87 replies to this topic

[Gen]

Lets just get this clear for all the idiots posting here. MWO =/= MWLL. They are completely different games with completely different mechanics that share nothing in gameplay.

I am in the MWO beta and that is all I am allowed to say, but I will mention that headshots in Mechwarrior do and have existed for ages and will continue to. If I stick my heavy laser in your cockpit, you cockpit will fry and you mech will die. If I stick my small lazer there though, I might need to hit you a few times to get the armor plates off. The idea of headshots being one hit kills on a mech seems pretty silly to me anyway. You think if they built a 50 ton machine powered by a single man, they would try and protect the man.

The difference for me, having not played Hawken, is all about scale. As is pretty plain to see, all the mechs in Hawken so far have been about the size of a Scout Mech in MW. Scout Mechs are fast and manoeuvrable and in a good MW game and maybe one that I can't speak on they can dance circles around a big machine picking it apart. but compare Hawken's gameplay with that of a scout mech and I see very similar things happening, bar the odd Quake-esque multiplayer platform shooter reference.


I mean right now we've only seen a pre-alpha. I think the twitch aiming is due to code not being added as no machine has absolutely unlimited turning speed and instant acceleration and deceleration of rotation needed to make the aiming reticule move about as quick as a mouse can.

Edited by Gen, September 20 2012 - 04:38 AM.

[pezzott1]

Cpt_Kill_Jack, on September 19 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

Cjail, on July 07 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

First MechWarrior has the same look already from many years, it's so consolidated that frankly I am no longer surprised.
Hawken art style/aesthetic instead is really fresh, colorful and Mechs are really cool PLUS there are a lot of little things that makes it stand out: the HUD is gorgeous, the lighting also is fantastic.
Unreal Engine shines with this kind of  design philosophy far more then the Cry Engine which is a great engine but IMO is all about realism and often lacks that extra spice that helps(Crysis 2)
Environments also looks far more unique/vary in Hawken and really there are some amazing weather effects: so far in MWO I have seen only big forests that frankly are generic at best.
Gamepaly wise Hawken is far faster then MWO, far more focused the magic of FPS that on the simulation and personally I prefer games with a fast gamepaly: taking too long to kill someone is  dangerously close to frustration for me...it just me though.
As far as the RPG elements (customization, character/mech progression, etc...) it's hard to tell which is delivering more: I have seen both Hawken & MWO customization videos and IMO Hawken delivers a more then excellent customization, so surely it won't disappoint.

In relation to the engines, I dont like Cryengine 3 but in crysis and crysis wars we only saw 40% of the Cryengine 2 engine because the other features start eating up large amounts of video and system memory. Cryengine 3 might have been a step backwards because the way it changed the game slowed the gameplay down tremendously to compensate for the consoles. The Crysis games as of right now are also out of date as far as textures and system requirements. The question "can it run crysis_" is more a joke now. The Unreal 3 engine and the Cryengines are both very good engines but it depends on what is needed for your project. For this the Unreal engine does great for this project. The unreal engine games are generally fast passed as well.

Crysis was not a very optimized games. The assets the create had a very heavy high polygon count. Even with LOD in the distance, they used geometry instead of textures. The high view distance in Crysis also made it very hard for the videocard to process all of that. The engine still was great but the game was very ambitious even for todays hardware because of the lack of optimization.

Crysis Warhead was better optimized. You can see the difference in LOD on objects far away compared to crysis 1. They even included some straight forward missions through alleys and "valleys" to cut the draw distances so that the videocard doesnt have to work with literally half a island per frame. Buildings serve this purpose in crysis 3, they cut the draw distance forcing the videocard to work with a smaller area. With this you can compensate on making smaller areas with greater details.

Cryengine is one of the most advance engines out there and Crysis 3 is one of the best looking games i have ever played (with dx11 and high texture pack). Cryengine 3 is NOT a step backwards.

Texture quality and "slowed gameplay" has nothing to do with the engine, they are decision for optimizations and changes in game mechanics to fit console hardware. The fact that crysis 2 is better optimized and still look this good is a VERY good thing.

Unreal Engine 3 is awesome but the truth is that Cryengine 3 is miles ahead as far a technology goes. Unreal Engine 4 is another story but its not out yet.

And im not a crysis fanboy . I hated crysis 2 because of the changes and will hate crysis 3.

Edited by pezzott1, September 20 2012 - 04:40 AM.

[NiHiL8]

Hopefully Piranha will get the netcode issues in MWO resolved. Until that time, I am not playing with the current type of BETA access that I have. Recently too many things got changed for the worse, another reason why I think it will be a flop. During some discussions that I have had with other players that have the same access as myself, it was noted that only the true hardcore MW fans will stick around to playing MWO, as they are the only ones that understand the mechanics of the game. The newcomers will focus on P2W and will fail against those that have been around since MW2/MW3.

Edited by NiHiL8, September 20 2012 - 12:01 PM.

[Handicap]

SmaCkexe, on September 16 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

A more Apt description would be ... MWO is WoW with Mechs.  It has a lot of customization and armor building and is very slow paces.   Hawken is more UT.  Hawken is fast paced.  You dash side to side  and move quickly.   Please do not even compare the amazing badassery  that is Hawken to Call of Madden.

Comparing MWO to WoW is probably the worst comparison I've ever seen, ever. There is nothing similar about the two games outside of the fact that they both take place entirely over the internet. The OP had the first general comparison, which is about the best one you're going to see, perfect. I'll change it up a bit though, MWO is to Hawken what ArmA 2 is to CoD. They are completely different games. Their only "similar" feature is the fact that you're piloting a mech and shooting at other mechs, as far as I can tell.

Montiblanc, on September 15 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

Handicap, on September 13 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

You sound like someone who's posts I have read many times before. Quit your crying. You're just pissed off you paid for founders access to a game you knew nothing about.

dont assume things i never mentioned no i did not buy a founders but still had pretty solid setups and know wdf im playing but admire your defense for this game fricking fanboy

Fanboy_ I played MW3 all of a handful of times before growing tired of it. All you did was QQ in your original post about how MWO was a horrible game and you were never going to play it and blah blah blah. You sounded exactly like everyone who paid for Founders access and then cried on the forums when they found out it wasn't what they thought it was going to be.

[Heneralisimo]

ill be playing both games but i like hawken better than MWO.MWO is not my type of game its just too hard to kill someone its frustrating how you shoot enemies then they wont die then systems go overheating and other enemies will try to kill you and you will try to run and then you will stumble to a heavy mech that will surely end your long hard mech life.

Edited by Heneralisimo, September 29 2012 - 04:45 AM.

[Metalo]

the two games are targeting different aproach, hawken is compat fps type , mech warrior online is mmo type


watching mwo videos it seems that cryengine 3 doesnt provide that much of good graphics like most of us expected from the engine that made crysis 1, 2 . they probably hold back lots of content from the engines they sell compared to the things they develop for themselves

[Compaq]

I left MWO one simple reason its gameplay just didn't satisfy me, I was looking for a more Armored Coreesque game. Hakwen fits the bill, so I am sticking here.

Edited by Compaq, September 29 2012 - 09:39 AM.

[xXDopeBoyXx]

Having played mwo a few times now and had it for a few days heres my opinion... MWO is a game that requires high end computers just to run. having not played hawken yet i am excided to see how the two will compare.

however mwo has its up side... before you even download the game you are provided with videos and images with tips tricks and controls. hawken does not on the website