167 replies to this topic

[Jetfire]

Sifright, on 27 December 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

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!

It is a Simulation of Vehicle Combat within the BT universe. The Simulation comes from the added depth of controls and immersion added over the initial layer of FPS elements. If BF3 vehicles had more controls than move and shoot or the ability to target specific parts of other vehicles then it would be on the way to a simulation rather than just FPS vehicle combat.

Edited by Jetfire, 27 December 2012 - 03:48 AM.

[Sifright]

Jetfire, on 27 December 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

It is a Simulation of Vehicle Combat within the BT universe. The Simulation comes from the added depth of controls added over the initial layer of FPS elements. If BF3 vehicles had more controls than move and shoot, it would be on the way to a simulation rather than just FPS vehicle combat.

BF3 tanks have turret twisting, ergo it's now a simulation under your definition.

[PurpleNinja]

xRaeder, on 26 December 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

Not sure if serious or trolling...

In order to simulate damage you need to take into account the size of the round... its velocity... the angle of impact... the thickness and quality or armor.

WW2OL does all this... MWO does not.

Just take a look at my signature and you'll know how serious I am about MWO.

[Jetfire]

Sifright, on 27 December 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

BF3 tanks have turret twisting, ergo it's now a simulation under your definition.

Um, no. They would need a little more than what is bare bones required. Torso twisting alone in MWO is not what makes it a sim. It is heat management, weapon sets, Ammo, Armor health, Mech construction, vision toggles, adjustable throttle instead of just FWD/REV, a detailed HUD.

[Cybercobra]

it is a simulator. but in the same sence that battlefield is a warzone simulator. yes its a game, yes its meant to be enjoyed not a learning experience of sorts. yes its not that higly detailed. yes it is a simulator becouse guess what. simulator means a awefull lot of things. heres where everyone is going wrong. people seem to think that simulators are these extremely hardcore things in which you have to press every button manualy. no you idiots simulator means that you SIMULATE SOMETHING. and in this case its simulating driving a war mech.is it a simulator? yes. but nearly every other game is to.

thats how i see it anyway

Edited by Cybercobra, 27 December 2012 - 05:18 AM.

[Fooooo]

The tanks in BF3 are as arcade as they come, I don't think anyone would ever call them "realistic"..........

The only tank game with realistic tanks / physics I have played is Steel fury Kharkov, and even that doesn't have everything.


To be honest I would consider MWO a quazi simulator.

The mechs generally don't turn on a dime or behave in anyway that is "unrealistic" in any terms. (we are talking about a made up universe here) They feel like they should, or at least, how I imagine they would according to BT.

Yeah we don't have 100's of buttons to push, but that is not what makes a simulator imo. It can make a much more in-depth sim, but its not what makes it.

Take this example.

A rally game that has 100% real life physics , real cars that are modeled exactly...every part, with all the weights etc, etc etc.

Now if this game didn't have a button for turning the fuel pump on and off , priming the lines etc would you say its not a rally simulator anymore ?

I highly doubt you would. It would be less....in-depth as its missing what a real driver may have to do..but still a sim as the cars drive & feel exactly like real life.

Turn that around, and have all the buttons for everything, but have fake cars or not real physics and that rally sim instantly becomes a non-sim. (the driving is what the game is)

So really all MWO is really missing is those extra buttons to turn on the cpus and then start the reactor, turning off the safetys , setting your comms / nav etc etc etc like Black shark or a-10 does. (I guess you could add bullet physics but thats just how the weapons are in mwo....the range issue vs real life etc...)

Does it really need that tho ? And should it not be called a sim just because it doesn't have that ???

Edited by Fooooo, 27 December 2012 - 06:59 AM.

[SJ SCP Wolf]

That was delicious! I find it so amusing that your nerd pride is so hurt by people calling this a sim you took the time to write such a long post that you obviously put so much effort into and will effect no change anyway. ABSOLUTELY DELICIOUS!

Edit: and the rest of you people arguing this ridiculous topic, OMG you've made my morning. Seriously!

Edited by SJ SCP Wolf, 27 December 2012 - 07:53 AM.

[Name140704]

No green mood thing over it's head. Not a sim.

[SJ SCP Wolf]

NARCoMAN, on 27 December 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

No green mood thing over it's head. Not a sim.

WINNER!

/thread

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

nah
because the devs said so
and they MUST know what theyre talking about right?
lol
/thread

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 27 December 2012 - 08:07 AM.

[FaceRipt]

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

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.

Yup, I feel the players wanting 3rd person are suffering from tunnel vision, you have to be aware of your team and surroundings, you don't need a 3rd person view to reposition, sometimes ya gotta run to fight. the minimap clearly lets you know whats goin on ( unless bugged or ecm nearby) but nothin that common sense can't solve. pull your heads outa yer ***** and you'll get a better view i promise.

[QuantumButler]

Because they haven't played a real sim, like the DCS games.

[Commander Kobold]

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

It does require a tad more brains than COD.

not really the game is still essentially point and shoot

FaceRipt, on 27 March 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

Yup, I feel the players wanting 3rd person are suffering from tunnel vision, you have to be aware of your team and surroundings, you don't need a 3rd person view to reposition, sometimes ya gotta run to fight. the minimap clearly lets you know whats goin on ( unless bugged or ecm nearby) but nothin that common sense can't solve. pull your heads outa yer ***** and you'll get a better view i promise.

or they might just like 3rd person games

[FaceRipt]

Omni 13, on 27 March 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

not really the game is still essentially point and shoot



or they might just like 3rd person games

Well they already have games for those players,let them play gears of war and the like if thats what they want. this game does not need it for live game play. It defeats the purpose of being a mech pilot if your not limited to what info an actual pilot would have would it. i do agree with an after you die 3rd person view with no team communications so as not to relay vital info.

[Voidcrafter]

When I've talked about the game with my friends, which don't play it(as far as I know) - I always refer to it(the game) as "it feels realistic".
Afterwards I explain:
"Yes, it's about some giant robots in the future, but it really gives you that feeling, that you're actually in the future and that piloting a giant robot would feel EXACTLY that way.".
It does - if you prefer it the other way around - what makes it a "sim" is the fact, that it's not arcade, that with it's fast paced action style, leave no doubts about this being an only game.
I too, no matter how foolish may it sound, find this game "realistic" in those terms.
It really requires some effort and thinking, rather than just press "asdw", and move around freely, shooting at stuff - you have to always keep a tons of things in mind, and your mind itself - sharp, just like you would do if you were some heavy armored war machine in the real life.
That's my thoughts about anyways
EDIT: Few of my friends, that actually tryied the game after we talked about it confirmed that "OH.. now I get what you mean" about the reallistic.
Probably someone, who haven't played it could hardly get it.

Edited by Voidcrafter, 28 March 2013 - 12:49 AM.

[Tragos]

Let me sum up your initial posting in one sentence:

Your only target is to prove that the MWO advertising uses the wrong wording and so far 8 pages were used for this goal?

Truely glad to live in the first world.

[Utilyan]

You mean this whole time you guys don't even have to re-allocate the heatsinks from engines to weapons when you shoot them!?!

Am I the only one re-calibrating ankle actuators on up and down slopes!?!?!

This is BS!

[MrTarget]

Because the "first person Shooter" version of Battletech games have always been considered a simulation game.

http://www.sarna.net.../MechWarrior_II

[Thejusttired]

Thing is... the last close to sim MW game was MW3. Everything past, and i include MWO is Arcady-Shooter-BS, from a "i´d like MWO to be a BT-SIM" -point of stance.

We have insta.convergence. Dumbed down economics. dumbed down hit-zones, dumbdown doublearmor. dumbed down sensors. everything is dumbed down to cater to the no-brainer-konsolero generation.

the game modes are not BT at all. they are ridiculous kiddie-gameplay. the maps are arenas. Not BT as well. unless you call this solaris online.

So MWO is definitly nothing BT-SIM atm.

thats my mind on that topic.

[AlexEss]

Meh... There is always a "core" think they know the truth the simplest way to handle it is to let the think that they are right. So just pat them on the head and let them have their "truth"