177 replies to this topic

[Fugu]

I can't really compare the two games. They are way too different and I like both for different reasons.
What I really like about Hawken that I miss in MW:O is that it's working way better. The interface, the Options, the stability - just about everything that's got to do with the client itself and the handling of it is downright better than it is with MW:O.

Oh and I'd really like servers but I don't thing we're ever going to get them.

[Mav Pryde]

I've played the closed beta for Hawken also and I think too many people on here are too hard on it. As far as the mech combat is concerned, Hawken is clearly an eastern interpretation of mech battle. Look at Gundam, Macross, Full Metal Panic, etc... Virtually ALL depiction of mech battles in asian media (anime mostly) are fast moving combat with emphasis on close encounters.

Mechwarrior on the other hand is a very westernized mech combat. Based in TT and novels, it's closer to tank combat and more "realistic". Slower moving, slower rate of fire, with emphasis on armor and weight classes.

When you get down to it, it really isn't a matter of whether one is more sim than the other. Just a matter of preference.

With that said, I found that I preferred MWO over Hawken. Hawken still has some massive balancing issues to work out imo. Certain classes of mech completely dominates one over the other. The map is small, but worse, it's too crowded. It favors the closer combat/large explosion mechs far too much. If it were only certain maps, it wouldn't be a problem, but ALL maps that I played in had a similar feel. As stated by others, the mechs are made up of paper. They die too fast. Yes, you do respawn, but I would still like for the mech to feel sturdier. Lastly, the colors are too monotone. Pretty nice when you first look at it, then everything starts to blend together...

Pros of Mechwarrior... well I'm sure you guys know it already.

[groundhouse]

Ratheron, on 10 November 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

Okay to the people that are ranting about the skill tree's Let me pose a question too you. so if i give you a M-16 and your put into a fire fight with a Army Ranger... Now in real life as you fought this man you would start to learn tactics and you would learn the way the firearm works with diff. ammo and ways to fire the weapon in the most advantageous way. So in a simulator this is shown in a skill tree. if you honestly dont think that mister Army Ranger wouldnt eat your lunch in a fire fight becuase he has more skill with his weapons than you sir are ignorant and dont understand the mechanics of war. The weapon is only 10 percent of the fight the person holding the weapon and his experiance which is reflected in a skill tree in a game is the other 90%. The problem that people have is you cant effectivly show skill in a game beyond a specific degree because your not controlling the mech the mech is following a predeterminded path and movement. thats what skill trees are for to show advancement in the game. Hopefully this explains it enough if you still think otherwise than it is pointless to argue the meaning too you becuase you have obviously never learned how to be better at anything in your life and than tried to carry that knowledge into a gaming enviroment

Who rant about tthe Skillsystem?.

U know the Different between RL & Games?.

RL-War = No Fun (shooting a Weapon can be funny, but killing other with it not!!!!!!!)
Game = Fun
RL-War/Fight = Advantage needed for winning.
Game = No Advantage needed for winning or havin fun ( see dota,lol,etc..)

Big Advantages in Games only good for E-Peen or making Money.

Edited by groundhouse, 10 November 2012 - 09:01 AM.

[Ultrabeast]

Mav Pryde, on 10 November 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

I've played the closed beta for Hawken also and I think too many people on here are too hard on it. As far as the mech combat is concerned, Hawken is clearly an eastern interpretation of mech battle. Look at Gundam, Macross, Full Metal Panic, etc... Virtually ALL depiction of mech battles in asian media (anime mostly) are fast moving combat with emphasis on close encounters.

Mechwarrior on the other hand is a very westernized mech combat. Based in TT and novels, it's closer to tank combat and more "realistic". Slower moving, slower rate of fire, with emphasis on armor and weight classes.

When you get down to it, it really isn't a matter of whether one is more sim than the other. Just a matter of preference.

With that said, I found that I preferred MWO over Hawken. Hawken still has some massive balancing issues to work out imo. Certain classes of mech completely dominates one over the other. The map is small, but worse, it's too crowded. It favors the closer combat/large explosion mechs far too much. If it were only certain maps, it wouldn't be a problem, but ALL maps that I played in had a similar feel. As stated by others, the mechs are made up of paper. They die too fast. Yes, you do respawn, but I would still like for the mech to feel sturdier. Lastly, the colors are too monotone. Pretty nice when you first look at it, then everything starts to blend together...

Pros of Mechwarrior... well I'm sure you guys know it already.

Hawken is a cheap ripoff of TF2. I'll admit the map design and graphics are awesome, but the mechs look like Corky in Life Goes On or BMW's design engineer from 2006-2009 designed them.

Here's TF2: Wow, let's make a class that can place turrets (Engineer)

Here's Hawken: Wow, let's make a mech that can place turrets

Same freaking thing.

[Sam Slade]

played both, Hawken is OK; feels like I'm a microwave oven wearing a fat suit with rocket skates but it looks OK(not as pretty as mwo). The hit detection in Hawken is BAD. hit boxes are poorly defined and lag is everything. They have actually gotten worse since the Alpha tests. Considering it is just hit points FPS damage this is a real issue; hard to notice without testing specifically but I wanted to see if it had been changed since the last two tests.
annother thing that really lets it down is replacing real mechanical customization with a generic skills tree: there is no real forethought in mech design... do I go sniper or heavy for this respawn?
I can see why it turned heads as a game but those same heads will be spinning with awe at the next CoD release which is being pitched as the greatest ever.

Edited by Sam Slade, 10 November 2012 - 09:14 AM.

[Darzok]

In the Alpha 2 Hawken was ok nothing great would play it maybe once a week at best due now its in the closed Beta its become crap.

I don`t know what they have done but form alpha 2 to CB the game has gone form been ok to just been flat out bad the game no longer feels like a mech game more like CS with away to heal.

The only mech worth using now is the light the Med and Heavy are worthless why take more hp and armor when a light can deal as much damage and be so much faster fighting them is annoying.

If you get in to a fight with a light unless you are in a light you have just lost unless there a bad player as they can just circle you to death most of the time been 100% immune to you even with the instant 180 turn.

I laugh when people said MWO was inbalanced yes there are a few problems with some builds and weapons but its not as bad as in Hawken.

Hawken has looks but that is about all the over all gameplay is lackluster and dull they badly need to fix that other wise its not a game worth playing as there are other games that have the same game play style but do it much better.

MWO gameplay style stands out as its not super fast fights you feel like you are trying to move a many many tons of steel around and be able to have a nice good fight that is not over after you fire the first shot.

Edited by Darzok, 10 November 2012 - 09:06 AM.

[Ultrabeast]

Sam Slade, on 10 November 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

played both, Hawken is OK; feels like I'm a microwave oven wearing a fat suit with rocket skates but it looks OK(not as pretty as mwo). The hit detection in Hawken is BAD. hit boxes are poorly defined and lag is everything. They have actually gotten worse since the Alpha tests. Considering it is just hit points FPS damage this is a real issue; hard to notice without testing specifically but I wanted to see if it had been changed since the last two tests.

Yeah that happens often with games. The producer of the game gets a hot girlfriend who has a "Mentally not quite there" cousin who is great at mech design, at least according to his hot girlfriend. How could she possibly be wrong? He used to be in the show Life Goes On as Corky and worked at BMW from 2006-2009 designing the ugliest cars in the world, before he got fired and almost lynched by a mob of BMW owners.

[SuperPuppy]

Sp4wNers, on 10 November 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

5 maps, not 4. And there will be more. Also there will be at least one more gameplay mode.

Are you serious!? I know you meant at least 1 more gameplay mode, but I was assuming a good 3 more at least. If we actually do get just 1 gameplay mode, MWO will get really boring really fast.

P.S: And if that 1 game mode turns out to be just plain boring TDM, PGI can just shoot themselves.

[Taizan]

groundhouse, on 10 November 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

You pay for Better Armor,Mechs,Skills,Upgrades!, without spending Time in Gaming,for Killing other without this Advantage. (same as all other Pay to Win Games).
Better Armor,Skills,Weapon are not a Adavantage against other without this?,50$ the same as 50Cent?,iam ignorant?,ahaha.

Which game are you talking about? Not MWO it seems to me. All those dudes with the founder tag, they pilot exactly the same mechs that are available to the freeplaying players, same upgrades, same weapon systems, same ammo. The only difference is that they get 25% more C-bills and sometimes get to feel a bit elitist (luckily only a few, most are actually quite friendly / helpful).

Sorry for feeding the troll. :-/

[Ultrabeast]

Taizan, on 10 November 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Which game are you talking about? Not MWO it seems to me. All those dudes with the founder tag, they pilot exactly the same mechs that are available to the freeplaying players, same upgrades, same weapon systems, same ammo. The only difference is that they get 25% more C-bills and sometimes get to feel a bit elitist (luckily only a few, most are actually quite friendly / helpful).

Sorry for feeding the troll. :-/

Just ignore that groundhouse guy or you'll start punching your monitor. He's a super troll.

[Cleverbird]

80Bit, on 10 November 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

I played 6 matches in Hawken and then uninstalled.

I had three major reasons I did not enjoy it.

1. It plays like a first person shooter, Call of Duty style, which is annoying and so far from realistic it feels unnatural. It's like making a racing game where there cars go from 0-60 instantly, stop instantly, can strafe instantly, and can fly.

2. The mech customization is bland and uninteresting.

3. It's ugly. The mechs look like Atlas scat. It feels like "Junkyard Wars: The Game". The film grain and color layout invoke a feeling of throwing rusted bolts into a rusted bucket.



I am sure some people will enjoy it, but not I.

Can I have your account? Because I actually want to play both games and think comparing them is stupid

Just because they both feature mechs, doesnt make them the same. It's like comparing Halo to Battlefield 3, just because they both have guns and vehicles.

[Icebound]

To me Hawken just looked like Call of Duty in mechs, but it seems like they have a really good team that can get a lot of content out fast.

It's a good thing these two games have so little in common, otherwise I think PGI would be in dire straits to keep up with them.

[Ultrabeast]

Cleverbird, on 10 November 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Can I have your account? Because I actually want to play both games and think comparing them is stupid

Just because they both feature mechs, doesnt make them the same. It's like comparing Halo to Battlefield 3, just because they both have guns and vehicles.

Cleverbird, on 10 November 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Can I have your account? Because I actually want to play both games and think comparing them is stupid

Just because they both feature mechs, doesnt make them the same. It's like comparing Halo to Battlefield 3, just because they both have guns and vehicles.

Have you seen what the mechs in Hawken look like?

[Cleverbird]

Ultrabeast, on 10 November 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Have you seen what the mechs in Hawken look like?

Does that even matter?

[Fugu]

Cleverbird, on 10 November 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

Does that even matter?

Depends on how shallow one is.

[Konrad]

Apples vs Oranges

[Tebbo]

Apples and oranges.

They never figured out how to improve the way UE3 handles lag. Until they have some east coast servers going the game is nearly unplayable. Over 100 ping don't bother.

Hawken is like phantom crash and SLAI.

[zer0imh]

this sums it all up...
http://www.youtube.c...d&v=TDuJ3l9jiXY

i love mechwarrior online!

Edited by zer0imh, 10 November 2012 - 09:40 AM.

[Sp4wNers]

Nice vid man... And actually MWO has some nice graphics and i'm sure it will be better after DX11 patch. Hawken has good graphics too only difference is design. But I just hate fast moving mechs in Hawken :/

[groundhouse]

Ultrabeast, on 10 November 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

I guess not. To be honest, the girl's looks you are with doesn't matter either.



She's a hottie, right?

Nice pic!,your Girlfriend?. ...ohh wait..