is, without a doubt, going to be GREAT..

But damn it's sure looking that way..

[Blue Shadow]

I vote yes! I like the direction this game is going in, it's the sort of mech game I've been waiting for - but without the single player lol, still couldn't ask for more.

[Alan Grant]

If it's heading to a PC near me, then yes I am very happy and like where MWO is heading.

Edit: Okay, who are the wise guys who voted no? Clearly they are anarchists and (removed)

Edited by Mason Grimm, 29 March 2012 - 03:53 AM.
Believe it or not some RU players might find that offensive.

[Woodstock]

Generally I think the answer is YES ... I like that its more of a sim than an arcade game. I like that they don't want the game to become an arms race to the 100 tonners. The concept of being able to effectively play all classes and sizes of mechs reflects the canon very well.

So far so good ... I think though, that how they handle matchmaking/battle creation/the perpetual nature of the game needs as much attention as the mechs we pilot, the weapons we fire, the graphics, sound etc.

That is, for me anyway, as important for maintaining and creating immersion as all of the rest put together.

There doesn't seem to be any one simple way to handle it either. Instant battles will be fun but give a pretty shallow experience immersion wise. (It might also make the game a flash in pan ... with no longevity...which I def don't want.) The lobby style will again be interesting but far more unwieldy. How do they tie together the merc company bidding system for contracts?

Will we assign our company to a planet and then the opposing corp will step in to challenge us? That has to be an incredibly slow process! Time zones of different corps etc. How will lone wolves fit into this system? If we are assigned to a contract ...can we still take part in instant battles? I think we probably will for real world reasons (This is a game and for the business model to work it has to be accessible to as many people as possible and feel free and fun.) But how will this effect immersion? Will we have to designate a mech for that contract? Stopping us from using it on the instant battles?

SOOOOO many questions.

And don't even start me on the clanners! I think everyone agrees that they have to be a playable 'faction'

(I say have to ...not should be. I personally don't think the majority of players can do them justice. I know I can't. But they have to be in there. It would tick too many people off if they weren't.)

But how to handle them and maintain their image as elite and alien? I guess we will find out about that in due time.

So yes on the right path ... but plenty of places up ahead for a wrong turn to be taken.

I agree though, I can't imagine a better company to be at the helm of this lovely ship.

[Zarkus]

I voted no - as it stands, MWO seems to be trying to be nothing more than a nice 'mech simulator, with the expected enhancements coming from the internet's increased bandwidth enabling voice and encouraging team-based play. The thing is, that's not MechWarrior - that's BattleTech. Make no mistake - I love BattleTech as much as the next nerd - but it's a waste of the game's potential, and the story behind the scenes has so much more potential to engage players if correctly (ambitiously?) implemented.

It may be that the game I envisioned MWO being and the game that can secure development funding are two different entities. Speaking with a game producer a friend a few years ago about why something like a MW MMO wasn't attracting interest, given that the people who grew up with the tabletop are of an age where disposable income is not holding them back, and he pointed to the failure of recent MW titles as the reason. My rebuttal that the games failed because they sucked (which I define as "trying to be nothing more than 'mech simulators") and left stimulating gameplay elements off the table entirely didn't carry much water: investors are just concerned with spreadsheets and dollar signs.

Nothing I've seen from MWO indicates it's going in any other direction, internet advances notwithstanding. The game can be more, and do things the previous games of the genre have failed to attempt, but MWO doesn't seem interested in doing those things. Maybe it's because the development funding isn't there. To me, that's irrelevant - if your devs are focused on making a mech simulator only, then the spreadsheets the investors looked at back in the day are going to tell the tale of this game's arc.

Edited by Zarkus, 29 March 2012 - 04:54 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

Currently - no.

But then I have been known to be wrong occasionally.

[Trevnor]

Zarkus, on 29 March 2012 - 04:46 AM, said:

I voted no - as it stands, MWO seems to be trying to be nothing more than a nice 'mech simulator, with the expected enhancements coming from the internet's increased bandwidth enabling voice and encouraging team-based play. The thing is, that's not MechWarrior - that's BattleTech. Make no mistake - I love BattleTech as much as the next nerd - but it's a waste of the game's potential, and the story behind the scenes has so much more potential to engage players if correctly (ambitiously?) implemented.

It may be that the game I envisioned MWO being and the game that can secure development funding are two different entities. Speaking with a game producer a friend a few years ago about why something like a MW MMO wasn't attracting interest, given that the people who grew up with the tabletop are of an age where disposable income is not holding them back, and he pointed to the failure of recent MW titles as the reason. My rebuttal that the games failed because they sucked (which I define as "trying to be nothing more than 'mech simulators") and left stimulating gameplay elements off the table entirely didn't carry much water: investors are just concerned with spreadsheets and dollar signs.

Nothing I've seen from MWO indicates it's going in any other direction, internet advances notwithstanding. The game can be more, and do things the previous games of the genre have failed to attempt, but MWO doesn't seem interested in doing those things. Maybe it's because the development funding isn't there. To me, that's irrelevant - if your devs are focused on making a mech simulator only, then the spreadsheets the investors looked at back in the day are going to tell the tale of this game's arc.

So, when you reference the other games of the genre, are you trying to reference MechAssault for the Xbox? Or MW:4 for the PC? Mechwarrior and Battletech are synonymous with each other, there is no separation. They are one in the same, both from the same canon, both with the same rich back story.

Also, what more do you actually expect from a MechWarrior title besides just the simulation end? You didn't outline any other ideas, nor any suggestion for the devs. From what I read, you just voted no, because you don't like simulations.

As for the MW MMO, which I assume, means that you're talking about a new story set, even though technically, this game is an MMO. The thing with the Battletech universe, is there there is so much story already, that attempting to build a new story, with new tech is actually fairly difficult, and possibly has some legal issue behind it, as the rights are already owned by another company.

I for one, applaud the dev teams efforts thus far.

[Zarkus]

I only ever played the PC games (as opposed to the XBox titles). Prior to the PC games, I played both the BattleTech tabletop game and the MechWarrior RPG, which I still have the rulebook for. Also, while I have my own ideas about what else the game can be, beyond a simple simulator - I was just answering the question of the poll. And I love simulations, 'mech and otherwise.

MechWarrior is a roleplaying game, where the player character is ostensibly (if not necessarily) a 'mech pilot.

BattleTech is the tabletop warfare game.

Same universe, different focuses. They're only interchangeable if you've never played the RPG.

Edited by Zarkus, 29 March 2012 - 05:38 AM.

[Woodstock]

Zarkus, on 29 March 2012 - 04:46 AM, said:

I voted no - as it stands, MWO seems to be trying to be nothing more than a nice 'mech simulator, with the expected enhancements coming from the internet's increased bandwidth enabling voice and encouraging team-based play. The thing is, that's not MechWarrior - that's BattleTech. Make no mistake - I love BattleTech as much as the next nerd - but it's a waste of the game's potential, and the story behind the scenes has so much more potential to engage players if correctly (ambitiously?) implemented.

I kind of agree ... I guess I'm just more optimistic than you. I see, what... 5-6 months of dev info releases ... There is plenty of time for them to flesh out the immersive elements of the game.

I ... like you ... want them to make this game more about the world than the guns.

I hope they find the right balance.

Making it fun and fast paced to keep the numbers high ...but in my opinion the longevity of the game will come from the world.

Case in point .. WoT ... great fun game ... played for a while ... not touched it for months. It has no depth.

[CoffiNail]

Yes... daily ISN feeds of nothing pertaining to the game and only to the fluffy lore... they care nothing about story telling.

[Zarkus]

Straw man and sarcasm in one glorious, ellipsis-filled sentence. Bravo.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

No other options in the poll, I see))
I haven't voted, my view goes like this:
In general I'd say YES! Even at this point it offers much more to the BT fan than many of its predecessors. I like how the game looks and I like gameplay direction of the development.
Still, I'm not content with couple of mechs' redesign (e.g. dislike Dragon and Catapult redesign, but admire others) and I'm worried about the environment and the scale. From the gameplay footage neither me, nor my friends that I asked can feel that point of view is 10+ meters from the ground. It's not that big an issue, why, I could play MW4 feeling myself a small robot in a toyland and even enjoyed it, but in MWO everyone is talking about the scale, so let us see it and feel it...

As for the universe, the BT world and stuff in it, I'd like to see more of that, but maybe it will follow. Maybe not in this game, but in the next one)

Edited by Duncan Jr Fischer, 29 March 2012 - 05:52 AM.

[CoffiNail]

Zarkus, on 29 March 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

Straw man and sarcasm in one glorious, ellipsis-filled sentence. Bravo.

Well, no offense, but since October... 10th or so, they have had daily ISN feed, detailing some minor incident in the Inner Sphere. They are working heavily with Randall Bills to keep things as canon as they are. They have no singleplayer story, but instead it will be more MP based. Not sure myself how they will do it, but for keeping to tightly knit to canon, including variants... I find it very hard they are just here to give us some Mech combat. Contracts will be their story line, as it was in MW2 Mercs, including how it had a huge amount of random newsfeed for the lore fan.

Duncan Jr Fischer, on 29 March 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

From the gameplay footage neither me, nor my friends that I asked can feel that point of view is 10+ meters from the ground. It's not that big an issue, why, I could play MW4 feeling myself a small robot in a toyland and even enjoyed it, but in MWO everyone is talking about the scale, so let us see it and feel it...

You are also in a forested area, which makes it rather hard to tell scale. But if you think about it you are only 18m up, which is only 59 feet, just about two storys tall for a average home. These things do not tower over everything. I think if anything MWO has the scale right for the first time.

[StandingCow]

Very much so, I don't think anyone could do a better job.. and I base that on the love of the franchise that PGs has demonstrated. I can't think of many games (besides indie) where there is such a love and dedication.

[CoffiNail]

I was talking about something in IRC, and was told 'Money? This is not about money! This is about MechWarrior!'

[Trevnor]

Zarkus, on 29 March 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

I only ever played the PC games (as opposed to the XBox titles). Prior to the PC games, I played both the BattleTech tabletop game and the MechWarrior RPG, which I still have the rulebook for. Also, while I have my own ideas about what else the game can be, beyond a simple simulator - I was just answering the question of the poll. And I love simulations, 'mech and otherwise.

MechWarrior is a roleplaying game, where the player character is ostensibly (if not necessarily) a 'mech pilot.

BattleTech is the tabletop warfare game.

Same universe, different focuses. They're only interchangeable if you've never played the RPG.

Okay, granted, they are different in title. But just because this game uses the same title as the RPG, doesn't necessarily mean that it should be the same game, just because they carry the same title. If you are looking for players that RP, look no further than this.

Just because this game doesn't have a huge story, set by the devs, does not mean there can't be one. The players will generate it, that's what's great about this game. Story is a hard element to create in a game like this, simply because there is so much canon, so much lore and so many fans that know it really really well, yourself included. Would you like it if they made a story that followed after the Word of Blake Jihad, where the Clans suddenly decide to leave the IS again? Unlikely. The devs have just chosen the best way to implement this game so far as I'm concerned, where the canon is kept to as best as possible, and the players create their own stories and adventures.

[Shiinore]

Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Anyone who thinks otherwise can go nay-say themselves into a corner. It's been 10 years since the last MechWarrior game. I don't care if it ends up being another MechWarrior 4, I just want MechWarrior to be alive again.

[Mason Grimm]

I may have to change my vote to no as I really think that MWO needs a little bit more Marauder.

Other than that; i'm digging what I see so far!!!

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Mason Grimm, on 29 March 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

I may have to change my vote to no as I really think that MWO needs a little bit more Archer.

Other than that; i'm digging what I see so far!!!

Fixed, but its not going to happen lawsuits and all.

[Swiftfire]

I'm too excited about MWO to be objective at the moment, but I am pleased. Very pleased.