46 replies to this topic

[Mathmatics]

Warrax the Chaos Warrior, on 15 December 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

I played a little Hawken; it was okay, but they are completely different games and I personally like MWO a lot better.

Hawken is more stable and performs better. Makes me wish PGI had gone with a more simple to use and well established game engine, but being cutting edge now could mean more longevity in the future.

Hawken also might not have the abundance of balance issues, didn't play enough to really be able to tell, but here that is mostly an issue of the game being based on Battletech rules. I kind of wish PGI had set the game earlier in the timeline to avoid any t2 tech, but it's a bit late for that now.

Yeah I have not played nearly enough to know how the balance is either. It seems like they have enough content that the chaos of all the content might overshadow balance issues. Thats my preference really. Games like capcom vs snk 2. **** balance but so many chars it was a blast so who cares. I just want content man, and stability.

Oh yeah and they are completely different games and I like MWO a whole lot better as well. That being said, if harken is the other game I play right now, there's a lot more things Id see myself spending real money on in that game. Mostly the vanity items, they hit the nail on the head in hawken with that.

Undead Bane, on 15 December 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

Here. You earned it too:

Hahahaha, laid it on a little thick did I? Stupid being passionate about pixels, 0's and 1's

[Cleverbird]

Vulix, on 15 December 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

Hawken has no fixed window mode and gameplay is mindless and repetitive.
Hawken has non-existent mech customizability. Also, at one point I unlocked a new gun but there was a bug that didn't let me equip it. They had to hotfix the game this morning to fix the equip bug.

How is MWO not repetitive? If anything its far more repetitive than Hawken. At least Hawken offers 4 gamemodes.
And while MWO does offer more customization than Hawken, its not exactly non-existent. You can change quite a lot to your mech.

And how is that last thing you mentioned a bad thing? They found a bug, and hotfixed it the day after. I'd like to see MWO do that.

Dont get me wrong, I prefer playing MWO over Hawken, since I just like the feel of the slower mechs more, but Hawken is by no means a sh*tty game. It's at least far more polished than MWO is at the moment.

[Nonoka]

Jade Kitsune, on 15 December 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

I played Hawken during it's closed beta, I got possibly twenty matches in, and walked away.

Hawken isn't mechs to me, it's twitch COD gameplay with a "mecha" asthetic.

When I think Mech gameplay, I think Mechwarrior [including MWO and MW:LL] I think Earthsiege and Starsiege.

Slow, plodding, lasers and missiles and PPC's... Hawken doesn't have that. The asthetic AND the gameplay of Hawken fails on a "mech" level to me.

If you enjoy it, then by all means, enjoy it, but it's not Mechs... it has a "mech" skin around it, but it's just another twitch shooter. And I'm soo, absolutely tired of twitch shooters in this day and age. COD and Battlefield have burned me out on it.

Have to agree with Jade here, I felt the same way. I'm running through the level darting and weaving while telling myself, "Oh yeah, I'm in a Toaster Oven." Same old crap with a new look.

[Undead Bane]

Mathmatics, on 15 December 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

Hahahaha, laid it on a little thick did I? Stupid being passionate about pixels, 0's and 1's

Don't get me wrong, I love this game also. Hence, I've spent more time in it, than in any online game in several past years. And when I finally got into CBT I was SO happy - MW game... FINALLY!!!!!oneone111eleven (and please, don't mention MW:LL)
The point is, being a developer (though, not game dev, information security, which is sometime even more bitchy), I understand, that MWO is now nowhere near "digging the grave" stuff. Yes, I do not agree with several dev's decisions, but so far it looks and feels advancing in quite fast pace, in a direction that does not achieve perfect balance, which is good (though, some thing do need love, like PPCs, AC20s and LBXs and flamers with MGs), new content is introduced quite often for beta, that has so much unfinished in core mechanics and so on and so on. So, it does not look to my (pessimistic) eye as dying yet, only starting. Unlike, say, SWTOR was just 6 month after release. 2013 will show it all.

And Hawken... Well, I will rather play Armored core, or PS2, or COD, or BF, or pretty much any other modern shooter. It belongs to them, but is a bit underdog right now.

Edited by Undead Bane, 15 December 2012 - 06:03 PM.

[Tickdoff Tank]

I installed Hawken, but the game crashes my computer evry time I try and start the game. Their CS people told me to try again in a couple weeks because they are having issues with the game running with some of my hardware. But I don't think I can play it anyway, the mechs look like a 5 year old designed them with sidewalk chalk.

[Dax Frey]

I think you should go play that game...and never look back.

[Vulix]

Cleverbird, on 15 December 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

How is MWO not repetitive? If anything its far more repetitive than Hawken. At least Hawken offers 4 gamemodes.
And while MWO does offer more customization than Hawken, its not exactly non-existent. You can change quite a lot to your mech.

And how is that last thing you mentioned a bad thing? They found a bug, and hotfixed it the day after. I'd like to see MWO do that.

Dont get me wrong, I prefer playing MWO over Hawken, since I just like the feel of the slower mechs more, but Hawken is by no means a sh*tty game. It's at least far more polished than MWO is at the moment.

Every MWO match involves new strategy and team work. Hawken is just mindless shooting and respawning, every match plays the same.

I can play a MWO match and remember it a week later for how fun and strategic it was. I forget a Hawken match one hour after I play it

[SpiralRazor]

cmopatrick, on 15 December 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

man, i wish i did. i never was a c++ coder (what they ask for on their hiring page... i was a synon IIe and cool2E developer and dba w/ some lansa/acbs & sys admin) and not a game dev. i do think it's the project management level that needs to be reviewed. there must be a way to reign in the roll outs without impacting the game community. too little space to speculate here (without putting everyone to sleep).

As someone who runs a company that offers project management services to 3rd party clients, I could NOT agree with you more sir....

Vulix, on 15 December 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Every MWO match involves new strategy and team work. Hawken is just mindless shooting and respawning, every match plays the same.

I can play a MWO match and remember it a week later for how fun and strategic it was. I forget a Hawken match one hour after I play it

And I can do the same for MWO....because ive played hundreds of matches of MW3, 4 and MWO. The only thing i remember from the last time I played MWO was that there were far too many ECM mechs.

[cmopatrick]

Vulix, on 15 December 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Cryengine is technologically superior and I think MWO will have a better future 3 years from now with Cryengine over anything else. There are some comparisons of engines out there if you want to look them up to get full compairison of them. I think PGI just needs more time to fully learn the engine; when they become more proficient.

At the end of the day, it is really up to PGI to learn how to use their underlying technology to it's full potential. I think they would have had similar problems with Unreal if they went that route. Just give them time

i'll take your word for the first part (the superior bit). the second part is spot on perfect (they need to learn and become proficient).
i think my original opinion was based on a difference in thinking: i have heard that cry3 is more complex than unreal (yup, that would be hearsay, but in a sense, you almost confirm that). in the long run, you are probably right about top end. that said, if feels like they have rushed the development/deployment process without understanding all the issues any given combination of mods would introduce to either the engine working or to previous mods (the change management aspect). project management would seem to have missed several large issues, especially if staffing is focused in areas of appearance and not the qc/dev groups and their interactions.

btw, i have not really liked what i see in hawken; as others have mentioned, it leaves me with the twitch sense, and i'm not really a twitch person.

[Henree]

how about mwo with hawken presentation? I mean their Urban really looks Urban.

[LionOne]

If you haven't read "Armor" by John Steakley, you need to.

[Mathmatics]

Undead Bane, on 15 December 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong, I love this game also. Hence, I've spent more time in it, than in any online game in several past years. And when I finally got into CBT I was SO happy - MW game... FINALLY!!!!!oneone111eleven (and please, don't mention MW:LL)
The point is, being a developer (though, not game dev, information security, which is sometime even more bitchy), I understand, that MWO is now nowhere near "digging the grave" stuff. Yes, I do not agree with several dev's decisions, but so far it looks and feels advancing in quite fast pace, in a direction that does not achieve perfect balance, which is good (though, some thing do need love, like PPCs, AC20s and LBXs and flamers with MGs), new content is introduced quite often for beta, that has so much unfinished in core mechanics and so on and so on. So, it does not look to my (pessimistic) eye as dying yet, only starting. Unlike, say, SWTOR was just 6 month after release. 2013 will show it all.

And Hawken... Well, I will rather play Armored core, or PS2, or COD, or BF, or pretty much any other modern shooter. It belongs to them, but is a bit underdog right now.

Yeah, man. I love this game a whole lot. The things with balance im not terribly worried about. I would love to see some ppc love of course and same with lbx. Mostly I want more game modes. I want that thing pc gamer talked about with us setting tonnage limits to our drop ships and fighting over conquest in waves. I just dont see that happening any time in the near future. I hope I am wrong because unless this game turns into the MW2 arcade shoot'em up over night I am here for the long haul.

Oh yeah I would also rather play Armored Core than Hawken.

LionOne, on 15 December 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

If you haven't read "Armor" by John Steakley, you need to.

I have re bought that book so many times because I lend it out to anyone who shows a passing interest.

[RickySpanish]

Something to look out for when rubbishing the Crytek engine and PGI's choice to go with it:

Although 8v8 doesn't seem like much compared to other multiplayer games, how many other multiplayer games have their characters articulated to such a complex degree? MWO has a lot more data being sent inside matches than your average multiplayer FPS game, and I reckon that's playing a big factor in how sensitive the game is to network latency.

For comparison, the exact direction a player and their limbs are facing in a standard FPS isn't all that important, as long as you've got their head pointing roughly in the direction the player is actually looking in you're all set, you can get away with interpolating between poses and animations without it needing to be perfectly accurate. Furthermore, the location and orientation of the player's limbs and body parts are entirely defined by the action they are performing, therefore they need not be considered when sending data across the network.

Contrast that with MWO, where the mechs have individual components whose orientation forms one of the most fundamental aspects of its gameplay, and you can begin to get a picture of how much more demanding Mechwarrior is on your network connection with just a few mechs in a match.

[MrPenguin]

Dark Severance, on 15 December 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

They didn't actually start around the same time, over a year is not exactly the same time. There is a lot that can be done in a years time.

Hawken was announced on March 9th, 2011 with 9 months in development. That means they started development around June 2010.

Mechwarrior Online started development in November 2011. The tweet campaign that they finally received a backer started in October 2011, so they could of started development a month earlier but its closer to Nov 2011 that it actually started.

Hawken has had an extra 17 months of development (1 year, 5 months) MORE than Mechwarrior Online. Just saying...

Take your facts and get out, they're unneeded here!

[LionOne]

Mechwarrior 2 = BEST GAME OF THE FRANCHISE! It had armor, it had infantry, it had 'mechs, the mechanics were good, and the graphics (for the time) were awesome.

[Mathmatics]

LionOne, on 15 December 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Mechwarrior 2 = BEST GAME OF THE FRANCHISE! It had armor, it had infantry, it had 'mechs, the mechanics were good, and the graphics (for the time) were awesome.

I got mechwarrior 2 after aol started charging an hourly fee for MPBT. I was really impressed with the game but still missed the mmoness of MPBT. First MUD I ever played with actual graphics.

<edit for mw2 can not be the best mechwarrior game because of the silly ppcs>

Edited by Mathmatics, 15 December 2012 - 07:34 PM.

[LaserAngel]

I commend Hawken for bring a mecha game to the market but everything I've seen just reminded me of Quake III/UT 99 with a giant robot skin over it. It's just not the robot game for me. I want to feel like it's a giant stompy robot.

[Mathmatics]

LaserAngel, on 15 December 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

I commend Hawken for bring a mecha game to the market but everything I've seen just reminded me of Quake III/UT 99 with a giant robot skin over it. It's just not the robot game for me. I want to feel like it's a giant stompy robot.

Yeah, right, me too. Especially when I am playing Battletech. If im playing armored core or gundam tho I like to feel like a ninja robot.. Hawken is unique as in it is not at all like Armored Core or Gundam. It actually reminds me of ghost in the shell tech. I wonder if they tried to get the GITS license and failed so made Hawken instead. Which makes me wonder if PGI failed to get Battletech rights would the atlas have a giant TV for a head?

[Vulix]

Mathmatics, on 15 December 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Yeah, right, me too. Especially when I am playing Battletech. If im playing armored core or gundam tho I like to feel like a ninja robot.. Hawken is unique as in it is not at all like Armored Core or Gundam. It actually reminds me of ghost in the shell tech. I wonder if they tried to get the GITS license and failed so made Hawken instead. Which makes me wonder if PGI failed to get Battletech rights would the atlas have a giant TV for a head?

The first time I dashed my mech, I instantly thought of tachikomas. The mechs look like the battle armor suits in GITS too. Glad to see someone else thought of it

[LaserAngel]

Mathmatics, on 15 December 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Yeah, right, me too. Especially when I am playing Battletech. If im playing armored core or gundam tho I like to feel like a ninja robot.. Hawken is unique as in it is not at all like Armored Core or Gundam. It actually reminds me of ghost in the shell tech. I wonder if they tried to get the GITS license and failed so made Hawken instead. Which makes me wonder if PGI failed to get Battletech rights would the atlas have a giant TV for a head?

Vulix, on 15 December 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

The first time I dashed my mech, I instantly thought of tachikomas. The mechs look like the battle armor suits in GITS too. Glad to see someone else thought of it

Oh yes dashing, I already have a loop of the Tachikomas doing that in my mind. I love Battletech for well being Battletech. I still doesn't mean that I don't love my Gundams and other mecha either.

Homeworld is a lot like Battlestar Galatica, right guys?