47 replies to this topic

[Beo Vulf]

I went and tried Planetside 2, and you know that is how I expect this game to turn out. I even put in a suggestion for Brian and Paul to go play it for a few hours and see what we have been trying to get them to understand for the last 6 months. I posted that post here.
http://mwomercs.com/...ut-of-the-game/

[Tennex]

yeah Planetside 2 is amazing. voice integration is done flawlessly.

though they are backed by sony.

but yeah the Devs really should try out these other games. there are no great musicians who don't listen music, no great writers who do not read. and no good game developers who don't game.


PGI is still missing deadline after deadline but i feel a lot better about the direction of the game and the ability of the developers after that last netcode tweek.

Edited by Tennex, 23 January 2013 - 02:43 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Seriously? So you want this game to be chock full of hacks, maps that most of the players get totally lost on and are far too big for the type of gameplay MWO is aiming for, and all the other issues that PS2 has?

Methinks you might just want to stick with PS2, since it's actually a very different game then MWO is aiming to be, no offense, but that's really what you are saying.

[Noth]

I don't want the zerg fest that PS2 is.

[Beo Vulf]

Kristov Kerensky, on 23 January 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Seriously? So you want this game to be chock full of hacks, maps that most of the players get totally lost on and are far too big for the type of gameplay MWO is aiming for, and all the other issues that PS2 has?

Methinks you might just want to stick with PS2, since it's actually a very different game then MWO is aiming to be, no offense, but that's really what you are saying.

You miss the point entirely. So let me ask you a series of questions.
1) Is the game graphically in your opinion at an exceptable level?
2) Is the game in your opinion at an exceptable level of stability?
3) Are the Game maps as rich and detailed, not to mention expansive enough?
4)Do you feel that the combat is immersive enough?
These are simple questions requiring no other answers other than a simple Yes, or No.

[Scyther]

Yeah, what I want out of the game is whiners who start a 'Your game should be some other game, not this game' thread, and then go start another thread 5 minutes later on same topic, pointing back to their first thread.

If you don't have something MWO-constructive to say, then please go play the other game.

(Hopefully you will not find it necessary to create a new thread titled "My thread pointing to my other thread so you will read my first thread")


Badger


(PS: Planetside 2 would imply a Planetside 1, which means they aren't exactly creating a new game from scratch with a new team, are they?)

Edited by MadBadger, 23 January 2013 - 03:05 PM.

[Volthorne]

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

You miss the point entirely. So let me ask you a series of questions.
1) Is the game graphically in your opinion at an exceptable level?
2) Is the game in your opinion at an exceptable level of stability?
3) Are the Game maps as rich and detailed, not to mention expansive enough?
4)Do you feel that the combat is immersive enough?
These are simple questions requiring no other answers other than a simple Yes, or No.

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) The maps are gorgeous (maybe not ME3 gorgeous, but that can't be helped), and we have a pair of bigger ones coming in the next two months, so YES.
4) Yes.

Edited by Volthorne, 23 January 2013 - 03:05 PM.

[Smeghead87]

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

You miss the point entirely. So let me ask you a series of questions.
1) Is the game graphically in your opinion at an exceptable level?
2) Is the game in your opinion at an exceptable level of stability?
3) Are the Game maps as rich and detailed, not to mention expansive enough?
4)Do you feel that the combat is immersive enough?
These are simple questions requiring no other answers other than a simple Yes, or No.

Which game? MWO or PS2?

[SpajN]

there are a lot of awesome directions they can take this game without changing the core of the game.

PS2 direction of mwo would mean they had to rework the entire game and make respawning possible and do a more arcade feeling instead of simulator.. a horrible idea.

PS2 got more problems than mwo, honestly i think PS2 is a shittier version of battlefield.

Also on your questions, i think graphics are good enough already (and are getting better in the future) and i feel immersed in the battle.

[DeadlyNerd]

Tennex, on 23 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

but yeah the Devs really should try out these other games. there are no great musicians who don't listen music, no great writers who do not read. and no good game developers who don't game.

Beethoven was deaf, yet his music surpasses any of todays by miles.

[Adrienne Vorton]

Noth, on 23 January 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

I don't want the zerg fest that PS2 is.

this

zerging the map upwards, while the enemy zergs it the other way... PS2 has potential, but it does more than enough wrong to not keep me playing for long...

i am playing MWO since "founders entry" and still can´t quit, so there has to be something to it that PS2 hasn´t...

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 23 January 2013 - 03:13 PM.

[Frostiken]

Kristov Kerensky, on 23 January 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

maps that... ... are far too big for the type of gameplay MWO is aiming for

wat

Quote

PS2 direction of mwo would mean they had to rework the entire game and make respawning possible and do a more arcade feeling instead of simulator.. a horrible idea.

I'd love to know where you crackheads get the idea that this is a simulator. The vast majority of the core concepts are no different from any game that features any sort of vehicle that has heavy weapons, drives forwards and backwards, and has independently-aimed weapon platforms. You know, like, tanks.

When we get to button-pushing mayhem and slower-paced, deliberate gameplay, you can call it a simulator. Having 428 different weapons just adds complexity, not depth, and doesn't make it any more a simulator than just having one.

But right now, MWO, and other Mechwarriors, are more about frantic fast-paced explosive gunplay than they are about managing sensor nets, electronic warfare, and intelligence.

Go play DCS: A-10C and tell me how much of the gameplay has you exploding things versus how much it has you managing your flight and situation, and you'll see why Mechwarriors are not simulators.

Edited by Frostiken, 23 January 2013 - 03:18 PM.

[Adrienne Vorton]

DeadlyNerd, on 23 January 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

Beethoven was deaf, yet his music surpasses any of todays by miles.

ahm, he wasn´t deaf all his life... he wrote many of his pieces from his remembrance about things he heard before he got deaf... but nice try anyway

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 23 January 2013 - 03:18 PM.

[Beo Vulf]

MadBadger, on 23 January 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

Yeah, what I want out of the game is whiners who start a 'Your game should be some other game, not this game' thread, and then go start another thread 5 minutes later on same topic, pointing back to their first thread.

If you don't have something MWO-constructive to say, then please go play the other game.

(Hopefully you will not find it necessary to create a new thread titled "My thread pointing to my other thread so you will read my first thread")


Badger

Did I patently state any were in my post that MWO should be PS2. No
So get your head out of your rear end and actually understand what I said. The same issues we have to today with game stability, graphics, net code, and the look and feel of the game, are the same issues that we had 6 months ago in closed BETA. At this stage (Open BETA) the game stability, and net code issues should have been addressed, graphics should be 75% complete minimum, Maps should be 75% complete minimum, game content should be 75 to 85 percent complete, game modes should be 85 to 90 percent complete, and what ever the max number of players in a match is supposed to be at game release that should be the number of players in a match at this point. So if they intended there to be the ability for 50 v 50 matches than 100 players should be able to log in and play a match without any one crashing or disconnecting due to the game. We are not even at the 10 v 10 level yet.
That it is not at that level indicates poor operations management on the part of PGI, and someone toes should be held to the fire.

MWO

Edited by Beo Vulf, 23 January 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

1) Is the game graphically in your opinion at an exceptable level?

Yes. The word you are looking for is "acceptable" by the way.

Quote

2) Is the game in your opinion at an exceptable level of stability?

Yes, except for a few known bugs (4fps bug, black screen, yellow screen, and "atari vision"). Those might have been fixed by today's patch though - I haven't played enough today to make sure.

Quote

3) Are the Game maps as rich and detailed, not to mention expansive enough?

Rich and detailed - yes, large enough - no. PS2 maps are way, way too large for MWO though, so that size won't work well.

Quote

4)Do you feel that the combat is immersive enough?

Yes.

[Noth]

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

Did I patently state any were in my post that MWO should be PS2. No
So get your head out of your rear end and actually understand what I said. The same issues we have to today with game stability, graphics, net code, and the look and feel of the game, are the same issues that we had 6 months ago in closed BETA. At this stage (Open BETA) the game stability, and net code issues should have been addressed, graphics should be 75% complete minimum, Maps should be 75% complete minimum, game content should be 75 to 85 percent complete, game modes should be 85 to 90 percent complete, and what ever the max number of players in a match is supposed to be at game release that should be the number of players in a match at this point. So if they intended there to be the ability for 50 v 50 matches than 100 players should be able to log in and play a match without any one crashing or disconnecting due to the game.
That it is not at that level indicates poor operations management on the part of PGI, and someone toes should be held to the fire.

MWO

You do know that PS2 has a huge backer behind it along with being in development for longer than this game right? This game is a small dev with a small backer and had absolutely zero code written for it a little over a year ago. You want everything fixed, you better cough up a crap ton of money and magically give them more time. That is all it means. The fact that they are as far along as they currently are shows amazing management on the part of PGI.

[Frostiken]

IceSerpent, on 23 January 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

PS2 maps are way, way too large for MWO though, so that size won't work well.

Nobody is saying we need a whole ******* PS2 continent to fight on, but compare it instead to say, Death Vally from MWLL.

We need maps that are many kilometers across.

And I wouldn't object to respawn gamemode (basically you pick four mechs from your hangar and you can bring them in in any order you chose).

[Ryvucz]

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

You miss the point entirely. So let me ask you a series of questions.
1) Is the game graphically in your opinion at an exceptable level?
2) Is the game in your opinion at an exceptable level of stability?
3) Are the Game maps as rich and detailed, not to mention expansive enough?
4)Do you feel that the combat is immersive enough?
These are simple questions requiring no other answers other than a simple Yes, or No.

BETA

And you should change the post to "What I expect out of the Game"

[Noth]

Frostiken, on 23 January 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

Nobody is saying we need a whole ******* PS2 continent to fight on, but compare it instead to say, Death Vally from MWLL.

We need maps that are many kilometers across.

And I wouldn't object to respawn gamemode (basically you pick four mechs from your hangar and you can bring them in in any order you chose).

With how easy players walk by each other without knowing on the current maps, much larger maps will just mean it happens more often.

[IceSerpent]

Frostiken, on 23 January 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

I'd love to know where you crackheads get the idea that this is a simulator.

I'll let you in on a secret - we got this idea from knowing that word "simulation" means imitation or enactment. Now the big question is where crackheads like yourself got the idea that simulator absolutely has to be "button-pushing mayhem and slower-paced"?