HAWKEN servers are up and our latest minor update is live!
Forgot Password? SUPPORT REDEEM CODE

Jump to content


How much does the 'mech' aspect actually matter?


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#1 Frostiken

Frostiken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted August 06 2011 - 03:19 PM

Forgive me for my cynical first post, but I've watched 'the video' and heard people freaking out about how awesome the game looks, but honestly, I'm not convinced.

The biggest turn-off for me is that it seems that the entire mech / robot aspect is little more than a vehicle to drive interest in the game. In the teaser video, which I will admit said it's a WiP and at this point we may have just nailed down the basics, but in the teaser video, all you see is extremely standard FPS gameplay with some deployable turrets - certainly nothing that hasn't been done many times before.

Now, one of my favorite FPS games of all time was Tribes 2 and I get a serious Tribes vibe from watching these videos - so I'm not saying that the game is bad. I will say that I don't have any doubt it won't live up to bar that Tribes set unreachably high, but like I said, I'm a cynic :P If the FPS gameplay is half as good as Tribes, it'll be good shooting action all around. Jetpacks galore!

But, to go back to my sad, lonesome concern, is that everyone I see talking about this game keeps comparing it to Mechwarrior, all the media driving it seems to really push the whole 'mech' aspect but I don't know anything about the game that really seems to drive the entire point of "why mechs"? Letting people have this notion that the game is like Mechwarrior is extremely disingenuous, I'm sure you'll agree - it'd be like buying the Shadowrun Xbox game thinking it has anything at all to do with the actual Shadowrun P&P RPG. Mechwarrior was an extremely slow-paced game, even its modern iteration in MWLL, and required a lot of skills rather unique to the franchise - the asymmetrical battles meant you needed good situational awareness skills, you had to be able to multitask and manage multiple systems at once. Basically, the whole mech aspect was real in the limitations of a machine you had built around you.

You may see where I'm going with this already - the game bills itself as 'mech combat', but I've yet to really see anything mechlike about it. Graphics don't matter, you make any game look like mechs - even Hitler had a robot suit at the end of Wolfenstein 3D - so what is there that's mechlike about this game? In several threads on this forum people are describing it as the 'mech game to end all mech games', and I don't see how this really even qualifies as one - in a discussion I had with a friend on this matter I pointed out that there aren't even damage zones or degraded performance - you have one health bar, and when it hits zero, you die - that's it.

So, is there more to this that is really, seriously mech-like or should I just stick to thinking of it as an FPS game with pretty graphics?

#2 Provi

Provi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted August 06 2011 - 10:37 PM

You made some good points. I think it's perfectly fine to consider Hawken a FPS with cosmetic mech elements.

But to make things clear, the definition of a mech game is vague in itself:
http://en.m.wikipedi...lar_combat_game

It's arguable that the missile rack touting, rocket boosting, and occasionally offline-for-repair sprites are little else than mech game mechanics refined and simplified to the point that they create the feel of a conventional FPS. And I'm pretty sure this accessible gameplay is exactly what Adhesive strived to achieve.

That said, I agree with you that the core gaming crowd Hawken is developed for wouldn't find the technical aspects of hardcore simulators appealing if Adhesive decided to slip them in.

#3 JackDandy

JackDandy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • LocationHaifa, Israel

Posted August 06 2011 - 11:42 PM

It's definitely more FPS then a sim, that's easy to see.

However, I appreciate the devs making the mechs actually FEEL like them when piloting them. Overheating, slow walking/turning, using quick evasive roller dashes, managing airjet fuel.. all that and more should separate it from your average guy-on-foot FPS.

#4 Frostiken

Frostiken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted August 07 2011 - 06:37 AM

Provi said:

You made some good points. I think it's perfectly fine to consider Hawken a FPS with cosmetic mech elements.

But to make things clear, the definition of a mech game is vague in itself:
http://en.m.wikipedi...lar_combat_game

It's arguable that the missile rack touting, rocket boosting, and occasionally offline-for-repair sprites are little else than mech game mechanics refined and simplified to the point that they create the feel of a conventional FPS. And I'm pretty sure this accessible gameplay is exactly what Adhesive strived to achieve.

I suppose, but I find myself thinking of it as more like MechAssault which isn't really a good thing. When MechAssault hit the Xbox all those years  ago, people who were into Mechwarrior were deceived into buying it, because it looked like a mech, walked like a mech, was armed like a mech, but ran around in third person snagging item pickups and removed everything that was mechlike.

When Piranah Games announced the Mechwarrior reboot, a lot of people who had grown up on 'mech games' were confused because they grew up on MechAssault, and thus didn't "get" the concept there.

So yeah, the whole 'mech' concept is ill-defined, but I like to think of it as expecting a certain set of rules the game is built around. I won't use the term 'sim' because I think even calling Mechwarrior a sim is pretty ridiculous - I'd love a good mech sim - flipping switches and doing all kinds of inane stuff - and obviously Mechwarrior is nothing like that. Mechwarrior is complicated, but I think that's mostly what sums up what a mech game should be - rather than in a standard FPS game, where you control the player and the player controls the environment, in a mech game - or rather any vehicular-based game, you control the player who controls the VEHICLE that controls the environment.

Also maybe it's because I'm an old fogey gamer but nothing turns my stomach like hearing "accessible gameplay"... we all know that that's just a euphemism for "dumbed-down"... :/

#5 Guru_Zeb

Guru_Zeb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted August 07 2011 - 07:23 AM

Jack Dandy said:

Overheating, slow walking/turning, using quick evasive roller dashes, managing airjet fuel.. all that and more should separate it from your average guy-on-foot FPS.



Ok i know so of you kids are all 'wee your bed excited' about this game, but thats no excuse to just plain stop attempting to make sense when you string sentences together.

Every game characteristic 'point' you make in your comment has/does exist in a 'guy-on-foot' FPS. in fact i can think of a few games that cover all your bases !!!!
So you leave the even half intelligent reader thinking 'WTF you just described half a dozen FPS that are the definition of 'guy-on-foot' FPS as examples of characteristics that separate Hawken from 'guy-on-foot' FPS .......hmmmm'
In addition your doing what the OP is doing and basing opinions on very limited data. You also seem to be doing some wishful inventing as i don't see much evidence (based on the video trailers) of Hawken mechs turning or moving too slowly in fact IMHO the fuckers jump around and dash like flees on PCP, considering they are meant to be multi-ton machines. But with so little data its hard to form an opinion thats more than wishful thinking or pure speculation. For all we know things could be looking very different in the next build ..........

In this instance I appreciate your trying to 'defend' Hawken against what you see as an attack. But the 'attack' is somewhat of a strawman talking point. The OP i think intends his post to promote discussion of the issues. Rote knee jerk defence will not help your cause especially when its as poorly thought out as this.

IMHO OP outlines some very salient points, but IMHO its too early a development to make much meaningful noise about exactly where its going to end up at. I'll admit to holding vague fears of a similar nature to the OP, but on the other hand I also think at times "maybe a fast twitch response mech game would be a nice change of pace" maybe think of Hawken mechs as a 'Tachikoma' style 'mechs'

Rather than a 'Btech' style mech. Since the devs have been quite open about there Anime/Manga influences maybe this is a more accurate view of what they are trying to do.
Lets remember Btech is not the only template for mechs, not sure its even the best one. It has as many clunky fudges and balancing fixes as a lot of other systems (and lots of omissions/diversions from the true Btech rules) ...... but what it is, is CONSISTENT and HIGHLY CONFIGURABLE.
If there is anything that concerns me most about Hawken its the dashing, the speed of movement, no localized damage modelling, and the lack of much user configuration.

But my basic view is .......... too early to tell.
As always i come at this from an old Skool mechwarrior (by old skool i mean MP playing since MW2) ex-unit member, and ex-league player, perspective.

On another note "YO ADHESIVE CREW!!!! would be nice to occasionally hear your views or rational for certain choices or ideas rather than just leaving us to talk each other into ever decreasing circles, site activity is dropping off already ........"
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the juice of the Brew,
that thoughts acquire speed,
the teeth acquire stains,
the stains become a warning.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.

#6 SixEcho

SixEcho

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted August 07 2011 - 09:38 AM

The Guru makes some good points here but I think its also prudent to note that we have only seen the Light mechs in the game so far (or by the best of my knowledge). They are confirmed to have a much speedier setup then the other classes which is offset by both firepower and health. As such maybe the devs have already balanced it so that those "fuckers jump around and dash like flees on PCP" have to do that in a battle against Medium or Heavy mechs.

I concur with Guru Zeb, its far too early to tell.

#7 The_Silencer

The_Silencer

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,266 posts
  • LocationStyx.

Posted August 07 2011 - 09:49 AM

.. I do concur. And if you wish, you may enjoy watching this other mech based stuff.

P.S. You're not the only old cat in here GZ.

Posted Image

.

"The difference between theory and practice is smaller in theory than it is in practice"


#8 Frostiken

Frostiken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted August 07 2011 - 09:57 AM

Yeah, I tried to make it clear in my OP that I obviously don't have all the information, but I'm just going off what information we do have. Things can change, and I could look like an irritating fool.

This discussion is being paralleled on another forum, and I was told that it's silly to expect certain gameplay from certain themes. I disagreed on the point, explaining that when someone buys a Survival Horror game like Resident Evil, you buy it with the specific knowledge that such a theme has certain untenable gameplay elements - typically you're very vulnerable and you have limited resources to play with (ammo, health, time). To remove this from Survival Horror would break the point of the genre.

Now I'm not saying that the game has to be a copy-paste of Mechwarrior - far from it - but I think the worst criticism we, as gamers, can have of games is that they don't do anything new, or try to push graphics more than anything else. I say this with some hesitation but that seems to be what Hawken is doing - using the whole 'mech' aspect and incredible graphics and top-not art style to cover up the fact that at its heart it really seems to be little more than standard Quake-style FPS gameplay - jumping, circle-strafing, hitscan railgun-style weapons... The whole 'mecha' aspect seems to me to be little more than a justification for why you can fly through the air, take a lot of damage, and only have two weapons.

When I first saw Hawken months ago I was completely floored, but over time the 'oooh shiny' appeal has worn off; I'm looking at something that isn't what I first thought it was, and that makes me kind of sad :( The game I thought it was and wanted and the game it appears to really be are totally different and it was the whole mech aspect that was constantly pushed over and over that betrayed that feeling to me. if I ignore the graphics completely, I personally don't see anything there that really makes the game stand out at all. As an example - Dystopia, the Half-Life 2 mod, had an amazing Cyberspace aspect as well as implants that served as an extremely effective gimmick to drive the game. I didn't really care at all for the standard 'point-and-click' FPS boring monotony, but it was all the extra bits on it that made it so great.

So I find myself asking - what is there really to this game? I was interested in the mecha aspect, but it seems there's almost no mecha aspect to it at all. You can pick some weapons and upgrade your armor and speed, but that's really nothing to get excited about. You can build turrets and capture points but that just makes it smell of Team Fortress.

But DubDisc is right, we've got very little information and, as I mentioned in my first post, for all we know they'd barely put any work into gameplay itself when the first trailer came out earlier this year so there could be all kinds of features that are going to make it really feel like mecha.

Quote

Overheating, slow walking/turning, using quick evasive roller dashes, managing airjet fuel.. all that and more should separate it from your average guy-on-foot FPS.

None of that is really new, Halo covers almost all of that. We haven't had a good Tribes game in a long time, but Tribes was greater than the sum of its parts. You can't just take the FPS gameplay of Tribes and put it into a game and call it good - that's what Tribes: Vengeance tried to do and it failed - Tribes was as much about jetpacks and spinfusors as it was about a dropship of heavy armors busting in your front door and sewing a path of destruction to your generator room, which would take the turrets offline for a light strike force to grab the flag. It was about escorting a bomber with shrike interceptors, using beacons and deployables to create a forward base, alert your team about it, and then allow distant heavy armor batteries to rain mortars with precision.

#9 Provi

Provi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted August 07 2011 - 02:45 PM

Frostiken said:

if I ignore the graphics completely, I personally don't see anything there that really makes the game stand out at all...
Agreed, besides the fact that this game is being developed by a tiny team completely made up of artists with the exception of a single programmer and lacking any formal game designer. Because of that, we shouldn't expect too much innovation from the department that doesn't exist yet.

On a side note, I'd be interested in expansion packs with additional gamemodes emphasizing the mech aspect of the game.

Frostiken said:

...but Tribes was greater than the sum of its parts.
Can't Hawken be more than the sum of its parts as well?

Frostiken said:

None of that is really new, Halo covers almost all of that.
Actually, there is very little of anything new that Halo introduced gameplay-wise. Halo really innovated just by being on console and skillfully bringing many good ideas from other games together. And because of that, it's a great game.

Let's say Hawken adopts all of the game mechanics you wished it had from the mech games you mentioned. In that case, Hawken would still having nothing to separate itself from the rest. It would still be an amalgamation of ideas from other games, like it is now.

I think we've become too concerned with the 'newness' of games that we overlook the most important aspect of them: whether they are fun. In the end it doesn't matter if they innovate if they are still boring games for those who play them.

What kind of innovation are you looking for in Hawken? Is the innovation you're looking for really innovation? Is it realistic for a team this size? Is it fun for most players?

#10 Guru_Zeb

Guru_Zeb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted August 07 2011 - 04:31 PM

Provi said:

On a side note, I'd be interested in expansion packs with additional gamemodes emphasizing the mech aspect of the game.

hmmmmmm funny you mention this as i was thinking about just such an idea earlier today when i posted my previous comment.
Essentially i was musing ( daydreaming if am honest ) about what if Hawken did go big on the FPS elements and not the pseudo-sim elements, as Frostiken fears ........ hmmm be a shame to just ignore the game mech games are pretty rare on PC, and Hawken looks to have a lot of potential. So maybe Hawken could get a 'Tactical' addon, and what would be cool to add to the game 'fill out' the tactical and pseudo-sim elements.
Just idle daydreaming really.

Though i'll state right now we would be pretty foolish to start discussing addons for the game before the poor devs have even got out an open beta version.

But i will say one thing, no matter what kind of game Adhesive produce. As its using the Unreal engine it is likely to be MASSIVELY mod-able.
Now that's gotta put a thoughtful smile on everyone's faces  :shock:

The_Silencer said:

P.S. You're not the only old cat in here GZ.
Oh am well aware am not the only old fart on here m8, quite a few old mechwarriors on here from some comments.
In many ways its a testament to Hawkens limited trailers that so many old MWers have come out from under stones to take a look.
Quite a few mechwarrior forums have Hawken discussion forums (since MW reboot looks pretty much dead or at least stalled)
1st reference i ever saw to Hawken was on Mektek
http://www.mektek.net
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the juice of the Brew,
that thoughts acquire speed,
the teeth acquire stains,
the stains become a warning.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.

#11 The_Silencer

The_Silencer

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,266 posts
  • LocationStyx.

Posted August 10 2011 - 01:01 PM

It's all right. :)

Posted Image

.

"The difference between theory and practice is smaller in theory than it is in practice"


#12 Hawk1111

Hawk1111

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts
  • LocationBrussels , BE

Posted August 12 2011 - 02:22 AM

Frostiken said:

I will say that I don't have any doubt it won't live up to bar that Tribes set unreachably high,
To be quite honest tribes 2 failed in my opinion.Even if Hawken ran on the same engine as tribes 2 it would still be better.
Osaruflix - movie reviews the movie retribrution blog!
Posted Image
WHERE IS MY GOD DANG COFFEE !?

#13 Frostiken

Frostiken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted August 15 2011 - 12:52 PM

Provi said:

Frostiken said:

...but Tribes was greater than the sum of its parts.
Can't Hawken be more than the sum of its parts as well?

The problem there with Hawken is that we've got little data to go on, but from what I've seen there's not a lot to it. Ignoring the staple FPS elements and gameplay, you can apparently capture territory, build defenses, and you have neato jetpacks to propel you around. Tribes, now keeping in mind that this is late-90s / 2000, brought dozens and dozens of new concepts to FPS gameplay that hadn't been seen before. The large outdoor environments, the high playercount, multi-seat vehicles (in fact multiplayer vehicles were pretty much invented by Tribes), jetpacks, the pack system, and the overall concept of generators / turrets / defenses. Nothing had ever before been seen like it, and I daresay that nothing that ambitious has been seen since.

Hawken appears to just rehash some old gameplay with nothing to really draw interest except for the graphics. It's hard for me to acknowledge that it could be greater than the sum of its parts, particularly because we haven't seen any "parts" which either means they haven't shown them to us, or they simply don't exist. You would think an exciting new gameplay gimmick is something you'd want to show off, so given the lack of one, I assume none exists. The graphics and "mech" aspect appears to be that hook, and given the timeless rhetoric of "graphics > gameplay"... well...

Quote

Let's say Hawken adopts all of the game mechanics you wished it had from the mech games you mentioned. In that case, Hawken would still having nothing to separate itself from the rest. It would still be an amalgamation of ideas from other games, like it is now.

I think that's being a little generous, after all FPS games haven't been called 'Doom clones' for over a dozen years now. Jumping around shooting things isn't an 'idea' anymore, no less  than saying 3D environments are.

I'm not saying that every game has be some sort of absurd artsy-fartsy indy gimmick, but you gotta have something. You don't even need something new - you can even take an old idea and polish it with your own twist. The game needs something memorable. Natural-Selection exploded onto the FPS scene with its inclusion of a 'Commander' mode predating Battlefield 2 by three years, as well as heavily asymmetric gameplay. Hell people are still putting RTS in FPS and pretending it's something 'new'.

Now, NS was pretty revolutionary, so back up a bit - Dystopia had its excellent Cyberspace, and even barring that, something as simple as the implant system worked well enough. A page you can bring up to customize aspects of your digital mans in more ways than just their guns and armor - hardly a new concept, but the kind of implants and how they supplemented gameplay so well is what made it work.

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars was, at its surface, a good game. It got great reviews, it sold well, yet... nobody played it. The game completely flopped as far multiplayer counts go. I attribute this to the fact that the game's only hook was 'the successor to W:ET.' Even to this day, W:ET is still more popular. Wolfenstein did something new, QW just tried to create a game in a sterile lab engineered to be 'fun' to people who like W:ET, and because of this, it wasn't any fun at all.

Quote

I think we've become too concerned with the 'newness' of games that we overlook the most important aspect of them: whether they are fun. In the end it doesn't matter if they innovate if they are still boring games for those who play them.

First of all I think the 'fun' aspect is overrated. Yeah, you heard that right, but mostly because 'fun' is such an ambiguous term it's like describing Will Ferrel movies as 'funny' in the same sentence as Dr. Strangelove. Sure, they're both funny, but one's only funny if you're a total idiot.

Take Minecraft - sold a batrillion jillion copies, yet the game doesn't actually have anything 'fun'. You literally have to make your own fun, and yet players are happy with that. Not my cup of tea, but I can respect the fact that the gameplay is something different.

Which one of these do you think is more 'fun'?

A or B?

A or B?

A or B?

My stance on this is the reason more and more AAA games are tending to revolve around extremely linear gameplay and cutscene after over-the-top cutscene is because by turning the games into heavily scripted movies you've taken the ambiguity of 'fun' out of the equation. People can't criticize your gameplay when you aren't playing... It's the reason you get shot in the face once in MW1, by MW2 you got shot in the face three times.

Quote

What kind of innovation are you looking for in Hawken? Is the innovation you're looking for really innovation? Is it realistic for a team this size? Is it fun for most players?

Define 'most players'. This even goes as far as which platform it's being played on. The PC crowd is going to tolerate slower, deeper gameplay more than the spazoid Xbox crowd will. I don't even know how the game feels, all I've seen is a couple Youtube videos, within which it appears they're playing with an Xbox controller. I can think of a few things that would at least retain the pacing while bringing out the mecha aspect, notably equipment upgrades and localized damage. The entire point is that the criminal sin of this game is that it's mech, but appears to go absolutely nowhere with the mech aspect. So you bring out the mech aspect - that's the innovation I want.

Using it to explain why you can take tons of damage, have unlimited ammo, and can fly around the place doesn't convince me of anything.

I'm also somewhat annoyed that the weapons themselves are the stereotypical FPS variety - the long-range ultra-precise high-damage hitscan weapon, the 'grenade launcher' weapon, the 'machine gun'... you can only go so far with these, I admit, but seriously, seeing the 37,592th iteration of the Quake railgun is sickening and yawn-inducing.

#14 Guru_Zeb

Guru_Zeb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted August 15 2011 - 02:30 PM

whoaa !!! Scary shit i had no idea Hawx was really that bad ......... LMFAO.
WTF ........ mach30 missles ........ lmfao
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the juice of the Brew,
that thoughts acquire speed,
the teeth acquire stains,
the stains become a warning.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.

#15 Frostiken

Frostiken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted August 15 2011 - 07:31 PM

No, the worst part about Hawx is I think they're making a third one.

The creative producers behind those two games need to be lined up and gunned down.


Anyway, my point was that 'fun' varies greatly so it's not as cut-and-dry as you make it seem. Me personally I prefer games with a bit of depth behind them. Hawken will get my vote for FPS gameplay, but I don't really see a lot of potential for longevity in it either, not without something 'more'.

#16 Ilhan

Ilhan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted August 16 2011 - 05:16 PM

I think you come here for some mech game, and I understand your disapointment.
As you, I prefer the simulations games.

But what I see at the head of that forum is Hawken : mech combat FPS.

So yeah... it's clearly more a mech flavored FPS than a complete Mech sim.

What's the difference with a classical fps?
well, for the little we can see or read about it :
Missiles, canons, high resitance, airjet fuel, overheating, slow walking, different sizes of mech (even if for the moment we only have seen light mechs in action). And of course some graphism and animation to give the piloting mech feeling.

As a little multiplayer game it still sounds promising to me.

For the moment I'm waiting for a little more of this game. But I'm optimistic.

#17 Frostiken

Frostiken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted August 17 2011 - 11:22 AM

Well we can argue on this point: I don't really think Mechwarrior is a sim. I'm not sure why people get that idea. Mechwarrior is, at best, a 'tank' game, but the concepts behind it are still fundamentally FPS - you can jump, you move around, and you use the mouse to aim and shoot dudes with lasers.

Mechwarrior is as much a mech sim as Ace Combat is a plane sim, the point being, I don't control my mech by this :D I mean, compare Mechwarrior to Steel Battalion and Mechwarrior looks about as complicated as Halo.

That said, I would absolutely *love* a Mechwarrior sim that actually made an, albeit completely fictional, cockpit with controls for everything with some semblance of realism :)

#18 Provi

Provi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted August 17 2011 - 07:48 PM

Frostiken said:

...but you gotta have something. You don't even need something new - you can even take an old idea and polish it with your own twist.
That's exactly what Hawken is. Adhesive didn't promise any more than it could deliver. Like I said in another thread, don't expect innovation from the department that doesn't exist. All they have is artists and a programmer, they have to wing the rest.

If you really want innovative gameplay, help them out by giving them fresh, tangible ideas right here.

Frostiken said:

First of all I think the 'fun' aspect is overrated. Yeah, you heard that right, but mostly because 'fun' is such an ambiguous term...

Take Minecraft - sold a batrillion jillion copies, yet the game doesn't actually have anything 'fun'. You literally have to make your own fun...
Did you notice the contradiction? Minecraft like all other games sets you up to interact with the world. The novelty is the manner and extent that game allows each player to interact.

Player types are usually divided into 4 categories something like "1-Constructors, 2-Destructors, 3-Explorers, and 4-Managers."

Since you are probably a mixture of 1,2, and 4, you probably don't care as much about Minecraft because you enjoy creating mechs, destroying other mechs, and managing your own mech. A combo of 1 and 3 are more attracted to Minecraft. (They despise the occasional 2 whom they call Greifers.)

You see? "Fun" may be relative, but it's not ambiguous.

Frostiken said:

My stance on this is the reason more and more AAA games are tending to revolve around extremely linear gameplay and cutscene after over-the-top cutscene is because by turning the games into heavily scripted movies you've taken the ambiguity of 'fun' out of the equation. People can't criticize your gameplay when you aren't playing... It's the reason you get shot in the face once in MW1, by MW2 you got shot in the face three times.
Well, I understand the reason you exaggerate. But the average MW player isn't there for campaign or story. They're there for the multiplayer because they want the satisfaction of being Destroyers. There's much more of that when your opponent is a person and his death is marked by a graphic spectacle (pun intended).

Frostiken said:

Define 'most players'. This even goes as far as which platform it's being played on. The entire point is that the criminal sin of this game is that it's mech, but appears to go absolutely nowhere with the mech aspect. So you bring out the mech aspect - that's the innovation I want.
'Most players' a.k.a. mainstream. Recall the interviews? Adhesive said explicitly that they are aiming to bring the mainstream audience into a mech world. For good or bad, that means appealing with recognizable gameplay for them.

We can't take sides regarding platforms when we completely don't know whether it will be on PC or console at all.

Frostiken said:

I'm also somewhat annoyed that the weapons themselves are the stereotypical FPS variety.
You're not alone. But I wont judge the book by its cover. I can wait for expansions. ;)

#19 Frostiken

Frostiken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted August 17 2011 - 10:33 PM

Quote

Adhesive said explicitly that they are aiming to bring the mainstream audience into a mech world.

In that case let's innovate it by giving you hundreds of achievements for everything in game, automatically post the results of every game to your Facebook and Twitter, give it autoaim and fill it with zombies.

#20 Provi

Provi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted August 18 2011 - 08:42 AM

Frostiken said:

In that case let's innovate it by giving you hundreds of achievements for everything in game, automatically post the results of every game to your Facebook and Twitter, give it autoaim and fill it with zombies.
Sold to Zynga-Activision. XD




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users