68 replies to this topic

[RyanLongbow]

Hello,

I just started playing this game. I love the gameplay really really a lot.

The map: VISUALLY impressive and detailed, very dynamic with a lot of flanking routes. That is awesome. Top notch.

One real TURN OFF: the MECH 3D models. They are a SORE-EYES.

They simply do not match up with the map visual style. They are like a stranded group of aliens on the world of a different civilization.

[Leonhardt]

I implore you to read a little more into the lore behind Hawken so that you can understand why the mechs look as they do. I have grown to love how the mechs (junk bots really) are designed, but at first I had a hard time understanding why they seemed so patched together.

Edited by Leonhardt, June 27 2013 - 05:45 PM.

[GodsHolyMember]

I like the utilitarian look of the mechs actually, in fact the more utilitarian the better.  And there's nothing about military hardware that resembles the architectural style of an era.  Were rifles and tanks art-deco during WWI or WWII_  No, they were brutal machines of war and instruments of death that needed to be rapidly mass produced and effective at their intended purpose.

I intensely dislike most styles of anime-mechs because they more often than not incorporate completely useless gear and accoutrament that clearly have no strategic value or functional relevance.

Hawken mechs (for the most part) don't exhibit any decorations or luxuries.  They're like the interiors of racecars, stripped bare of aesthetics, each piece, each weld, each bolt, cam and joint is there to serve a purpose...we might not know what that purpose is, but it's not there because some military contractor of the future thought it would be cool to include.

[NegativeD]

I am actually impressed with the Mech 3D models, as a computer graphic artist, the mechs look highly complicated to me. I wish I could open one of the mechs in a MB file just to see how they were modeled, rigged, and the poly count.

[RyanLongbow]

GodsHolyMember, on June 27 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

I like the utilitarian look of the mechs actually, in fact the more utilitarian the better.  And there's nothing about military hardware that resembles the architectural style of an era.  Were rifles and tanks art-deco during WWI or WWII_  No, they were brutal machines of war and instruments of death that needed to be rapidly mass produced and effective at their intended purpose.

I understand your point but my point is not much different than yours. I like modern tank and armored vehicles. I like the "mean" look they have but Hawken mechs do not look "mean", they look like a mechanical Quasimodo, although the "flesh" Quasimodo has a gold heart. I can barely say the same about Hawken mechs. So the Hawken mech visual style has virtually no redeeming value.

GodsHolyMember, on June 27 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

I intensely dislike most styles of anime-mechs because they more often than not incorporate completely useless gear and accoutrament that clearly have no strategic value or functional relevance.

I had never said the Hawken mechs should be like those in anime.

GodsHolyMember, on June 27 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

Hawken mechs (for the most part) don't exhibit any decorations or luxuries.  They're like the interiors of racecars, stripped bare of aesthetics, each piece, each weld, each bolt, cam and joint is there to serve a purpose...we might not know what that purpose is, but it's not there because some military contractor of the future thought it would be cool to include.

You may want to check on the Front Missions series. The mechs (called wanzer) in that series looks both aesthetically pleasing and functional at the same time.
Another good one for reference, the Mechwarrior series, I am not asking Hawken to be Mechwarrior. I ask Hawken to improve its Mech visual design.

[GodsHolyMember]

RyanLongbow, on June 27 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

GodsHolyMember, on June 27 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

I like the utilitarian look of the mechs actually, in fact the more utilitarian the better.  And there's nothing about military hardware that resembles the architectural style of an era.  Were rifles and tanks art-deco during WWI or WWII_  No, they were brutal machines of war and instruments of death that needed to be rapidly mass produced and effective at their intended purpose.

I understand your point but my point is not much different than yours. I like modern tank and armored vehicles. I like the "mean" look they have but Hawken mechs do not look "mean", they look like a mechanical Quasimodo, although the "flesh" Quasimodo has a gold heart. I can barely say the same about Hawken mechs. So the Hawken mech visual style has virtually no redeeming value.

How so_  The A-Classes are lightweights with only a modicum of armor around the cockpit and the rest left open.  Look at the US's DPV...it's a sand-rail with 2 SMAW's and a mounted 0.50cal in an outrider configuration...that's barebones...and that's real hardware!  The B-Classes are much more akin to the Bradly or Stryker with complex but light armor variants and the C-Class is Abrams or Crusader without a doubt (particularly the Brawler).

RyanLongbow, on June 27 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

GodsHolyMember, on June 27 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

I intensely dislike most styles of anime-mechs because they more often than not incorporate completely useless gear and accoutrament that clearly have no strategic value or functional relevance.

I had never said the Hawken mechs should be like those in anime.

I was simply anticipating that direction just in case that was the direction you were headed with your opening post.

RyanLongbow, on June 27 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

GodsHolyMember, on June 27 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

Hawken mechs (for the most part) don't exhibit any decorations or luxuries.  They're like the interiors of racecars, stripped bare of aesthetics, each piece, each weld, each bolt, cam and joint is there to serve a purpose...we might not know what that purpose is, but it's not there because some military contractor of the future thought it would be cool to include.

You may want to check on the Front Missions series. The mechs (called wanzer) in that series looks both aesthetically pleasing and functional at the same time.
Another good one for reference, the Mechwarrior series, I am not asking Hawken to be Mechwarrior. I ask Hawken to improve its Mech visual design.

I like Front-Mission as well, it's a great series of strategy games, and they look far better by comparison to Gundam...but only by comparison.  Look at this design for a minute and lets critique

• Why does this mech have hands_
  
• If it needs hands, why does it need hands with 5 fingers_
  
• Why does the mech have to be this tall_
  
• Why does it literally CARRY the firearm in one of those robotic hands_  Seriously, they build a giant walking target, and build a giant gun to be lugged by this vehicle, and they build not 1, but 2 hands for it, and one of those hands is immediately used to carry the gun_  How does that make any sense_
  
• Why does this mech have to physically carry a gun rather than have it attached_
  
• Why would the designers make the failure point of this mech's offensive ability contingent on the structural integrity of the mech's tiny wrist and robotic fingers to hold the gun rather than the armor used elsewhere on the body to protect its ability to walk and preserve its pilot_

This mech would be fine if it were simply a power suit only a bit larger proportionally than its pilot...but when you actually see the size of the mech...you can only raise an eyebrow and think...wow, the artist who drew this was very talented, but from a tactical standpoint, this is a very expensive deathtrap


Mechwarrior appears more utilitarian, but their mechs are just as impractically laid out and the locational damage and component destruction features even makes it apparent when engaged in battle.  The Mechwarrior game literally simulates the failure on the part of the game's artists to make a vehicle that can survive the kinds of punishment they are built to dish out.

If a mech's obvious weakness is its legs, why are Mechwarrior mechs so slow and easy targets_  Hawken and Anime mechs get around this by insinuating that power sliding and boosting is only possible with legs, and that it is a necessary sacrifice to risk that vulnerability because of the ability to lug large weapons around rapidly and gracefully.

If weapons can be shot off of one's arms, why put weapons on arms at all_  Mechwarrior never adequately provides a reason for this, and it results as a serious liability when configuring your mech.  Hawken gets around this by simply not acknowledging that locational damage and component destruction is possible.  

Edited by GodsHolyMember, June 27 2013 - 07:03 PM.

[RyanLongbow]

Another example: If you look at the "Body Shop" in game. Muller upper middle and lower chassis are the most popular. That say more than enough about the mech visual style in Hawken is not up to par.

[RyanLongbow]

GodsHolyMember, on June 27 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

• Why does this mech have hands_
  
• If it needs hands, why does it need hands with 5 fingers_
  
• Why does the mech have to be this tall_
  
• Why does it literally CARRY the firearm in one of those robotic hands_  Seriously, they build a giant walking target, and build a giant gun to be lugged by this vehicle, and they build not 1, but 2 hands for it, and one of those hands is immediately used to carry the gun_  How does that make any sense_
  
• Why does this mech have to physically carry a gun rather than have it attached_
  
• Why would the designers make the failure point of this mech's offensive ability contingent on the structural integrity of the mech's tiny wrist and robotic fingers to hold the gun rather than the armor used elsewhere on the body to protect its ability to walk and preserve its pilot_

This mech would be fine if it were simply a power suit only a bit larger proportionally than its pilot...but when you actually see the size of the mech...you can only raise an eyebrow and think...wow, the artist who drew this was very talented, but from a tactical standpoint, this is a very expensive deathtrap

If you want to bring our current world's technology limitations to discuss then I tip my hat for you.

From our current technology point of view, a mech regardless of all those small features mentioned by you, is already a mechanical and design failure. There are too many parts to fail, the ground pressure is too high as the whole thing rest on just 2 tiny feet compared to a tank which spread out the ground pressure over a larger area.

I NEVER asked for hands with 5 fingers on Hawken mech.
Front Missions and Mech Warrior are used only as reference. Reference is different from imitation.

So from the image of the Zenith wanzer (Front Mission) above (the first image in GodsHolyMember's post), let's say if I remove the hands and replace them with 2 guns strapped directly to the torso, would you be ok_

Because your whole critique only focused on the "hands with 5 fingers". Am I right_

In summary:
1. I NEVER wanted anime style mech
2. I don't care about "fingers"
3. The preference for Muller body parts in Hawken "Body Shop" proves my point about Hawken mech design.

Edited by RyanLongbow, June 27 2013 - 07:13 PM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

RyanLongbow, on June 27 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

Another example: If you look at the "Body Shop" in game. Muller upper middle and lower chassis are the most popular. That say more than enough about the mech visual style in Hawken is not up to par.

Proof_

[Teljaxx]

Oh yes, Battletech designs, always so aesthetically pleasing...



And even when they are not quite as stupid looking as the Balius here, There designs still really make no sense. One of the biggest flaws that the majority of them share, is that they have their most vulnerable point, the cockpit, mounted right in their center of mass. This would make it one of the easiest parts of the mech to shoot.

There could be a reason for mechs, like Battlemechs, Wanzers, and Mobile Suits to have hands. It gives them a use outside of pure combat, and they can be used to clear debris or carry objects in the field. It may not make perfect sense, but there is a reason for it. having them hold their guns, instead of having them hard mounted elsewhere makes a bit less sense, though. The only reason for it would be so that, like a human soldier, they could use other weapons that they find in the field.

Overall, I love the Hawken mech design. They are nicely bare-bones, and fit the lore of the situation on Illal perfectly. And they fit my personal aesthetic tastes quite well.

AsianJoyKiller, on June 27 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

RyanLongbow, on June 27 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

Another example: If you look at the "Body Shop" in game. Muller upper middle and lower chassis are the most popular. That say more than enough about the mech visual style in Hawken is not up to par.

Proof_

They do have the "popular" tag in the shop, and I do have a tendency to see more Muller torsos than any other on Type-B mechs that have swapped torsos, at least in lower ranked games. So he does have a point about it being popular. Although, the Muller chassis does not exactly look very different than the rest of the Hawken designs, so it does not really support his argument that well.

[YinSoakedBoy]

Let's face it: Human-shaped war robots that still require a person inside are silly. We already live in an era where a drone jet can kill you from miles away. Why put a person in a robot and have them walk right up to one another_

We don't all love mechs because they make sense, we love them because they look cool.

That said, I love Hawken's aesthetic - it reminds me of Battletech and the M.A.C. II Monster and the other destroids from Robotech. Utilitarian, cobbled-together... yeah, kinda fuggly in spots, but lovably so.

[Daronicus]

RyanLongbow, on June 27 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

Another example: If you look at the "Body Shop" in game. Muller upper middle and lower chassis are the most popular. That say more than enough about the mech visual style in Hawken is not up to par.

Wait, people really like one of the mech designs, ergo the visual style isn't up to par_  I'm not sure that follows logically.  I mean, I like Muller as much as anyone, but I also really like everything else, too.  Hell, even Res--which is probably my least favorite--has really grown on me.

I greatly enjoy the aesthetic of the mechs as a whole, and that I may have favorites or even ones I don't particularly like doesn't mean I want any of them changed.  It's a fantastically unique style and feel, and the sort of odd looking chassis are a huge part of that.


As a side note, a huge number of mechs from the Battletech universe look freaking stupid, in my opinion (prime example:  Atlas).  Another significant portion of them were out-and-out copied from other works and they can't even be used in the games anymore.  Point being, if they got rid of Hepten and replaced it with, like... anything from Mechwarrior, I would figuratively literally break down in tears.

Edited by Daronicus, June 27 2013 - 08:34 PM.

[RyanLongbow]

I am not saying I don't like TOTALLY everything about Hawken's visual style.

There are things I like. Example: the shields of the Brawler, the torso of the Rocketeer, the torso of the Raider.

But then, the rest of the Brawler are not up to the same visual standard as its shield, although the torso is sightly better. Those square boxes on its shield do look like Explosive Reactive Armor, I love that.

The same thing can be said for other mechs, like the Scout, the "tank" at the front looks so .... I can't even find the word. It is a visual betrayal to the rest of its body.

I wish I could combine the shield of the Brawler with the enlarged legs of the Technician/Scout, the front part of the torso of the Rocketeer.

That is how a mech in Hawken should look like.

Edited by RyanLongbow, June 27 2013 - 09:04 PM.

[NBShoot_me]

I like the looks of some of the C-Class and a few B-Class mechs, but the A-Class, meh, they don't look like they could take on anything dished out by another mech, or even a current day tank, at least not very well... too many exposed critical parts that if damaged would leave the mech incapacitated, though, they ALL generally have exposed ammo and not a lot of armor where they do have it (C-Class being an exception here, mostly).  Which, it's probably a good thing that Hawken has fairy land game mechanics of inf. ammo, no localized damage/any type of performance degredation from damage, and full repair anywhere at the press of teh muffin button to name a few... otherwise people would really be screaming about ultra short TTK in this game even though, for FPS games, TTK is pretty long.

Soo, looks cool, but I wouldn't want to really pilot one of them, even against what is out there TODAY.

Edited by NBShoot_me, June 27 2013 - 10:18 PM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

You can rant all you want Ryan, but visual aesthetics are so very subjective to personal taste you're not going to get anywhere with this.

That's really the main problem with your argument. "Beauty" is in the eye of the beholder, and just because you don't like the mech designs in Hawken doesn't turn it into an objective truth that they are poorly designed.

Besides, when you account for lore, the design of these mechs make more sense than something that looks purpose built for war. That's a major flaw in your push to have them look more like Front Mission Wanzers or more typical western-styled mechs. In general, those are designed as war machines from the ground up, both in concept and in lore. Lore-wise, they are supposed to be designed for war and mass produced in factories that are meant to produce specific mech models.

Hawken mechs on the other hand are supposed to be cobbled together from random assortments of whatever seems useful. Sometimes they do look out of place, but that's because their visual theme is literally "whatever !@#$ we found lying around".

[Umbre]

AsianJoyKiller, on June 27 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

Textually Mature Text

There's also the fact that the mechs were originally designed for utilitarian purposes to be used in industry. They were later retrofitted for war.

[davek1979]

GodsHolyMember, on June 27 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

I like the utilitarian look of the mechs actually, in fact the more utilitarian the better.  And there's nothing about military hardware that resembles the architectural style of an era.  Were rifles and tanks art-deco during WWI or WWII_  No, they were brutal machines of war and instruments of death that needed to be rapidly mass produced and effective at their intended purpose.

I intensely dislike most styles of anime-mechs because they more often than not incorporate completely useless gear and accoutrament that clearly have no strategic value or functional relevance.

Hawken mechs (for the most part) don't exhibit any decorations or luxuries.  They're like the interiors of racecars, stripped bare of aesthetics, each piece, each weld, each bolt, cam and joint is there to serve a purpose...we might not know what that purpose is, but it's not there because some military contractor of the future thought it would be cool to include.

Well, not to burst your bubble, my friend, but you do realize Hawken's take on mech design has one crucial flaw that EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE OVERLOOKING.

EXPOSED INTERNALS, HYDRAULICS, JOINTS.

In your praise of how functional all stuff seems on Hawken's mechs, I bid you to spend 2 minutes thinking about the impact of high velocity explosive ammunition on exposed hydraulic liquid reservoirs, high pressure hoses, air compressors and most of all - fuel tanks.

Thank you.

[Teljaxx]

davek1979, on June 28 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

Well, not to burst your bubble, my friend, but you do realize Hawken's take on mech design has one crucial flaw that EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE OVERLOOKING.

EXPOSED INTERNALS, HYDRAULICS, JOINTS.

In your praise of how functional all stuff seems on Hawken's mechs, I bid you to spend 2 minutes thinking about the impact of high velocity explosive ammunition on exposed hydraulic liquid reservoirs, high pressure hoses, air compressors and most of all - fuel tanks.

Thank you.

And you seem to have failed to notice everyone saying that the look of the mechs fits because of the lore.

One, they were originally industrial loaders, not military equipment. So the exposed internals is because they are not designed for survival in a battlefield, they are designed for transporting cargo. The ability to deflect bullets is not a primary design parameter of bulldozers, is it_

Two, they are supposed to be built out of whatever materials are available. Because of the Giga-Structure covering most of the planet's surface, building supplies are quite scarce. Especially when you are competing with everyone else for equipment to fight each other with. So it makes sense that they skimp on the armor in some places. It is better to have a little bit of armor on a lot of vehicles, instead of having a lot of armor on just a few.

Industrial roots and scarce supplies means that the mechs are far from perfect. They are just enough to get the job done, and there is no room for much else.

[davek1979]

Teljaxx, on June 28 2013 - 01:01 AM, said:

davek1979, on June 28 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

Well, not to burst your bubble, my friend, but you do realize Hawken's take on mech design has one crucial flaw that EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE OVERLOOKING.

EXPOSED INTERNALS, HYDRAULICS, JOINTS.

In your praise of how functional all stuff seems on Hawken's mechs, I bid you to spend 2 minutes thinking about the impact of high velocity explosive ammunition on exposed hydraulic liquid reservoirs, high pressure hoses, air compressors and most of all - fuel tanks.

Thank you.

And you seem to have failed to notice everyone saying that the look of the mechs fits because of the lore.

One, they were originally industrial loaders, not military equipment. So the exposed internals is because they are not designed for survival in a battlefield, they are designed for transporting cargo. The ability to deflect bullets is not a primary design parameter of bulldozers, is it_

Two, they are supposed to be built out of whatever materials are available. Because of the Giga-Structure covering most of the planet's surface, building supplies are quite scarce. Especially when you are competing with everyone else for equipment to fight each other with. So it makes sense that they skimp on the armor in some places. It is better to have a little bit of armor on a lot of vehicles, instead of having a lot of armor on just a few.

Industrial roots and scarce supplies means that the mechs are far from perfect. They are just enough to get the job done, and there is no room for much else.

OK so let me present you with a scenario:

1, I am in desperate need of a fighting mech, have scarce resources and I'm in absolute rush
2, I build a mech that works, but has exposed hydraulics, i.e. THE STUFF THAT MAKES IT WORK
3, I get into a fight and within 0.5 seconds a bullet hits my hydraulics, i.e. THE STUFF THAT MAKES THE MECH WORK
4, now I'm canned inside an unusable piece of scrap metal waiting to be finished off by the enemy
5, waiting for death, reminiscing of my past mistakes, I realize now I should have probably put some armor over that hydraulics, hmmm, have to remember that for my next life. But to my defense: It's really easy to get the knowledge to make tech that takes you to a distant planet but it sure is a challenge to fathom critical tech components need armor to shield them from damage...

Stop advocating this nonsense.
I keep playing this game for the fun of it, but don't expect me to fall in line with those who'd rather invent nice stories and "lore" reasons to advocate silly design choices.

[AsianJoyKiller]

davek1979, on June 28 2013 - 01:20 AM, said:

Stop advocating this nonsense.I keep playing this game for the fun of it, but don't expect me to fall in line with those who'd rather invent nice stories and "lore" reasons to advocate silly design choices.

Then why aren't you up in arms over things like Cavorite and all the handwavium nonsense that justifies the game's mechanics_