15 replies to this topic

[Ziogualty]

Probably few know about Blood Bowl.
It a game about Warhammer fantasy world, but it's a football game.

Of course it's a warhammer title: there are orcs, men, goblins, and all the chars of the classic Warhammer franchise.
But it has nothing to do with Warhammer, since it's a football game.

I can pretty state the same about MWO.
It is MechWarrior for sure: it has Mechs, Mech bay, ACs, Lasers and LRM.
But it has nothing to do with Mechwarrior: just a brawl in squared maps.

Let's say it straight: without the francise this game would be less than mediocre.

Amazing graphic and great Mechs desing feels like the perfect bait for Battletech fans.
Apart from that, poor gamplay offer, few maps, loads of bugs, very slow and uncertain feature updates make it like every other F2P out there (in most cases, worse).

And devs seems to ask theirselves "Why WoT has so much success and MWO not?"...
Making this game more and more "casual" every day, with the Mechwarrior Killer (3rd person view) on top of their priorities.

I start to fear that if it will bring loads of new custiomers (cash) they could even introduce the gameplay mode:
"Save Hello Kitty from the evil Pokemons"!
Leaving mechs and mech bay the only things related to BT.

I know it sounds like a complaint, and i know as well that the Elite troops of Fanboys will tear me apart alive in small pieces for this post.

But at this point i'm really, really scared that MWO will show the world that Battletech unieverse is not appealing anymore, killing the francise once and for all, while almost everyone here have great hopes that this game would be the spark that give Mechs a second gold era.

Edited by Attank, 21 November 2012 - 06:28 AM.

[PurpleNinja]

Attank, on 21 November 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

Let's say it straight: without the francise this game would be less than mediocre.

And that's, my friend, is the only reason I'm still here.

[Buckminster]

Give them time to add additional game modes. Don't forget that when WoT launched, it only had one game mode as well.

[OpCentar]

Attank, on 21 November 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

...
And devs seems to ask theirselves "Why WoT has so much success and MWO not?"
...

Let me answer that one. I have a looong history with WoT, played about 14k games on the EU server.

The thing that WoT has is a market niche - tank warfare and really low sys requirements. It can run on 7 year old PCs without problems.

Those two things draw in massive crowds. Then they hit the "grind" and stay hooked for a long time.


Now we got a market niche with BT, and the gameplay isn't all that bad. Hell, it's similar to most stuff out there but with less content.

But the system requirements are *insert too damn high meme*. I get the eye candy/CryENGINE3/lose the old PC but that caters to a minority in F2P.


People would learn to deal with all the gameplay bugs if they could actually play the damn game! so fix the framerate issues devs, do whatever it takes to make it run on the lowest possible settings and you will see a major influx of new players, guaranteed.

More players = more funds rolling in.

[DeeSaster]

Apart from the claim (which I disagree upon, just for the record) that MWO would be mediocre without the franchise and that it is among the worse F2P titles out there.

You are worried about the second and new golden era of Battletech will stop right before it could really start. So what have you done to prevent that? Bought thousands of MC? Got 3 friends to play the game? Got one of them to dish out cash for the founders program? Spread positivity in the forums and in other media?

Tell me, I am intrigued.

[Webber]

I think you're looking for a full release game, OP. Come back in a couple months.

As it stands, the game is fun, and there's plenty more to come. Don't dumb down the looks of the game, because the system requirements on it are already fairly mediocre. My friend can run this on a moderately priced laptop he got two years ago. No problems.

[Soy]

Webber, on 21 November 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

Don't dumb down the looks of the game, because the system requirements on it are already fairly mediocre. My friend can run this on a moderately priced laptop he got two years ago. No problems.

Whats your friends framerate post [new] patch..?

[Dewil]

Attank, on 21 November 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

Probably few know about Blood Bowl.
It a game about Warhammer fantasy world, but it's a football game.

Of course it's a warhammer title: there are orcs, men, goblins, and all the chars of the classic Warhammer franchise.
But it has nothing to do with Warhammer, since it's a football game.

And why is the Blood Bowl computergame such a success? Because even with bad coding, plenty of bugs, bad AI and lots of other bad things it stays true to the original game giving those of us who already liked the tabletop game an option to meeting up in the local game-store to play a game and can play against people from all over.

(And yes, in the local store we have a league with almost 20 players playing regularly.)

FUMBBL might have more players, but I would still call Cyanides game a success.

Edited by Dewil, 21 November 2012 - 06:15 AM.

[SiDheBRX]

Webber, on 21 November 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

I think you're looking for a full release game, OP. Come back in a couple months.

As it stands, the game is fun, and there's plenty more to come. Don't dumb down the looks of the game, because the system requirements on it are already fairly mediocre. My friend can run this on a moderately priced laptop he got two years ago. No problems.

Couldn't have said it better. I've said it elsewhere: I have loads of fun, which also ofc is largely due to teamplay, even in the 4pl drops..

Moderately priced laptop of last year, i.e. early 2011 here. Yesterday, after patch, 20-30 fps on high settings.

[Webber]

SiDheBRX, on 21 November 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

Couldn't have said it better. I've said it elsewhere: I have loads of fun, which also ofc is largely due to teamplay, even in the 4pl drops..

Moderately priced laptop of last year, i.e. early 2011 here. Yesterday, after patch, 20-30 fps on high settings.

This.

While he's not the friend I was talking about, this still describes what I'm talking about.

[Ziogualty]

DeeSaster, on 21 November 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

Apart from the claim (which I disagree upon, just for the record) that MWO would be mediocre without the franchise and that it is among the worse F2P titles out there.

You are worried about the second and new golden era of Battletech will stop right before it could really start. So what have you done to prevent that? Bought thousands of MC? Got 3 friends to play the game? Got one of them to dish out cash for the founders program? Spread positivity in the forums and in other media?

Tell me, I am intrigued.

Buy thousands of MC?
benefits to Battletech? uncertain.
Benefit to PGI? solid.

Bring friends to play the game?
Done, a lot more than 3 (almost all my clan).
And was a boomerang, because they leave first and then told their friends this game is crappy.

Founders program?
Done. They ask for refund before OB (2 of them made legendary, one elite, some vet.).

Sad but true.
Not just intriguing...

For people having loads of fun: i wish i was you. I'm pretty sure my MWO experience was ruined by WoT, because i had enough (about 7k battles) about countdowns, random matches, deathmatch with capture the flag and squared maps, playing with no passion just to grind next unlock.
I can state for sure that if i never played WoT, my experience with MWO would be much more enjoyable.

Edited by Attank, 21 November 2012 - 05:49 AM.

[Kerguidou]

I've bought and followed Cyanide's blood bowl computer game and it's crap at so many levels that I've decided to never ever buy any other games from that company.

For one thing, over the six months I've played starting at release, they have failed to properly implement the rules over the choices the players have. In the table top version, the player can refuse to do pretty much any action he has the opportunity to do, but the computer game would force these actions. There are other rules issues that would be somewhat technical to explain.

However, the biggest issue regarding the PC release was that there was no serverside checksum. In other words, you could alter as much you want files and cheat like that. Game developers have known at least since Diablo 1's day that failing to implement basic security like that is a horrible idea.

Furthermore, the game was buggy as hell, with terrible sound clipping and random crash to desktops. And other releases were entirely broken. For instance, the DS version would crash and corrupt your team's files after about an hour of play. There is only one way this could make it through QA... there was no QA.

[Buckminster]

Kerguidou, on 21 November 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

I've bought and followed Cyanide's blood bowl computer game and it's crap at so many levels that I've decided to never ever buy any other games from that company.

For one thing, over the six months I've played starting at release, they have failed to properly implement the rules over the choices the players have. In the table top version, the player can refuse to do pretty much any action he has the opportunity to do, but the computer game would force these actions. There are other rules issues that would be somewhat technical to explain.

However, the biggest issue regarding the PC release was that there was no serverside checksum. In other words, you could alter as much you want files and cheat like that. Game developers have known at least since Diablo 1's day that failing to implement basic security like that is a horrible idea.

Furthermore, the game was buggy as hell, with terrible sound clipping and random crash to desktops. And other releases were entirely broken. For instance, the DS version would crash and corrupt your team's files after about an hour of play. There is only one way this could make it through QA... there was no QA.

I'm actually in the same boat with Cyanide's Blood Bowl. I bought the Legendary edition on PC, and the thing has been so buggy that I've sworn to never buy another edition.

That being said, Cyanide has done nothing to address the issue, while PGI has done a decent job (imho) of addressing concerns. They are still actively developing the game, and are very up front about it. Cyanide's Blood Bowl was supposed to be a complete product and it isn't, and they've made it clear that they have no intent of fixing it.

[Sam Slade]

Yeah I know Bloodbowl...

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=IJNR2EpS0jw

[DeeSaster]

Attank, on 21 November 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

Buy thousands of MC?
benefits to Battletech? uncertain.
Benefit to PGI? solid.
[...]
For people having loads of fun: i wish i was you. I'm pretty sure my MWO experience was ruined by WoT, because i had enough (about 7k battles) about countdowns, random matches, deathmatch with capture the flag and squared maps, playing with no passion just to grind next unlock.
I can state for sure that if i never played WoT, my experience with MWO would be much more enjoyable.

Benefit for PGI is the only way to help the franchise. It took many years for a new iteration of the series. I don't even want to think about how many more it will take, if MWO is anything less than a solid success. Possible investors will drop the franchise like a hot potatoe...

Seems I got lucky to stop rolling out tanks somewhere between my 4000th and 5000th game, because I still am enjoying the hell outta MWO.

[Sayyid]

I know of Blood Bowl, quite well. First game I ever played was back in 1990 or 91, been hooked ever since.

Now I have the Blood Bowl computer game and occassionally play online, I played on the old Java FUMBLE Blood Bowl leagues for a good while. I love the game, and your right, that game would be no where without the franchise. Same can be said for Mechwarrior Online.