91 replies to this topic

[Pursang]

Good write-up: I agree with some points and disagree with others.

For instance, I get really annoyed when people use the word "mech" and "simulator/sim" in the same sentence. There are no mech sims whatsoever. There can't be: A sim is a simulation of a real-life object/vehicle/whatever - so how can you simulate something that doesn't exist (as of yet)_ You can't. I posit that games like Steel Battalion and MechWarrior should actually be called pseudo-sims; as in they're sim-like but are not based on reality in any shape or form.

This is a simulator:



/End rant.

[Rotaken]

I did read it all and it's indeed TL;DR.
What Hawken is_ It's a mech FPS and it shows everywhere, from the trailers to actual site, no one has ever claimed otherwise. You could have known that before even playing it by reading anything about Hawken.
What it isn't_ It's not a mech sim what you wanted. It has some of the elements from a sim like any FPS these days.
Is that okay_ Yes, it's perfectly fine. It wouldn't be if Hawken at  some point claimed to be something else than a FPS but it didn't. It sounds like you were coming to play Hawken with high expectations and hopes for a mech sim (because it has mechs and you as an old mech sim fan expected it automatically to be a sim) and are disappointed that it isn't and are now shouting your disappointment all over the forums.

[Elix]

Pursang, that's a semantic argument that kind of doesn't really pertain to what we're talking about. And, you certainly can simulate things that don't exist. You're simulating a concept that doesn't equate to a real object. But anyway, I'm not here to argue semantics.

Even if we don't agree on the exact definition of "simulation", we can agree that a simulator has certain features and design philosophies geared towards a complex play environment. Hawken isn't a sim by any means. OP wishes it was, even though he knows it isn't and won't be.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Pursang, on October 30 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

For instance, I get really annoyed when people use the word "mech" and "simulator/sim" in the same sentence. There are no mech sims whatsoever. There can't be: A sim is a simulation of a real-life object/vehicle/whatever - so how can you simulate something that doesn't exist (as of yet)_ You can't. I posit that games like Steel Battalion and MechWarrior should actually be called pseudo-sims; as in they're sim-like but are not based on reality in any shape or form.

Buff up on your facts.
The idea of simulating something or simulators can pertain to that which does not exist.

A better argument would be that games like Steel Battalion and MechWarrior aren't simulators because they are created for the purpose of entertainment. That their mechanics are based more on having fun and being relatively accessible, and less about fidelity to real physics, engineering, or piloting concerns.

All this is moot anyway.
The OP is trying to say that Hawken isn't a mech game because it does not have the same super-robust customization options that some other mech games have.
Problem is, the defining factor of what makes a mech game is the use of mechs as the main gameplay element.
Whether it's a FPS like Hawken or a turn-based tactical RPG like Front Mission, the defining element is the usage of mechs as your point of control in game.
Even a game with almost zero customization beyond weapon choice, like Zone of the Enders is considered a mech game (or Japanese mecha game if you want to be more detailed).

[REBEL_SST]

TemperWolf i agree. I was addicted to the Mechwarrior series and thought this was another outlet. It feels very much like COD MW1 with only basic classes. I'm disenchanted with the slow rotation, getting stuck on walls and not being able to turn fast enough to make a run for safety. I get the idea of a Beta, but these things were solved in games 15 years ago! As an FPS, this game falls way short of even XBL arcade shooters and doesn't hold a candle to even Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries. MW 2: Mercenaries was out over 10 years ago and an Atlas wold school any load-out Hawken has now. Its fun, don't get me wrong, but it can be, and should be sooooo much more! Lets just hope this Beta is a physics test and not a full Beta for an actual working game. As it is now, there just inst enough to keep my interest, especially if there is any cost involved to play. In general terms of a pvp mmo the developers need look no further than Eve.

[Pursang]

Elix, on October 30 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Pursang, that's a semantic argument that kind of doesn't really pertain to what we're talking about. And, you certainly can simulate things that don't exist. You're simulating a concept that doesn't equate to a real object. But anyway, I'm not here to argue semantics.

Even if we don't agree on the exact definition of "simulation", we can agree that a simulator has certain features and design philosophies geared towards a complex play environment. Hawken isn't a sim by any means. OP wishes it was, even though he knows it isn't and won't be.

So what makes a sim then_ Arbitrary degrees of complexity_ When I play a Jedi Knight in a video game that uses Kinect does that mean I'm simulating what it means to be a Jedi Knight_ You're right, it is semantics - exactly what the OP is arguing here.

AsianJoyKiller, on October 30 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

Buff up on your facts.
The idea of simulating something or simulators can pertain to that which does not exist.

A better argument would be that games like Steel Battalion and MechWarrior aren't simulators because they are created for the purpose of entertainment. That their mechanics are based more on having fun and being relatively accessible, and less about fidelity to real physics, engineering, or piloting concerns.

All this is moot anyway.
The OP is trying to say that Hawken isn't a mech game because it does not have the same super-robust customization options that some other mech games have.
Problem is, the defining factor of what makes a mech game is the use of mechs as the main gameplay element.
Whether it's a FPS like Hawken or a turn-based tactical RPG like Front Mission, the defining element is the usage of mechs as your point of control in game.
Even a game with almost zero customization beyond weapon choice, like Zone of the Enders is considered a mech game (or Japanese mecha game if you want to be more detailed).

Buff up on my facts_ Okay.

Quote

Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.^[1] The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics or behaviors of the selected physical or abstract system or process. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time.
Simulation is used in many contexts, such as simulation of technology for performance optimization, safety engineering, testing, training, education, and video games. Training simulators include flight simulators for training aircraft pilots to provide them with a lifelike experience.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Simulation

My facts seem to be pretty buffed, apparently. Huh.

Simulators can be fun (see Flight Simulator) so I wouldn't preclude either Steel Battalion or MechWarrior as non-simulators just because they where "designed to be entertaining".

What I'm trying to say is that the OP is arguing for something that isn't there in the first place. Mech games are so far away from being realistic as to be nonsensical when it comes to reality. If he's going to argue that Hawken isn't a Mech game, well that's fine and all - but with that logic there's no such thing as Mech sims either.

[AsianJoyKiller]

REBEL_SST, on October 30 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

I'm disenchanted with the slow rotation, getting stuck on walls and not being able to turn fast enough to make a run for safety.

Slow rotation is a mechanic that's been put in place because you're supposed to be piloting a mech. That multi-ton hunk of metal dependant of mechanical servos isn't as agile as a small human body.

Getting stuck on walls is a bit of a glitch at the moment, but also a result of poor situational awareness. Your mech extends beyond what you can see, and you need to keep that in mind. Spatial awareness is key.

Situational awareness and thinking about what's going to happen in the near future is key to survival.
You can see in videos I've posted multiple times I escape what could have been a very bad situation because I predict what's going to happen and bug out before it does.
There are always going to be times where death is unavoidable though.

[Elix]

Pursang, on October 30 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

Elix, on October 30 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Pursang, that's a semantic argument that kind of doesn't really pertain to what we're talking about. And, you certainly can simulate things that don't exist. You're simulating a concept that doesn't equate to a real object. But anyway, I'm not here to argue semantics.

So what makes a sim then_ Arbitrary degrees of complexity_ When I play a Jedi Knight in a video game that uses Kinect does that mean I'm simulating what it means to be a Jedi Knight_ You're right, it is semantics - exactly what the OP is arguing here.

If you play a Kinect SW game, you are actually simulating Jedi-powered combat, at least combat as perceived by the developers, with a set of game mechanics (stages, powerups, etc.) bolted on to make it fun for people who want more than a tech demo.

OP is arguing that Hawken does not fit his view of what mech games should be. That's not semantics, that's just tilting at windmills.

[Pursang]

Elix, on October 30 2012 - 11:23 PM, said:

Pursang, on October 30 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

Elix, on October 30 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Pursang, that's a semantic argument that kind of doesn't really pertain to what we're talking about. And, you certainly can simulate things that don't exist. You're simulating a concept that doesn't equate to a real object. But anyway, I'm not here to argue semantics.

So what makes a sim then_ Arbitrary degrees of complexity_ When I play a Jedi Knight in a video game that uses Kinect does that mean I'm simulating what it means to be a Jedi Knight_ You're right, it is semantics - exactly what the OP is arguing here.

If you play a Kinect SW game, you are actually simulating Jedi-powered combat, at least combat as perceived by the developers, with a set of game mechanics (stages, powerups, etc.) bolted on to make it fun for people who want more than a tech demo.

OP is arguing that Hawken does not fit his view of what mech games should be. That's not semantics, that's just tilting at windmills.

You're flailing your arms around, does that really sound like simulating Jedi combat to you_ Again I have to ask, what makes a simulator_ Why are some games called simulators while others are not_ Is it an arbitrary badge that some game developers put on their games or is it something more_ Who gets to decide what a simulator is_

Don Quixote the OP might be, but laughingly enough you're arguing semantics as to whether the OP is arguing semantics. Heh.

[NUCLEARSHARKHEAD]

TemperWolf, on October 30 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

I intend this post and topic to be utilized as constructive critique and feedback for the developers of Hawken — please keep commentary civil and take time to understand the prospective of each person taking part. I entitled this topic, What Hawken Isn’t --- Is that okay_, which indicates that I’m going to lay down a point of view and that I request the community to take time to talk about why they are for or against such points.
By now many tests are very well versed on just what Hawken is and how it handles and plays. The quality of the title in not in question, merely it’s long-term value and also a question on just which audience they are trying to appeal to. Do the developers of Hawken succeed in their goals_ Or do you feel that perhaps they are falling short and should consider changing their approach.

Remember we are dealing with what many consider an independent developer, but due to the size of the company and its steady growth towards release — keep in mind they are becoming less and less independent with each passing day. The end result is a product which is developed for the purpose of making money, often set as a priority over the enjoyment of the players.

Oh an please, please: don’t say “It’s just a Beta Test” because that really doesn’t mean anything at all and is in no way, shape, or form a piece constructive feedback.

Please no TL:DR bull, when I write something, I write it to be read -- not to be ignored for someones heartless summary.



What Hawken Is

Hawken is a First Person Shooter set in the future where every person is a robot. Understand that me stating that “every person is a robot” this is not how the game lore is written; or how the art is handled; or how the menu looks; or how the website looks; but it is the result we are given when we actually play game.

People who finally get their hands on the title quickly realize they are dealing with something very much more in the same genre as Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike, Battlefield, Tribes, and Modern Warfare. Through gameplay, the developers of Hawken made that Mechs are merely a cosmetic thing. The result is that Hawken is just your everyday FPS placing several mechanisms from current titles into a futuristic setting that is truly beautiful to look at.


What Hawken Isn’t

Hawken isn’t a Mech simulator, a Mech game, or any facsimile of a Mech game. The art however begs otherwise, which may lead a lot of people who are thirsty for a solid Mech simulator into believing Hawken is something that it’s not. Consider that it’s been 12 years since Mech Warrior 4 and there hasn’t been a solid Mech simulator to replace it yet. MechWarrior Online does not qualify as a solid simulator, as that has broken down the genre to pay-to-play elements to the point of being extremely tiresome.

Mech games are slightly different than Mech simulators. MechWarrior and Steel Battalion have long been the leaders of the simulation department, but the unquestionable leader of the Mech game department is without a doubt Armored Core. Developed by From Software, Armored Core has been an easy to step into Mech game that allows players to have a career and a pilot. Your goal is to not only improve your skills, but also the ultimately purpose of the game is to acquire a vast inventory of parts to freely paint them, arrange them, and even fine-tune their numbers however you want.

While simple to get into, Armored Core offered hours and hours of extremely difficult fine tuning and part collection that lead to countless unique machines that each representing an equally unique player. Let’s not forget that a mixture of the two genres game well before Armored Core in the form of Heavy Gear, a much more simplified Mech simulator that addressed more Fist Person Shooter mechanics with quick movement in the form of wheels and treads that would allow players to rapidly ‘skate’ across the battlefield — it was Hawken before Hawken existed.

Even Heavy Gear allowed players to make fine adjustments to their machines, even though they could not do extensive construction.

While Hawken may not be these things, that’s not exactly bad — what may be problematic is that it appears to be a Mech game. The Mech game and Mech simulator audience may not be so accepting of the final product, simply because it isn’t what it appears to be. Much of the game’s art and menu system goes well out of its way to say “Look, I’m a Mech Game too!” but in the end doesn’t offer anything of what people expect in a Mech game.

Sure it offers guns, missiles, jump jets, even a futuristic setting that is on the verge of collapse — pretty much the standard basics of any Mech sim or Mech game. But the problem comes from the sheer lack of the flexibility that the common Mech fan has come to expect.


Is that okay_

The first thing I did as a Mech fan was enter the garage and try to switch out my weapon. I couldn’t. I then thought that perhaps I needed to buy more weapons, but I quickly found I couldn’t do that either. After a few minutes it eventually dawned on me that weapons were set into a predetermined pattern and that Mechs were actually just classes. Personalized load outs were impossible.

Furthermore, if I purchased a Mech and any additional set of cosmetic parts — I could not apply them to any other Mechs and the same was for paint schemes. Additional internal parts, items, etc. — all were just exclusive to the Mech they were purchased for. Experience points were only meant for the Mech too and were not related to the pilot in any way, which mean it was the Mech that was getting the experience points. Any person who has played modern FPS games with Microtransaction elements will immediately see that each Mech wasn’t a Mech at all — but a play-style.

A play-style firmly locked per-determined, which meant that personal desires were completely impossible. Want to be a medium machine that only has missiles and nimbly keeps a distance from all people only using those missiles for damage_ Well you can’t, missiles only come on huge Mechs and even still you need to use guns — if you want to work from range you absolutely have to be a sniper.

Want to be a small Mech that only runs around with a single sniper cannon_ Nope! What to buy a Mech, deconstruct it, and then use those parts to make a new one_ Well you can’t do that.  Can you fine-tune parts and personalize them to your tastes_ Nope, can’t do that either.

So the game not only feels like an FPS, but it also utilizes per-determined balance like other FPS games as well. Of course we’ll see more combinations of weapons of Mechs as the game progresses and gets closer to the release, but it doesn’t change the fact that everything is isolated to one machine and if you choose to no longer play that machine you have to start all over again. Not exactly very career-like, because you’ll to buy every part, every upgrade, and god forbid every paint scheme more than once. You can’t even personalize the color of your Mechs much less make them look how you want.

I really don’t understand why the developers have chosen and worked so hard to make the game look like a Mech game, and a very beautiful one at that — only to completely ignore and omit all forms of Mech-style gameplay. First Person Shooter games are flooding the market left and right, and I know I’m completely tired of them. I hoped that an independent developer would finally bring back the Mech Simulators that so many people have forgotten about and chosen to overlook, but instead I just get another FPS game. Indeed, I am disappointed.

I know that Hawken will never be the Mech Simulator or Mech game I hoped it was going to be, and I have no intention of forcing them to make it. I’m just sharing my disappointment in a manner I hope others can discuss in a constructive manner.

Hawken is a videogame with a style unto its own. It does not try to be something it is not. It's a first person shooter with mechs. I think class based mechs are fine and that you have nothing to worry about.

[ItsThatGuy]

I have read about 1% of this thread but I will say this. From his "no thanks goodbye" post, the OP thought:

Hawken would be a breath of fresh air, a return to the classic simulation genre

[AsianJoyKiller]

Pursang, on October 30 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

Buff up on my facts_ Okay.

Quote

Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.^[1] The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics or behaviors of the selected physical or abstract system or process. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time.
Simulation is used in many contexts, such as simulation of technology for performance optimization, safety engineering, testing, training, education, and video games. Training simulators include flight simulators for training aircraft pilots to provide them with a lifelike experience.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Simulation

My facts seem to be pretty buffed, apparently. Huh.

Oh snap!
I've been wikipedia'd!

Oh wait...
What's this_
The full passage that you quoted and conveniently left out the part that hurts your arguement_
Why yes!
Yes it is!

Quote

Simulation is used in many contexts' date=' such as simulation of [/size']technology for performance optimization, safety engineering, testing, training, education, and video games. Training simulators include flight simulators for training aircraft pilots to provide them with a lifelike experience. Simulation is also used with scientific modelling of natural systems or human systems to gain insight into their functioning.^[2] Simulation can be used to show the eventual real effects of alternative conditions and courses of action. Simulation is also used when the real system cannot be engaged, because it may not be accessible, or it may be dangerous or unacceptable to engage, or it is being designed but not yet built, or it may simply not exist.

In case you can't see what's so different or didn't catch that, let me focus in on the point Pursang "forgot" to quote.

Quote

Simulation is also used with scientific modelling of natural systems or human systems to gain insight into their functioning.^[2] Simulation can be used to show the eventual real effects of alternative conditions and courses of action. Simulation is also used when the real system cannot be engaged, because it may not be accessible, or it may be dangerous or unacceptable to engage, or it is being designed but not yet built, or it may simply not exist.

You see that_
Right there_

Quote

Simulation is also used when the real system cannot be engaged, because it may not be accessible, or it may be dangerous or unacceptable to engage, or it is being designed but not yet built, [size=5]or it may simply not exist.

Whoops!
Looks like someone needs to be more careful when they debate, as it's usually considered a good idea not to back your argument with source material that actually refutes it.

EDIT: None of this is on topic anyway.
Sim or not sim, I don't see how it matters what things are defined as when OP is wanting/expecting entirely different mechanics than what the game has been advertised as having.

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, October 30 2012 - 11:35 PM.

[CakeBandit]

Admittedly though, our current methods for classifying video games by genre are non-descriptive and ultimately really poor.

That really doesn't excuse anyone from stepping up and laying out a manifesto of what is and isn't a "Mech game" considering it's not even an accepted genre to begin with. This entire thread is one of pointless semantics in its current state.

I move we stop responding to it.

[Pursang]

AsianJoyKiller, on October 30 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Quote

Simulation is also used when the real system cannot be engaged, because it may not be accessible, or it may be dangerous or unacceptable to engage, or it is being designed but not yet built, or it may simply not exist.

Whoops!
Looks like someone needs to be more careful when they debate, as it's usually considered a good idea not to back your argument with source material that actually refutes it.

Yes, one may simulate something that doesn't exist, but it has to be based off-of a real world thing. One may simulate what a non-existant spaceplane may do because we already know about the effects of space and we have previous experience with spaceplanes to begin with. One can't really do the same thing with mechs as there is nothing in reality to base them from.

Oh, and you may want to lay off of the condescending attitude; it just makes you like like an immature child.

[Gurist4s]

I don't think Hawken has ever been sold as or really looked like a Mech sim.

Mech sims are really about the slow walky tank battletech presentation of mechs. Clearly not applicable here. This is fast skatey anime mecha.

A mech game however...

It's been pretty clear to me from... basically all of the promotional material that it's a medium paced FPS kinda game.

An online vaguely class based FPS game (I say vaguely because there's no utility features or in depth objective based gameplay yet) at that.

From that it naturally flows that customisation is going to be pretty limited to begin with.

Especially while they're figuring balance out it doesn't make too much sense to throw lots of customisation options in the mix to confuse things. They're still (apparently) figuring out what classes get what guns.

That's such nuts and bolts game mechanics stuff I'm actually really glad they're keeping it simple while they tune (not even finetune - major problems still) stuff.

Edited by Gurist4s, October 30 2012 - 11:40 PM.

[Tezkat]

When I first played Hawken, my initial impression was somewhat similar to OP. My main frame of reference for what constitutes a "mech" game came from the MechWarrior franchise, which has traditionally been way over on the vehicle sim end of the spectrum. By contrast, Hawken did kinda feel like a mech skinned FPS. But the more I played it, the more I was feeling the mech--the slow, heavy steps and limited turning speeds, having to constantly monitor heat and fuel, and so on--especially in comparison to other FPS games.

Note that the devs deliberately reduced the selection and customizability of mechs for this beta event. That's evidently not what they wanted us to test this weekend but almost certainly does not reflect the range of options we'll have in the future. Even so, the various different loadouts and optimizations available in this build allow for multiple playstyles with any given mech class.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Pursang, on October 30 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

Yes, one may simulate something that doesn't exist, but it has to be based off-of a real world thing. One may simulate what a non-existant spaceplane may do because we already know about the effects of space and we have previous experience with spaceplanes to begin with. One can't really do the same thing with mechs as there is nothing in reality to base them from.

There's nothing in reality to base them from_
Are you sure_
What about...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotics
- http://en.wikipedia....cal_engineering
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
- http://en.wikipedia....anized_infantry
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks

Are you telling me none of those things could be used to create a reasonable simulation of a mech_

[Pursang]

AsianJoyKiller, on October 30 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Pursang, on October 30 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

Yes, one may simulate something that doesn't exist, but it has to be based off-of a real world thing. One may simulate what a non-existant spaceplane may do because we already know about the effects of space and we have previous experience with spaceplanes to begin with. One can't really do the same thing with mechs as there is nothing in reality to base them from.

There's nothing in reality to base them from_
Are you sure_
What about...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotics
- http://en.wikipedia....cal_engineering
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
- http://en.wikipedia....anized_infantry
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks

Are you telling me none of those things could be used to create a reasonable simulation of a mech_

A mech is neither a robot, mechanized infantry, or a tank. Mechanical engineering and physics have yet to figure out how one would even work. Now, in the future it's quite possible that somebody may figure out a way for a giant two-legged armored fighting vehicle to work (much less be viable in a battlefield environment), but that time is not now. Sure much like the Fusion Reactor, we have a lot of concepts and possibilities, but that's what they are: Concepts and possibilities.

[Talesin]

It's especially amusing as loadout selection may be one of the aspects that gets altered prior to release. As the Alpha NDA is still in effect, I can't say any more on the subject.

Pursang, on October 30 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

Yes, one may simulate something that doesn't exist, but it has to be based off-of a real world thing. One may simulate what a non-existant spaceplane may do because we already know about the effects of space and we have previous experience with spaceplanes to begin with. One can't really do the same thing with mechs as there is nothing in reality to base them from.

Oh, and you may want to lay off of the condescending attitude; it just makes you like like an immature child.

Er... wow. That's some cognitive dissonance you've got going on there.
If you wanted to simulate a mech, you take gravity into account, ground friction, and set your parameters for servo output, tonnage and inertia to determine how it moves. (None of which Armored Core or MWO do, by the way.) You do most definitely NOT need to base it off a real-life thing, to be a simulated version. Also see rapid prototyping, which uses simulated versions of new designs to rule out non-workable versions.

Oh, and if you insist that it needs to be 'based off a real thing', take a look at BigDog or Asimo sometime. Small-scale as compared to the mechs being used in Hawken, but a 'real thing' to base it off of, if you insist on using that badly-flawed requirement to prop up the argument.


In regards to the OP, some mech games treat a mech like a tank. Steel Battalion is one of these, and done by design. Iron Brigade likewise. Somewhat the same with Mechwarrior (though less-so).
Other properties and series treat the mech more as a giant prosthesis (Evangelion, Gundam, Voltron... most Japanese series, come to think of it).
I'd say that Armored Core takes more of a Hawken-style approach if anything, though with more customization options and a forced third-person perspective.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Pursang, on October 30 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on October 30 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Pursang, on October 30 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

Yes, one may simulate something that doesn't exist, but it has to be based off-of a real world thing. One may simulate what a non-existant spaceplane may do because we already know about the effects of space and we have previous experience with spaceplanes to begin with. One can't really do the same thing with mechs as there is nothing in reality to base them from.

There's nothing in reality to base them from_
Are you sure_
What about...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotics
- http://en.wikipedia....cal_engineering
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
- http://en.wikipedia....anized_infantry
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks

Are you telling me none of those things could be used to create a reasonable simulation of a mech_

A mech is neither a robot, mechanized infantry, or a tank. Mechanical engineering and physics have yet to figure out how one would even work. Now, in the future it's quite possible that somebody may figure out a way for a giant two-legged armored fighting vehicle to work (much less be viable in a battlefield environment), but that time is not now. Sure much like the Fusion Reactor, we have a lot of concepts and possibilities, but that's what they are: Concepts and possibilities.

First off, Beemann let me know I forgot to mention this: http://en.wikipedia....nt_exoskeletons

Secondly, mech (or mecha) is a term coined for purposes of science fiction. It covers anything from human sized robots to giant war machines. It's entirely feasible to create a simulator for any range of machines and devices that fit under that very large umbrella that is called "mech."
I suppose that you're trying to argue that it's impossible to create a simulation of a combat viable, armored, bipedal weapons platform.
That is a very specific argument, and something that you did not specify till just now. Instead, you used a very broad term.



Once again, I feel I need to point this out.
Whether you disagree with the definition or validity of the term "mech sim" has no bearing on the OP.
Even if games like MechWarrior aren't simulations, it doesn't matter.
The point you should be focused on is what defines a "mech game," as the OP considers a certain set of game mechanics to be the defining factor.
It doesn't matter if this set of characteristics falls under the definition of "sim" or not, but whether that set of characteristics are what make a mech game, a "mech game."

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, October 31 2012 - 12:34 AM.