92 replies to this topic

[Ens]

gamers these days..... *sigh*

[M4rtyr]

Pok Gai, on 13 January 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

You might not like it, but the majority disagree. MWO recieved 1 nomination for best shooter last year and no awards, and this is what planetside 2 got:


Planetside 2 Open Beta awards of June 2012

Best of Show Best MMO and Bset PC Exclusive: Game Informer

Best Shooter, Best Free to Play, and Best PC Exclusive: GameSpy

Best MMO Game and Best PC Game: IGN

Best MMO - Digital Trends

Best Shooter and MMO - Flesh Eating Zipper

Best MMO - IGN

MMO of the Show - Massively

Game of the Show - MMORPG

Editor's Choice - Polygon

Best FPS - OXCGN

Best Shooter, Best MMO, Best of Show, and Most Awards Received - PC Gamer

Best Game Play: Ten Ton Hammer

Best MMO: Game Rant


Suffice to say, you a fan with your own opinion, but out there in the open and bright lights, MWO is nothing but a niche game and nothing to be excited about. It could of been, but too late now. I doubt "Community warfare" will be any different from WoT's clan wars, and will not be that magical rabbit that saves this game from a early death in obscurity and redicule.

And you think the fact that the first Planetside had a big following before it was ruined plays any part in that?

Or the fact that PS2 is a traditional shooter and MWO appeals mostly to Battletech fans and very few others?

Regardless, its impossible to argue that Graphically MWO is far superior and I know its perfectly smooth on my system, which is old but handles graphically intensive singple player games fine. PS2 has the same problem SWTOR has, too CPU intensive bogging down mid range systems.

[LynxFury]

I like Planetside 2 as well.

The maps are huge, one continent larger than all previous MWx games put together--including MW3s neat tunnel play from one map to another.

The team play often on a massive combined arms scale. I'm a dedicated flyer (NC Reaver), and it's common for my small unit of a dozen to all be flying air attack or bombers coordinated with 2 or three other platoons fighting with tanks and infantry on the ground towards an objective. Rather remarkable to come flying over a hill at night with infrared and see a half dozen support vehicles behind dozens of tanks in line advancing on someplace, my objective is usually enemy lines a few hundred meters in front of that, before dropping rockets often a flare with a turn and burn back back to safety. The map clarity is nice as well---the PS2 maps look more BT than MWO.

On the ground I suck in getting the drop, at 50 I seldom get the shot off first against the typical teenagers, but that's ok, because support roles such as engineer and medics are rewarding. I do well as a sniper and tanker as well.

Integrated coms and ingame interface to find and join units is a big plus.

For my system at least it plays much better, I never go below 40 frames/second, usually 50 or better on high settings, which is about 10-20 better than MWO on medium settings. MWO is a CPU killer for some reason. I also get fewer disconnects,

I also like BF3, its maps are also larger and drop dead gorgeous, it too has a combined arms and large teams. Partial destructible terrain add to the environment.And it too plays way better on my computer than MWO.

--
In a lot of ways I was hoping the next battletech game would much more like either PS2 or BF3 with galaxy-sized/Brigade units engaged in combined mechs, armor, arty and aerotech fighters and even infantry (perhaps MS Close combat style) on large, occasionally outer worldly looking maps.

I'll probably play it assume the balance/sensor issues eventually get sorted out just because its battletech, but as far as attracting new blood who might compare it to other games--it doesn't offer a whole lot.

At this point in beta, other than good looks (though murky and dreary), MWO really doesn't play any better, nor contain much more than the aged MW4 MP3 did--and that's a darn shame.

Edited by LynxFury, 14 January 2013 - 01:42 AM.

[Kain]

MW:O being a niche game is good, Mechwarrior and Battletech has always being a niche franchise

If people don't like Mechwarrior they just have to move on to more mainstream games, no problem, no whining, just move on, Mechwarrior is just not for everybody, and that is fine, end of story.

And I can't understand why Planetside 2 has won so many awards. A lot of other games are better, and more immersive.

Edited by Kain, 14 January 2013 - 01:43 AM.

[Pok Gai]

LynxFury, on 14 January 2013 - 01:41 AM, said:

In a lot of ways I was hoping the next battletech game would much more like either PS2 or BF3 with galaxy-sized/Brigade units engaged in combined mechs, armor, arty and aerotech fighters and even infantry (perhaps MS Close combat style) on large, occasionally outer worldly looking maps.

I'll probably play it assume the balance/sensor issues eventually get sorted out just because its battletech, but as far as attracting new blood who might compare it to other games--it doesn't offer a whole lot.

At this point in beta, other than good looks (though murky and dreary), MWO really doesn't play any better, nor contain much more than the aged MW4 MP3 did--and that's a darn shame.

"In a lot of ways I was hoping the next battletech game would much more like either PS2 or BF3 with galaxy-sized/Brigade units engaged in combined mechs, armor, arty and aerotech fighters and even infantry (perhaps MS Close combat style) on large, occasionally outer worldly looking maps."

This was promised by the devs in community warfare, but I've come to realise that what will be delivered will be in line with the quality of the dev team, so it will be very similiar to clan warfare in world of tanks, just a tactical war map keeping count of battles..

If like Spiralrazor said, a skilled and professional dev team like Sony picked up this IP, we would of ended up with a Planetside 2 style of Mechwarrior, imagine that! And problems like netcode that have been broken for over half a year would be fixed in less than a week.

But that's just wishful thinking, MW is in the hands of these devs, and thats why it's a amateur product, all we can do is hope they pick up the ball and hire people more skilled than they are, or as Spiralrazor said, just fold and let a professional game dev take over.

[Vassago Rain]

Pok Gai, on 14 January 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

"In a lot of ways I was hoping the next battletech game would much more like either PS2 or BF3 with galaxy-sized/Brigade units engaged in combined mechs, armor, arty and aerotech fighters and even infantry (perhaps MS Close combat style) on large, occasionally outer worldly looking maps."

This was promised by the devs in community warfare, but I've come to realise that what will be delivered will be in line with the quality of the dev team, so it will be very similiar to clan warfare in world of tanks, just a tactical war map keeping count of battles..

If like Spiralrazor said, a skilled and professional dev team like Sony picked up this IP, we would of ended up with a Planetside 2 style of Mechwarrior, imagine that! And problems like netcode that have been broken for over half a year would be fixed in less than a week.

But that's just wishful thinking, MW is in the hands of these devs, and thats why it's a amateur product, all we can do is hope they pick up the ball and hire people more skilled than they are, or as Spiralrazor said, just fold and let a professional game dev take over.

>Sony.
>skilled and professional devteam.

Come now, you should know better than this.

[Pok Gai]

Vassago Rain, on 14 January 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

>Sony.
>skilled and professional devteam.

Come now, you should know better than this.

[Inertiaman]

Regardless of expectations, Sony have totally nailed Planetside2. It's a peerless MP experience with a good squad and enjoys scale and diversity that I hope the next BF game achieves.

[Thirdstar]

Inertiaman, on 14 January 2013 - 02:59 AM, said:

Regardless of expectations, Sony have totally nailed Planetside2. It's a peerless MP experience with a good squad and enjoys scale and diversity that I hope the next BF game achieves.

[Henree]

I tried https://warframe.com/ yesterday
it is still in closed BETA but they are giving away the Beta keys

the GFX are tight (when you try it remember it is closed BETA you will be shocked!)

[Vassago Rain]

Inertiaman, on 14 January 2013 - 02:59 AM, said:

Regardless of expectations, Sony have totally nailed Planetside2. It's a peerless MP experience with a good squad and enjoys scale and diversity that I hope the next BF game achieves.

That's some spin you're putting on there.

[Inertiaman]

Name another MMOFPS that gets close to the featureset of that game. It might not be to everyone's taste, and indeed it's not entirely to mine but that doesn't detract from the achievement of proper battles over massive maps and literally thousands of player/vehicle combos. It works, comms are good, social management (squads/spawns) are gracefully managed, objectives are clear. The mwo UI and UX would be better if it were a tenth as good.

[Taizan]

Comparing a game that has basically not seen any investment during the last 10 years with two other games that are in their second or even third iteration is kind of odd.
On top of that PGI/IGP is nowhere even close to the capacity that Sony or EA has when it comes to experience, cash, infrastructure and already existing player base.
Putting them on one level of comparison is like comparing ARMA II to Call of Duty. It doesn't work.

Edited by Taizan, 14 January 2013 - 04:49 AM.

[Inertiaman]

MWO is built on a the third generation of a licensed engine right? But yeah of course I'm not expecting them to punch at Sony's weight. Equally it doesn't take 100 designers to realise voicecomms and lobby matches are a priority or 100 developers to implement.

[Pok Gai]

Inertiaman, on 14 January 2013 - 04:39 AM, said:

Name another MMOFPS that gets close to the featureset of that game. It might not be to everyone's taste, and indeed it's not entirely to mine but that doesn't detract from the achievement of proper battles over massive maps and literally thousands of player/vehicle combos. It works, comms are good, social management (squads/spawns) are gracefully managed, objectives are clear. The mwo UI and UX would be better if it were a tenth as good.

Taizan, on 14 January 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

Comparing a game that has basically not seen any investment during the last 10 years with two other games that are in their second or even third iteration is kind of odd.
On top of that PGI/IGP is nowhere even close to the capacity that Sony or EA has when it comes to experience, cash, infrastructure and already existing player base.
Putting them on one level of comparison is like comparing ARMA II to Call of Duty. It doesn't work.

The call about it being the same as comparing ARMA II and Black Ops 2 is very apt.

Agreed, comparing the two games is a insult to Planetside 2 and a embarassment for MWO. Comparing between a amateur dev and a professional one doesn't work.

The devs themselves have stated in interviews while they believe MWO to be unique in its own category, it's closest comparison and competitor is World of Tanks.

They also would want to compared with games in the same quality grade, and not with games of the year and most awarded game in 2012 like PS2.

I put up the comparison because someone stated this was a better quality game than PS2, and thread was about MWO vs other F2P games, but I can see where you're coming from.

P.S I'm pretty sure most players machines run Planetside 2 more smoothly and at higher FPS than MWO, despite the massive battles in PS2, you actually need a better machine to run MWO than PS2 which is quite funny, lol.

Edited by Pok Gai, 14 January 2013 - 05:16 AM.

[M4rtyr]

Inertiaman, on 14 January 2013 - 04:39 AM, said:

Name another MMOFPS that gets close to the featureset of that game. It might not be to everyone's taste, and indeed it's not entirely to mine but that doesn't detract from the achievement of proper battles over massive maps and literally thousands of player/vehicle combos. It works, comms are good, social management (squads/spawns) are gracefully managed, objectives are clear. The mwo UI and UX would be better if it were a tenth as good.

Youre talking about what PS2? I has nothing I've not seen in any other game. The massive seamless maps and battles are nice. If you have the machine to handle it. But for as ugly as that game is I don't want to have to have a powerhouse machine just to play it smoothly. Objective are clear once you find out -outside of the game- what the objectives are, what the icons are etc, and then can make out all the tiny icons clustered together on your tiny mini map.

The general concepts are good. But its a remake of a past popular game with alot of Battlefield influence, be honest. It felt like a larger uglier persistent version of the battlefield franchise. Is it a terrible game? No, but could have, and probably should have been better.

[Inertiaman]

Pok I don't see why you should apologise for a conversation. Anyone taking it personally needs their head checking and probably spends their evenings arguing if Sega or Nintendo is most awesome.

On the comparison - the problem right now (but hopefully not for long) is that the title stacks up pretty badly against the smaller titles in most respects, if not F2P FPS's then certainly other F2P's generally.

Edited by Inertiaman, 14 January 2013 - 05:14 AM.

[Von Falkenstein]

Shiney, on 12 January 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

Gotta agree with the OP, I check the patch notes hoping things have changed dramatically and I've gone from 2-4 hrs a day, perhaps 10000 games all told to zero, haven't played for a month, simply it's just NOT there. The numbers on Teamspeak are well down and it's just laughable that bugs that have been around for 6 months have still not been addressed. You could say bye to me, but I've already left, so it's kinda moot. Maybe if this game lasts 2-3 years [unlikely] it will reach a point of development that is worth playing again. I will check in from time to time, I still have a crap load of MC that are going to waste and I really hope it turns into something great... eventually.

Concerning numbers on TS are down: We're a 90 players unit, with roughly 70 active pilots (the rest is off duty atm) and yesterday we had 38 guys on the server at peak time, playing in their 4 / 8 man groups. The day before yesterday 39.

Maybe it's the german determination / long standing love for battletech? Don't know, but I'm happy.

Edited by Von Falkenstein, 14 January 2013 - 05:30 AM.

[Henree]

but seriously Hawken?
I am not talking abt the gameplay here but....
did you see the production on it?~!

[Tykelau]

Abrahms, on 12 January 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

Neither Planetside 2 or Hawken are probably going to consume my time, as my pay 2 play games (not pay 2 win, pay 2 play like BF3) are still vastly superior, but both f2p titles are miles ahead of MWO. Servers, content, ambiance, gameplay.

Now I know the fanbois are gonna rage, but look, Ive followed MWO (been in beta since June), played thousands of matches in MWO, and been a crazy mechwarrior fan ever since I discovered MW2 as a kid.

MWO has an amazing reboot artist, an amazing franchise, but, to be blunt, has a weak studio. CryEngine is a terrible gaming engine, the lag is horrid, servers are lacking, weapon imbalance is glaring and gamebreaking.... horrible problem go unfixed for months

The forums have had many solid suggestions and recommendations; none heeded. Hopefully in 6 mo I can come back and have fun in MWO, but likely... we told you so.

edit:

Yes, actually, the latest patch was quite the FPS boost for me. I typically get 70-90 frames in BF3 on high with 64 players and destruction. The game is beautiful, and every time I load it up I'm still amazed that a single 6950 powers through it with ease. I thought I would need to crossfire at a minimum 2x6970 (this was back when it was released, 7xxx series not out yet) but the game is extremely well optimized. MWO though used to scape by at 30 fps and then drop to 15 in combat. NOW after latest patches Im getting around solid 40-50 and it doesnt drop in combat! BF3 though still looks better, renders 1000x more things, and still runs twice as fast.

All crysis games though on my PC look half as good as Frostbite 2 and run half as fast. My friends with Nvidia rigs usually have similar results. Its just a poor engine - though I think the cheapest... any ideas why? tehe

I will NOT be playing Planetside2 or Hawken. I downloaded them to compare. BF3 is better than PS2 and fills the mass scale niche for me, so PS2 is out the window, and Hawken just isnt my playstyle. Tons of fun nonetheless, but I much prefer mechwarrior's robot gameplay.

MWO just isnt cutting it. Too many cash grabs, not enough fixes, and frankly the balance is probably the biggest deal breaker for me.

Guess what, as soon as I loaded Hawken, I saw a LIST OF SERVERS!!!!! Not everyone played on the same ratty asrse server with stupid pings. Its no fun when you have to guess whether the Jenner will need a lead of 15 meters or 50 meters because the lag isnt even consistent. It just downright takes the awesome art/franchise and murders it.

Give me better servers, less 1995 lag, and better weapon balance and Id be right back in the firefight.

The amount of agreement I have for this well thought out and carefully worded post is massive, even though I will not be leaving MWO myself. Yet.

I am not biased and deluded enough to;
A)have an emotional reaction to this posters opinion, demonstrating my bias and immaturity.

B)not see the many significant problems in MWO

It's surprising how much vitriol this forum has. Do you all not realize that behaving this way makes the game LESS likely to be successful?