75 replies to this topic

[Texas Merc]

Thirdstar, on 13 January 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:

Gangnam art style? Whut? Are you drunk?

whats wrong with being drunk?

arent you?
(from most of your posts)

[Felix]

OreoCookieSP, on 13 January 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

I just saw an advertisement for this on Facebook. This certainly looks like copyright infringement to me. There are two mechs on there that REALLY look like atlases and catapults though I don't see those exact names used on the front page.

https://mwtactics.co...nders?csi=2_4_2

On further inspection of the website, it does use the name "atlas." This doesn't look like official Mechwarrior. Is it?

Go put on a helmet, lest you manage to hurt yourself.

Zaptruder, on 13 January 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:

I'd be all over that if the game actually had decent mech designs. A lot can be forgiven as a Battletech fan. That isn't one of them.

Like... I'd be a paying customer, and not take a pay check... if they'd want to hire me as their mech designer. Because I could do the work. But this... it's upsetting. I don't want to associate my fanhood with that. I'd rather deny my fascination for big stompy robots than think I'd be able to play this wretched thing that they've made.

Luckily, I'm not forced to play. But sucks waiting 2 decades for a viable mainstream TT translation only to see it be an incredibly unviable foolish interpretation of Battle Tech.

I think this might have been a diabolical plan by IGP..

They give the good artists and the ****** devs to MWO and to MWT they give the ****** artists but the good devs just to see what would happen.

It does seem they are basing their art on the Mechwarrior: Dark Ages figures though for whatever reason

[Adridos]

Felix, on 13 January 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

They give the good artists and the ****** devs to MWO and to MWT they give the ****** artists but the good devs just to see what would happen.

PGI are not bad devs. The speed at which they created a game from an engine noone touched before tells a lot about their capabillities. They just tend to go all over the place when it comes to doing things.

As far as that pic goes, it's old and the design was changed as you can see on the Founder's package screenshots... That House Imarra symbol... priceless.

[Taurick]

Felix, on 13 January 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

I think this might have been a diabolical plan by IGP..

They give the good artists and the ****** devs to MWO and to MWT they give the ****** artists but the good devs just to see what would happen.

inorite!

I read through one of the dev threads about how the game works, they get a full matchmaking system and some other crap that the forums here at MWO have been clamouring for (I disremember exactly what)

After reading it I was like ... >_<

[Felix]

Adridos, on 13 January 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

PGI are not bad devs. The speed at which they created a game from an engine noone touched before tells a lot about their capabillities. They just tend to go all over the place when it comes to doing things.

As far as that pic goes, it's old and the design was changed as you can see on the Founder's package screenshots... That House Imarra symbol... priceless.

4 years almost (Production on the game started in March of 09) to what we have now is NOT good speed.

So I feel fairly confident in them being ****** devs

[Pr8Dator]

advertisement thread... only 2 posts by OP...

[Purplefluffybunny]

That was an easy mistake to make OP! Just to inform you a little further. Rather than develop a single player game i.e. Mechwarrior 5 that we all really wanted instead, the rights holders realised that they could make more money if they split the IP up into to several mini games with no content but multilayer. It is not a trend that myself and others like but unfortunately we are stuck with it as they could not raise the capital investment, to produce a larger project such as an actual single player game with proper content.

[Adridos]

Felix, on 13 January 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

4 years almost (Production on the game started in March of 09) to what we have now is NOT good speed.

So I feel fairly confident in them being ****** devs

Check your sources, hothead. The production started around November 1 2011.
They got the papers signed for Cryengine 3 A few weeks later.

And if you want to know what they've been through to actually be able to make a Mechwarrior game after such a long time, here's a read you should check out: http://mwomercs.com/...-blog-0-reboot/

Edited by Adridos, 13 January 2013 - 05:39 AM.

[Felix]

Adridos, on 13 January 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

Check your sources, hothead. The production started around November 1 2011.
They got the papers signed for Cryengine 3 A few weeks later.

And if you want to know what they've been through to actually be able to make a Mechwarrior game after such a long time, here's a read you should check out: http://mwomercs.com/...-blog-0-reboot/

They were working on Mechwarrior and had it on the backburner from your own link

"In the winter months of 2011 we assessed the state of MechWarrior. We came to the realization that any further work on MechWarrior would come at great risk to PGI."

Notice the words FURTHER WORK, they were already working, they just shifted the development to the F2P model we are stuck with now.

http://www.ign.com/a...e-first-details

They had already been prototyping it, and working on it, they just shifted things around into the current incarnation.

[Purplefluffybunny]

Adridos, on 13 January 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

Check your sources, hothead. The production started around November 1 2011.
They got the papers signed for Cryengine 3 A few weeks later.

MWO emerged from the ill fated attempt to get development for Mechwarrior 5 rolling. Assets such as art could be easily transferred over. Some have even suggested that code had been written way back before Nov 2011 and that one of the more recent issues PGI were having was that the folks who wrote that, were not around anymore. So, PGI hired some new folks to address that skill shortage and nail persistent issues with the net code.

You should check your sources Adridos, and read around.

EDIT: Sorry felix, you beat me to the slap down.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 13 January 2013 - 05:56 AM.

[Felix]

Purplefluffybunny, on 13 January 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

EDIT: Sorry felix, you beat me to the slap down.

No worries, you know how it is
(Cool **** hand image was supposed to go here)


Edit: Damn images not working

Edited by Felix, 13 January 2013 - 06:12 AM.

[Adridos]

Purplefluffybunny, on 13 January 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

Assets such as art could be easily transferred over.

Some have even suggested that code had been written way back before Nov 2011 and that one of the more recent issues PGI were having was that the folks who wrote that, were not around anymore.

Art, of course. That's why they hired Alex Iglesias to give them art direction and their initial art concepts are worlds different than before. They definitly made new art from ground up.

And as far as code goes, CryEngine 3 and Unreal Engine 3 use completely different programming languages. And they couldn't simply steal Epic's netcode and slap it into the CryEngine. No, that's made from ground up, too.

[Purplefluffybunny]

Looking at images from both projects, Adridos, you can clearly see a shared reference point and perhaps not as ground up as you suggest. You know fully well development has been going on previous to Nov 2011, and that is development specifically with CryEngine. Stop trying to strawman that point to none existence.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 13 January 2013 - 06:19 AM.

[Adridos]

Purplefluffybunny, on 13 January 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

Looking at images from both projects, Adridos, you can clearly see a shared reference point and perhaps not as ground up as you suggest.

The maps are surely commpletely new, since their concepts were made a lot later (Proof 1, 2, even mechbay).

The cockpit and HUD were also drawn after the announcement and look nothing like the ones in trailer (Proof).

The mech designs are also completely new (A bit of proof material 1, 2, 3, 4).

As far as similarities go: (http://www.g4g.it/g4...ailer_hd_01.jpg vs http://media.pcgamer...mwo-610x341.jpg), heck, even the laser color was based around a different scheme back in MW reboot (ML firing before and now). Also, the laser colors also are a proof that FD wasn't working for Piranha before, because he uses the Red to blue scheme in all of his paintings (Proof) and that's ignoring the fact he was working with MW:LL team and Catalyst at the time.


Now show me your proof.

[Zaptruder]

Vassago Rain, on 13 January 2013 - 04:43 AM, said:

Ahahah. So cute. Love that the explosion animations = balloon popping.

[Jesus Box]

OreoCookieSP, on 13 January 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

I just saw an advertisement for this on Facebook. This certainly looks like copyright infringement to me. There are two mechs on there that REALLY look like atlases and catapults though I don't see those exact names used on the front page.

https://mwtactics.co...nders?csi=2_4_2

On further inspection of the website, it does use the name "atlas." This doesn't look like official Mechwarrior. Is it?

Really should do some research before accusing people or companies. IGP is publishing both of these titles, and they are being developed right next to each other. MW is the cockpit action version while Tactics will be the slower, turn based, RTS version. Tactics just started its founders, if you want to buy both or that one specifically.

[Adridos]

Jesus Box, on 13 January 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

...Tactics will be the slower, turn based, RTS version....

That's a contradiction, my friend.

Either you are turn based (TBS), or real time (RTS), but not both. The term you wanted to use was strategy game.

[PANZERBUNNY]

I really don't want anyone on my team in MWO who doesn't notice MWtactics is being done by the same peeps or I should say, a subdivision of these peeps?

You need to work on Eyeball MK 1 Gxp.

[TigrisMorte]

Mechwarrior tactics big problem is that it should be a stand alone "boxed" game. Unfortunately the MBAs all drank the MMO cashaid and are boners and drool over the continuous milking of clientele rather than an honest profit from a one time sale.

It is what they thought the collectible miniature game would be. That failed because no one wanted to pay 12 bucks for a construction or forestry mech and some crap infantry.

At least "mech brawlers online" (a mech assault console style non battletech game) does have a viable reason for MMO, community warfare. Shame it is looking like they planned that as a fluff ladder over the PVP deathmatch.

Oh, and mechwarrior tactics has another problem. Once bitten twice shy.

[Thirdstar]

Adridos, on 13 January 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

That's a contradiction, my friend.

Either you are turn based (TBS), or real time (RTS), but not both. The term you wanted to use was strategy game.

MWT is in fact Turn Based and not Real Time.