167 replies to this topic

[BFett]

I would love it if MWO was a MMO but unfortunately I don't think it quite hits that mark. Take a look at Planetside2, 2000 players per server without instancing. I can only wish for the day we see mech warfare on this scale.

Edit: I would like to see most if not all of the gameplay elements from Mech Commander2 in MWO. I would like to see destructable buildings, turrent grids, gates, walls, repair trucks, and salvage copters.

Edited by BFett, 26 December 2012 - 02:13 PM.

[Wizard Steve]

I don't call it a sim. I call it Talulah.

[Windrider]

I would challenge your basic premise that a simulation has to simulate something that currently exists or is achievable via modern technology. We currently simulate anti gravity without the technology to create it. We don't have anti-gravity generators but we can dive a 747 from 24000 ft to 10000 ft in order to simulate anti-gravity; that's our current anti gravity simulator. Several military technology labs like Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, and Lockheed Skunkworks regularly use simulators that posit conditions that we cannot yet actively test, such as zero gravity flight, mach 9-10 combat, and yes, mechanized bipedal combat.

Saying this game is not a sim is discounting all the work that the creators of the game have gone through, and I don't mean just PGI. I also mean FASA, Microsoft, Whiz Kids, Hasbro, Palladium books, etc. They created a world with detailed history, and they created a simple but well thought out rules set for creating, running, fighting, repairing, and otherwise operating 3 story tall robot tanks called battlemechs. They then created software to place the player in the cockpit of said battlemechs, as well as several other games that take cover other aspects of the Battletech universe.

The reason people are up in arms about Mechwarrior being a simulation and not an arcade game is that traditionally, all Mechwarrior games on the PC/MAC platform that have shared the name Mechwarrior have been first person perspective shooters. Not to say that there haven't been other great games in the franchise that took other takes on it (Mechcommander was basically an RTS game, Mech Assault on the Xbox was an Arcade shooter, Mechwarrior on the PS2 was a 3rd person shooter, Megamek and Mechwarrior Tactics are turn-based tactical games), but this specific franchise has always been about piloting one mech. The later games gave you the ability to command a lance or 2 of mechs via commands, but you could only look out your own mech cockpit.

Adding a third person view in this game would take away some of the simulation involved in this game, I have seen other sims try it before, but usually as part of a mission review as opposed to a live view. The main reason for this is that 3rd person breaks immersion, and gives you a view that a real pilot would not have. As far as I can tell, most people want this because it will allow them to see what is going on behind them and around them while their are under attack, To me that smacks of looking for an advantage that shouldn't be there. Now if you had asked PGI to install a tail cam with a monitor in the cockpit I am all in agreement with that, but 3rd person view will take away from the immersion and give unfair advantages that real pilots don't have.

[IIIuminaughty]

Spoo Hunter, on 26 December 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Only TRUE similator??? There is also X-Plane, which because it works by simulating airflow over the airfoils is a more accurate flight simulator than Flight Simulator. Orbiter is a good spaceflight simulator. There is also Sim City, The Sims, Tiger Woods PGA Tour, Trains, Microsoft Train Simulator and dozens more I don't even know about.

That rant aisde, the problem here is that everybody has their own idea of what a simulator is and assumes everbody else has the same definition. A simulation of a bank queue is still a simulation even though it does not come with a thousand page manual. Likewise simulations can be made for things that do not exist to see how they may work in the real world. Then there is scale. A simulation does not cease to be just because it is simple. True, it becomes more of a game, but it still simulates an experiance. For example car racing games can be rather simple but gives the player the visceral experiance of racing cars without the risk or expense.

In the end I would say a simulator is something that replacates the performance or function of a system that may be real world or conceptual without actually being the system. I will add that the differance between a game and simulation is in the mind of the observer. To me MWO is both a game and a simulation of what driving a BattleMech could be like if they were possible.

I said of what I know. Im not a big fan of Flight Simulator only reason why I know about Flight Simulator is because my dad is a pilot and he was using that for training.

[Dirkdaring]

This is a sim. There is no world map, no 'front', not even a battle. No House is invading. You're picking mechs and playing a sim. Once you get in a house, get in an assigned mech and enter realspace in the world then you are no longer in the sim.

But once you get back to base and want to practice, you enter the virtual pod and play the game we have now. A sim.

[GalaxyBluestar]

the op is quiet correct a real simulator can only simulate what is known, nobody knows how big mechs would actually perform with huge lasers etc however the game is supposed to give the impression of you piloting a machine in real as possible conditions. so is it an impression game? psuedo sim? i don't mind people calling this a sim because with all the developing intentions of the mechwarrior series that's the genre they're most befiting as well as scifi fantasy.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 26 December 2012 - 06:59 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Windrider, on 26 December 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

The reason people are up in arms about Mechwarrior being a simulation and not an arcade game is that traditionally, all Mechwarrior games on the PC/MAC platform that have shared the name Mechwarrior have been first person perspective shooters. Not to say that there haven't been other great games in the franchise that took other takes on it (Mechcommander was basically an RTS game, Mech Assault on the Xbox was an Arcade shooter, Mechwarrior on the PS2 was a 3rd person shooter, Megamek and Mechwarrior Tactics are turn-based tactical games), but this specific franchise has always been about piloting one mech. The later games gave you the ability to command a lance or 2 of mechs via commands, but you could only look out your own mech cockpit.

actually mw2-3 and 4 have included 3rd person views. evidence is here:







all screen shots available via camera toggle modes. so to say it isn't mech warrior to have 3rd person views is folley but i'm still firmly in the "prefer cockpit simulation" lobby.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 26 December 2012 - 07:09 PM.

[King Arthur IV]

xRaeder, on 26 December 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

For the record... this is what WW2OL does. It's a dated video from 5 years ago... but the concepts remain the same. Though the graphics have been updated significantly since then.

as cool as this all sounds, if this were to happen to mwo; head shots would be off the charts.

[Lycan]

PANZERBUNNY, on 26 December 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

It does require a tad more brains than COD.

Not really.

[Merky Merc]

Why is this even an issue?

[DarkBazerker]

Thorqemada, on 26 December 2012 - 05:54 AM, said:

Its an Action-Sim, its neither a Hardcore-Sim nor an Arcade-Shooter, its somewhere in between both extremes.

I agree with this. While I can understand why people say this game isn't a simulator, it is definitely not just a shooter. On the other hand you could call it an rpg and I probbly wouldn't care. It is what it is.

[SamizdatCowboy]

This is what Dennis de Koning had to say on the subject:

Quote

At the core, reality is the theme. MechWarrior is not only an FPS (First Person Shooter) but a simulator (to a degree), and I believe the success of a simulator is how closely it emulates what it's simulating. The sense of immersion must be as visceral as possible. I believe that, although the design is in the details, the truth is in the candor; like anything of substance, without a solid foundation, it won't stand on its own. The worlds are built holistically, never systematically; they must exist as a whole rather than the sum of their parts, and the 'Mechs must exist in them seamlessly. This is not to say there isn't a certain style involved; it's just that it leans in the direction of realism.

Source

Now he was talking about Art direction, but the more you read from the devs the more you get the feeling that they themselves consider MWO a FPS first, and a sim a distant second. The proof is in the pudding and you know this is the case considering joysticks and rudder pedals are second class citizens, and analog turning, though planned, isn't even on the road map given its low priority and apparent difficulty to implement (!)

However a lot of old timers who started with MW2 (myself included) consider 'Mechwarrior' a sim because that's really what MW2 was. Wikipedia files it under "Vehicle simulation game" and reviews of the time concurred:

Quote

With controls more like those of a flight sim, and a need for strategy and planning, this is not your average action game.

So I think that's why people default to calling 'Mechwarrior' games simulations. As time has gone by however, each subsequent Mechwarrior iteration has moved further and further away from its sim roots, with I think MWO furthest yet.

It's a sad state of affairs, as the sim aspect of Mechwarrior is one of the key aspects of the series that appealed to me, but it is what it is.

[Carceroth]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

TL;DR - this game is not a sim, please don't treat it as such.

I am curious about this term. Over the months I've seen people throw hissy fits and threaten to leave the game because "it is a sim which doesn't do this is this right" or argue than a third person camera would wreck the game because "it is a sim".

Some even go so far as to put themselves on a pedestal above games like Battlefield, Hawken etc because "those games players are playing games, we are playing a sim".

As a huge fan of the PMDG NGX, DCS A-10c and iRacing, I can pretty confidently stipulate that this game is not only not a sim, it is an extremely simple arcade shooter.

To be a simulation, first of all (I would argue) you have to be simulating something feasible (if not physically tangible at time of simulation). For example, the DCS software simulates the use of a real world aircraft with extreme accuracy. It comes with a 1k page + manual and is extremely complex to master. You can spend a week learning how to switch the aircraft on.

In iRacing, though relatively simple to get going, it will take you months (or years) to master the intricacies of the vehicle setups, carefully changing camber and brake bias, engine power etc to glean the best performance out of you car. A sim in the true sense of word, aerodynamics, mechanical strength, systems and failure, all modelled.

Though a simulation doesn't strictly have to be real world in the right here and right now sense - it is of course completely feasible than NASA would run a simulation using a hypothetical spacecraft landing on Mars - a completely theoretical mathematical model per se, but a simulation nonetheless.

I would love a mech simulator - it would come with a one thousand+ page manual and you could spend weeks learning about (admittedly fictional) leg hydaulics, another 300 pages on the computer systems, autopilot failure margins, IFF systems, radio systems, limits of inertia, the thermodynamic rules behind heat dissipation, logical reasons behind the shape and materials the mech was designed with...

Then, we could look into the interface and startup procedure. I'm reasonably sure to get a mech this size running would need a form of ground power, or maybe something similar to an APU. To get all the systems online and then to check they all work would take, maybe, 10-15 minutes? And what about emergency procedures..Fire in the left engine? Shut it down, initalise the fire suppresent system, initiate the APU because there isn't enough power from one engine to keep the weapons systems online.

The point I am making is, I often see people saying "this game isn't for the COD idiots, it requires brains" and then putting themselves on a pedestal of superiority - sure, maybe it requires more tactical thinking than COD, but I wouldn't argue for a second that it requires more than Counterstrike or Battlefield 3.

The game isn't a sim - playing this game does not make you 'superior' to other gamers. This game is a simple arcade game with robot lasers. A fun one, yes, but an arcade game nonetheless.

There IS such a thing as you just mentioned. It isn't quite as detailed as what you were talking about but it's about as close as it gets It's called Steel Battalion

Edited by Carceroth, 27 December 2012 - 12:22 AM.

[Sikosis]

um we call it a sim because it was labeled as one. granted a real sim couldn't exist for this, but the intent is that it should feel more like a sim than a twitch first person shooter, which is what they're driving it towards with a freak freight train tied to the back of it . . . which ticks off a lot of BT / MW fans . . .

put out as a "mech simulator" . . . should be built as a mech simulator . . . and yes, captain literal, everyone knows it can't possibly be a real mech simulator. . . but damned if they shouldn't try their hardest to deliver what they advertised instead of this cheese.

[AlexEss]

Why Do People Call This Game A Sim?

Because compared to most other first-person shooters (even mech based ones) it is... Sure it is not a flight-sim or racing sim (or for that matter the Sims) but compared to games like Team Fortress and Quake it is a lot more sim then not.

Now of course it could be A LOT more of a sim but that would limit the market way to much as most people do not want to worry about calibrating their heat sinks in real time or feel that they need to worry about tripping and not be able to get up because they took one hit to many to the leg.

So it all comes down to perception... If you are a avid desk-pilot you will never really grasp how some people can look at this as a sim, but on the other hand the people who do would could most likley never grasp why you spend 16 hours flying from one place to another in a game... on auto pilot...

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

der langsamere, on 27 December 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

"They" call it a sim because the devs called it a sim when they were describing what they wanted the game to be.

dammit you said it before I got to

Sikosis, on 27 December 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:

um we call it a sim because it was labeled as one.

like the dude I quoted said...

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 27 December 2012 - 12:57 AM.

[SteelRat]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

Simulations require advanced thought processes based on significant contact with the object being simulated and, unfortunately for many, this requires a certain amount of academic study.

A simulation does not require this level of complexity to be called a simulation. No where in the definition of simulation does it say you have to have a 1000 page manual and all the bells and whistles. As an example, Microsoft Flight Simulator, can be very complex or fairly simple, depending on the time and effort, you the user puts into it, with a joystick, rudder pedals, throttle, multiple screens, etc etc. Have you seen some of the pods people have made for MW:0?

MW:O does require a few more skills than just twitch aiming to be good at it. Situational Awareness, team strategy and tactics, understanding the pluses and minuses of not only the mech your piloting, but also the equipment, upgrades and modules you are using.

Granted, at this point in time, MW:O seems very simple, just drop in a mech and go. And you watch many people do just that, then complain about heat or some mech is OP or something else, without spending time to learn more about how all the systems work and how to make it work for you. People spend countless hours in the mechlab tweaking their builds for better heat vs firepower, where to put their armor and how much, do you use endo or ferrous, DHS or Single heat sinks, Artemis or not.

So yes, this may not meet your definition of simulation, which seems to be a training simulation, where you learn how to apply something to the real world, it is a simulation of the battletech world, with many parts still missing.

[King Arthur IV]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 26 December 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

It's still too fast to be a true sim for me.

im totally falcon 5.0 bias.

try that for slow.

[smokefield]

Although I agree with conure in general terms, mwo it is a little different than a generic FPS. I would say that it falls somewhere in middel between a fps and a combat sim. Adding that it is a SF at the moment...we can't ask to make it like a present game sim...with 1k pages manual and all the things that come with. We can come up with a dozen of possible explanations of why the mech works as it is working now...but in the end we all want a game where we can customize our mech in order to acheieve a better fighting machine than the other player in the game...and probably that's the main and most important thing all mech fans want.

[Sifright]

Carnivoris, on 26 December 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

It's a simulation of Battletech lore. It's taking the mechs, numbers, and story from established Battletech fiction and putting them into a real-time format rather than the classic turn-based format. That's what it's simulating.

Thats not what the simulation genre implies.

Unless you are saying Star wars galaxies is a simulation.

Lord of the rings online is a simulation.

Halo is a Simulation.

Battlefield 3 is a simulation.

I mean come ON!