StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/100/1001659p1.html

Oh man look what's rising up behind a building in that third teaser. It's my favorite Battlemech, the fucking Jenner. I do like how it looked around all dynamically. Maybe this game will feel less stodgy and more fluid. There better be physical combat. I gotta have my tree clubs.

Man, screw that, I'm still holding out for Mechcommander 3. I fact, I just reinstalled 2 a couple days ago and I'm playing through it.

Anyways... The first teaser gets the feel right I think. The third is just kinda silly. I seriously hope that jumping doesn't look that squeaky clean in the game.

A new MechWarrior with the founder of FASA involved? Yes please. Here's praying that it builds upon the original series and implements a proper Mech simulation with modern design and features, rather than putting out some console-ized derivative crap a la Mech Assault.

Oddly enough, I've been playing through MW4 recently. Not half bad for its age, but clearly lacking it terms of design features compared to modern games.

I've waited...we've waited for so long.

The Inner Sphere shall tremble again.

You know at least Mech Assault was fun while Mechwarrior 3 and 4 was like "lol how many small clan lasers can I stack in this Shadow Cat." Or maybe that was just the online play. Honestly making the new game more like an early Armored Core would capture the spirit of the board game more so than the last four PC games.

I guess some people just had different experiences with the games? I liked MW2 but my favorites were ultimately MW3 and 4 if that trips enough nerd nerves.

I never played online, I bet it was dominated by tryhard assholes breaking the gameplay design down into 1 or 2 good combos just like Chromehounds. I thought the campaigns were the shit.

Woah you thought Mech ASSault was fun? Um... >_>

MW4's problem was it's damage modeling, you could literally ram a mech and continuously wail on it right in the face and not die or kill it instantly instantly because weapons did dick all damage.

CaptHawkeye wrote:
Woah you thought Mech ASSault was fun? Um... >_>

Well Mech Assault 2 at least. It's all about the Battle Armor.

The problem really lies in how simulations do not work in the same way Battletech does. For one, if I'm armed with ten lasers, they don't scatter all over the target, making thus a 6-ton, 10-point damaging PPC less valuable than a pair of 1-ton 5-point medium lasers.

Now, if they added oh, some sort of accuracy scatter based on your pilot's stats, that'd be closer... but also aggrivating as hell on the simulation side as you line up perfect PPC volleys, only to see them go all over from the BTechy rules.

As for the games, I liked MW3's engine best. You were fast, accurate and had weapons that felt powerful. Except losing a leg or side torso killed you. Which was stupid. Also, the projectile weapons still suffered from that stupid 'one shot in BT = one shot in MW' that made autocannons/gauss rifles utterly useless. At least MW4 made ammo much more sensible.

I think a good way to replicate the way the weapons fire scatters in the board game is to simply not let the player directly control their aim. That's more or less what I mean when I say the new games should be like Armored Core. In the board game you have a gunnery score that reflects how well you hit a target which can be like the FCS equipment in Armored Core. Make the game more about maneuver and positioning than about how many lasers can you point at some guy's foot for five minutes. All the pilot would have to do is control speed (maybe even make it just RUN and WALK) and maybe torso twist (it doesn't even to be anything more than turn 90 degrees left or right) and just let your pilot do the shooting. Just make it so that certain weapons will only work when your target is in a certain place. Life if I'm in a Panther with a PPC on its right arm and I want to hit someone behind me, the 'Mech will torso twist and point its arm at the target and let me shoot. Then again I guess that's too arcade like for all the "srs business" of Mechwarrior :<

While that's an intriguing game concept and I'm not necessarily opposed to it, that's Knights of the Inner Sphere: The Clan Lords and not MechWarrior. MechWarrior has always been in the same genre as Wing Commander and X-Wing, even if the setting is firmly grounded (so to speak). It doesn't (nor should it) adhere directly to the BT tabletop rules, because that's silly. MechCommander, yes, that should bear a closer resemblance to core BattleTech, but MW is about sitting in a 'Mech cockpit and having land-based dogfights. Pilot skill is determined by the hand on the joystick, not a numerical stat-line.

Words cannot convey how excited I will be if it is Mechwarrior 5. I reinstalled MechWarrior 4: Mercenaries a few weeks ago and ran through the campaign again. I forgot how much fun it was. And VF, yeah that wouldn't feel like MW to me. I like having to control a bunch of different aspects while I'm playing, and also having my accuracy effect games. I can understand where you're coming from, but learning how to line up shots, turn to reduce damage, switch speeds to throw off aim and such was a large part of the fun of the game to me.

Not to sound Stark-y, but that's the kind of thinking killed Mechwarrior and Wing-Commander style games. Sure some things worked about those games, but a lot of things didn't. And do we even know if this game is Mechwarrior 5? Maybe they're starting over with Battletech 1 or something so forget all of your expectations.

You'll notice that I said "if it is Mechwarrior 5". You're right, it could be a completely new line or continuation of some other line. Also, they aren't expectations for the game, just what I enjoy in Mechwarrior games. Call me weird I guess, but I like how MW 4 plays. I must be in the minority.

EDIT: That doesn't mean that I don't accept the fact that there is some definite room for improvement in that type of gameplay.

I can't speak to Wing Commander, having only played 3, but I was under the impression that legality killed MechWarrior. What with its studios and rights-holders all imploding in a cataclysmic chain reaction and all.

Yeah, obviously this genre is "out of style" right now what with everyone concerned with making the next Halo or WoW, but that doesn't mean a modern, updated return to it won't be successful.

True, this isn't necessarily a MechWarrior installment, but most of us seem to be hoping it is. If it isn't, so be it, with any luck it will still be good whatever it is.

Edit:

Lord Relvenous wrote:I must be in the minority.

Hardly. MW4 was great, apart from a few minor things which should have been carried over from MW2 (Clans; the more interactive and fluffy environment outside of missions - a la TIE Fighter, X-Wing Alliance; the more BTech-style 'Mech design options, and so on).

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:While that's an intriguing game concept and I'm not necessarily opposed to it, that's Knights of the Inner Sphere: The Clan Lords and not MechWarrior. MechWarrior has always been in the same genre as Wing Commander and X-Wing, even if the setting is firmly grounded (so to speak). It doesn't (nor should it) adhere directly to the BT tabletop rules, because that's silly. MechCommander, yes, that should bear a closer resemblance to core BattleTech, but MW is about sitting in a 'Mech cockpit and having land-based dogfights. Pilot skill is determined by the hand on the joystick, not a numerical stat-line.

Which is funny, because games that focus on agility and spatial awareness (rather than stack 10 med las0rs press fire lol) use fire-control to reduce the predictable and repetitive nature of MW gunnery. Frankly, using a fire-control 'game' to make driving a mech more complex than 'pressing forward' and 'mouse over knee joint, press fire' might even allow the game to move it's focus somewhere interesting that would attract non-addicts.

It's actually quite hilarious - and really I think we can ignore anything people like you have to say on this topic - that you're basically NMA-level 'that's not what MW is at it's soul you don't understand it' here.

VF5SS wrote:And do we even know if this game is Mechwarrior 5? Maybe they're starting over with Battletech 1 or something so forget all of your expectations.

Well IGN has it labeled "Mechwarrior Project (PC)" with "Action Simulation" as the genre while also stating it will also be available for 360, and they have all the inside information...and the page has probably only been up since they announced they had an interview. It's no 100% guarantee, but I feel fairly safe in saying that it's a new Mechwarrior.

I can't speak to Wing Commander, having only played 3, but I was under the impression that legality killed MechWarrior. What with its studios and rights-holders all imploding in a cataclysmic chain reaction and all.

Well, at some point several years ago, I think Piranha Games got the license for MW...and I think I read somewhere where they once stated they were working on some big next-gen project however I don't think they've actually done much in the past few years besides apparently handhelds and the Transformers movie tie in games (I think I remember seeing cars bounce from giant robot footsteps in the first game's demo when I played it so the game might be using the same engine.), so perhaps they've actually been working on this for awhile...? (A man can dream)

The 'mech in the second teaser appears to be a Warhammer.

Stark wrote:Which is funny, because games that focus on agility and spatial awareness (rather than stack 10 med las0rs press fire lol) use fire-control to reduce the predictable and repetitive nature of MW gunnery. Frankly, using a fire-control 'game' to make driving a mech more complex than 'pressing forward' and 'mouse over knee joint, press fire' might even allow the game to move it's focus somewhere interesting that would attract non-addicts.

It's actually quite hilarious - and really I think we can ignore anything people like you have to say on this topic - that you're basically NMA-level 'that's not what MW is at it's soul you don't understand it' here.

Yeah, heaven forbid someone ever have differing tastes in games than Stark. Or that someone actually enjoys, y'know, actually being able to dust off their joystick once in a blue moon for a pilot sim. We can't have that.

Of course, I'm sure you conveniently ignored my statements that obviously the old MW games have dated mechanics and are in severe need of updating. Much easier to simply hammer away with absolutely nothing constructive!

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:While that's an intriguing game concept and I'm not necessarily opposed to it, that's Knights of the Inner Sphere: The Clan Lords and not MechWarrior. MechWarrior has always been in the same genre as Wing Commander and X-Wing,

Change the names, it's the same backwards, conservative NMA 'don't change anything' attitude. It isn't about taste; when MW2 came out every motherfucker played it (just like your examples of X-Wing etc). Turns out times change, but retentive brandslaves don't want their precious games to change with them.

Seriously, when someone says 'you can't have modern feature xyz in this game of the same genre, because THAT'S NOT MECHWARRIOR', that's pretty hilarious. Nice of you to red herring it into 'taste', however - your statement above is clearly a positive statement of what Mechwarrior 'is'. Remember kids, you can 'update mechanics' but only the way that's TRUE TO THE SPIRIT of true Mechwarrior. Fixing the mechanics of MW is trivial - especially these days, with per-pixel armour mechanics and damage modeling - but we'd have to ask you if it was true Mechwarrior first, I guess.

Commander 598 wrote: Well, at some point several years ago, I think Piranha Games got the license for MW...and I think I read somewhere where they once stated they were working on some big next-gen project however I don't think they've actually done much in the past few years besides apparently handhelds and the Transformers movie tie in games (I think I remember seeing cars bounce from giant robot footsteps in the first game's demo when I played it so the game might be using the same engine.), so perhaps they've actually been working on this for awhile...? (A man can dream)

I actually didn't even know Piranha Games existed. Last I heard a bunch of old guys from FASA had broken from Microsoft to form "Smith and Tinker" studios and they had the rights to the IP. They also bought Crimson Skies and Shadowrun back from Microsoft. It doesn't seem like they've been doing anything though. I guess Piranha beat them to the development punch.

I'm somewhat hostile to the idea of putting auto-aim in Mechwarrior as well. But my fear has more to do with it ending up like Morrowind's "roll to hit" system of hilarious wierdness. (My arrows passed through him harmlessly because I FAILED THE DAMAGE THROW. Uh oh!)

I'm interested to learn why having such a system would suddenly make it less of a piloty game though. (Or somehow make it less Mechwarrior) Modern combat flight sims depict Jets shooting radar/heat guided missiles and automatic gunz of DOOM at eachother. Last I checked, LOMAC, Falcon 4.0, and countless Jane's titles weren't considered any less of a true joystick sim for having auto aim. It turns out modern day and presumably futuristic weapons would function in such a manner anyway?

There's a pretty serious difference between the idea of implementing fire-control and 'auto-aim'. I could hurt the feelings of nerds by saying that firing fixed weapons at a manually steered crosshair is fucking absurdly stupid, but the MW games always had the potential for more interesting complexity that wasn't really present (although later one added some in). Nobody wants it to turn into either a radar simulator or a flying robot simulator, but the MW games are really quite primitive and could really easily be improved.

If only people weren't so conservative. I mean, the MW computer games could be faster, easier and more involved than the boardgame, while being MORE complex in modeling. But nah. The old games were 'better' than that, because they had offensively stupid and clumsy balancing attempts like 'oh the leg doesn't COME OFF anymore, uh... yeah'.

Stark wrote:
Which is funny, because games that focus on agility and spatial awareness (rather than stack 10 med las0rs press fire lol) use fire-control to reduce the predictable and repetitive nature of MW gunnery. Frankly, using a fire-control 'game' to make driving a mech more complex than 'pressing forward' and 'mouse over knee joint, press fire' might even allow the game to move it's focus somewhere interesting that would attract non-addicts.

This is pretty much what happened with my online experiences with Mechwarrior 3 (which had godawful net code so the lag was superbad) and the Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries campaign. In MW3 everyone would just take a Shadowcat, load up small lasers, and shoot at your legs until you died. During MW4 I was frustrated for awhile and then my roommate told me to just load up my Mad Cat with as many medium lasers as it could carry and just use that. I stopped playing at that point. I'm sorry but "Medium laser the game" isn't very fun.

If you really want something that's just like Mechwarrior, there's always the Battletech Simulator where they use conefire to make shots more varied and you can't turn at all when running full speed. This game is pretty much the anti-fun.

Stark wrote:Change the names, it's the same backwards, conservative NMA 'don't change anything' attitude. It isn't about taste; when MW2 came out every motherfucker played it (just like your examples of X-Wing etc). Turns out times change, but retentive brandslaves don't want their precious games to change with them.

Seriously, when someone says 'you can't have modern feature xyz in this game of the same genre, because THAT'S NOT MECHWARRIOR', that's pretty hilarious. Nice of you to red herring it into 'taste', however - your statement above is clearly a positive statement of what Mechwarrior 'is'. Remember kids, you can 'update mechanics' but only the way that's TRUE TO THE SPIRIT of true Mechwarrior. Fixing the mechanics of MW is trivial - especially these days, with per-pixel armour mechanics and damage modeling - but we'd have to ask you if it was true Mechwarrior first, I guess.

When the hell did I say "don't change anything", exactly? Oh, wait, I said exactly the opposite:

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:Here's praying that it builds upon the original series and implements a proper Mech simulation with modern design and features ... but [MW4 is] clearly lacking [in] terms of design features compared to modern games.

I like how you accuse me of dragging things off on a red herring and then do it yourself in the same breath by somehow equating the proposed RPG-like mechanic (automated aiming systems based upon RPG-lite pilot stats) to mean "modern feature".

You wouldn't go to, say, World of Warcraft and make an entirely single-player sequel and call it World of Warcraft 2. Call it Warcraft Adventures or whatever the hell you want, but it's obviously not WoW2. This is the exact same issue: You would not create the next MechWarrior and totally remove half of the personal pilot sim elements. I already conceded that afore-mentioned fire-control mechanic isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it has no place in a MechWarrior game - at least as proposed. CaptHawkeye makes a fair point in that some manner of FCS could be a cool thing, but the tabletop-inspired stat-based system clearly should have nothing to do with MechWarrior. That was the entirety of my argument, so get off your goddamn high horse.