26 replies to this topic

[Suprentus]

Magnificent *******, on 28 October 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

I'm not bias against people who know very little about the game... I'm bias against people who make "professional" videos for websites that people rely on for information that know nothing about the game. These are people that many other people rely on for accurate information and the video they created is severely lacking.

I guess we'll just conveniently forget about how I pointed out that the "inaccuracies" you stated aren't actually inaccurate?

Edited by Suprentus, 28 October 2012 - 07:54 PM.

[Araevin Teshurr]

Two guys sat down and ran around a game they really hadn't read up on and made a video for youtube.
Very bad review - I can do better!

[Suprentus]

Magnificent *******, on 28 October 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

I didn't list them all. If you can't see them for yourself... well I don't know what game you're playing.

Probably because you can't. You're apparently not very observant of the game you're playing, either, as you didn't realize that running increases heat generation. I noticed that even in the snow map. I think you're just annoyed because they didn't get technical enough, as if they're trying to appeal to a broad audience...hmm...

Really, I'm sure there are small errors here and there, but they are just so trivial that they don't even add or take away from initial impressions of the game. If you got mad at the video, then all you really accomplished was snobbish nitpicking. It's not like any error they might have made was as dumb as stating you can't customize mechs or something, like that one video that RL Nice posted.

Edited by Suprentus, 28 October 2012 - 11:07 PM.

[Terrin Hazen]

I watched the video myself as I saw the link to it on Gamespot, which actually reminded me/let me know that MWO existed.

Without being in the CB or knowing anything really about the game, I could spot the 'newb' errors in what they said, but overall it wasn't that bad of a look at the game from people who knew really nothing of Battletech and they had a fairly positive look of the game. Not the best look at the game, but wouldn't call it anywhere near horrible or bad either.

[Suprentus]

Alright, let's see if we can address these. You took the time to look through the video again to address my post, so I'll take the time to fact check and address your points.

Magnificent *******, on 29 October 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

Misleading or completely incorrect facts presented in the video I posted:

@1:20 Says MWO is based on MechWarrior 2.

They didn't say MWO was based on MW2; they said MW2 was the inspiration for MWO. I suppose I can't positively confirm that, but if you look through the developer interviews, most of them list MW2 as their favorite MechWarrior game. So that statement really isn't a stretch.

@1:26 Open Beta pushed back because of connection/lag issues.

Correct, that's detailed in this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...rns-oct-122012/

@3:30 Some of your weapons will be "turret mounted".

Yeah, that is technically wrong, though I think he meant to say "arm mounted" but had a brainfart moment. On a gameplay mechanics side, the arms do kind of function like turrets in a limited range of motion.

@5:28 Smaller 'mechs generate less heat from just walking around than bigger 'mechs.

I actually tested this out myself, and I find this statement to be true. Walking around, my Jenner would only generate about 2%-4% heat, while my Atlas or Awesome would generate 6%-8%. That said, I found the bigger mechs to dissipate heat faster, just because they have more room for heat sinks. That detail probably should have been included, but the statement is still not false.

@7:45 The lighter you are the faster you move.

That does tend to be true. On average, lighter mechs are faster. Also, a 200 engine gets you more speed on a 35 ton mech than a 50 ton mech. You could argue that you could slap a crappy engine on a light mech to make it slower than a heavier mech. But really, does it really give the wrong impression to new players if you just simplify it as "lighter=faster?"

@8:55 Talks about Founder's Program as if it's still active. At time of recording it was already over.

To be fair, that appears to be the fault of Gamespot, not those two guys specifically. You can clearly see on their launcher that the Founder's Program was being offered. I think we can surmise that Gamespot just released the video at a later date when the Founder's Program wasn't offered anymore. However, I think you have a point anyway, because they should have mentioned when the Founder's Program would end.

@9:23 There are 9 different classes of 'mechs (refers to "Commando Class" and then moves to "Assault Class" making no distinction between a chassis and a weight class).

Sure, I'll give you that one. Again, he meant something else, but just chose the wrong wording. However, in this case, I can see that that might confuse someone coming in.

@10:53 We don't know MC to C-Bills exchange (we do - although I suppose it is technically subject to change).

What they didn't know was the MC to Dollar exchange. I think this entitles me to attack you over poor word choice now! Really though, it's not really inaccurate, since they (those two guys) actually didn't know the exchange rate. It's more just an oversight than an inaccuracy.

@15:21 People are speculating those big events will impact the game (not speculation, confirmed and easy to find fact).

That's really not a misrepresentation of facts. I think you would have a point here if they said they're not likely to impact the game. However, whether they say speculation or confirmed, new players still get the impression to expect big events to impact the game.

*@17:53 He previously said none of his weapon groups are set. He makes no attempt to correct them. Instead just alpha strikes and fires LRMs without waiting for locks. You'd think he'd make an attempt to show how the game is properly played (if poorly) but doesn't seem to care.

Yeah, that actually is the one part that bugged me. He definitely could have tried to figure weapon groups out beforehand. I'll give you that one too.

Edit: While not technically a "misleading fact" that last one is just misleading as far as actual gameplay. I'd hate for prospective MWO players to think this is remotely what it is like to actually play the game.


My Jenner generates 4% heat from running at max speed and after it generates that it doesn't continue to rise from just running around. Whereas the uninformed viewers would probably assume it does.

But if you're running, you cool slower because running generates more heat. The statement is still accurate. It may be in simpler language, but it's still true that running=more heat. Maybe it might confuse someone, but I think anyone will be able to see that running alone won't overheat you once they jump in a game.

You can appeal to broad audiences without misinforming them. I just don't think they should have made a "professional video" for a game they haven't played/researched enough to grasp the basics of.

There's not really any misinforming going on here. Most of what you consider misinformation are true statements just put in simpler casual language. I really don't see anyone walking away from that video expecting something totally different from what the MWO actually is. The exception would be one of your few valid points about the Founder's Program, which leads to...

I don't know. Some of those errors seem pretty major to me. For instance we've had some people joining the forum lately asking about why they can't buy Founder's Packages. Possibly because this video suggests they still can.

...again, I don't think that's necessarily those guys' fault. Their launcher showed a Founder's Program, so it had to have been made when it was still up. I think Gamespot just took too long in posting it. Still, its outdatedness now is misleading, and they could have mentioned when the Founder's Program would end.

As far as initial impressions go... I would venture a guess that some people who hadn't seen MWO before might actually be disinclined to play it from that video. I certainly admit that my opinion is bias but I'd say he does an extremely poor job of showing his audience what the game is actually like.

I disagree. Not once did they criticize the game. Even when that one guy tried to suggest it looks like "play to win," the other corrected him, saying that it's not because nothing is locked from free players to acquire. lol, granted that was before Yen-Lo-Wang came out, but still. They also flat out stated that it's not a twitch reflex kind of FPS, and you have to think. I think that's about the most important point you can make in favor for MWO.

Edited by Suprentus, 29 October 2012 - 02:33 AM.

[flame867]

Lol, this is hilarious, oh my, we need some real reviews to get this game reviewed.

[Lysol]

I do agree this game is in desperate need of a tutorial or atleast a single player practice map so you don't get all these people that are basically a trial by fire. I have had to teach all my friends how to play that are new to this type of game. Very big learning curve.