13 replies to this topic

[RedVan]

I didn't want to hijak THIS THREAD.  So I made a new topic on this.

Quote

"The mech game audience is an interesting crowd. The fans are very hardcore and they’ll stand their ground. I grew up playing MechWarrior which is very simulation: much slower and more strategic. It’s very niche because it’s like playing a tank game. And there’s the other crowd which more recently grew up playing Armored Coreor Virtual On, where it’s much more arcadey. What we tried to do with Hawkenis strive for a balance."

Just out of curiosity:  Why does a mech "simulation" have to be slow_  A preconceived notion perhaps_

I can understand a real (commercial) simulator such as MS Flight Sim and Falcon 4.0 having speed and maneuverability grounded in reality (to the best extent of the engine), but since we don't really have mechs, who's to say a mech "sim" would be "slow"_

Also, I've played fast strategic games, so why can a mech "sim" not be "fast and strategic"_

To me, something that's considered a "sim" is going to have more functioning aspects to it than just aim and shoot.

Let's take MWLL for example:
In MWLL you can control whether your radar is on or off
You control what you're targeting
You can power your mech on and off
You can fire different weapons at different times, or even set up firing groups
You can target enemies for your friends with targeting lasers
I'm sure I'm missing more features, it's been a while since I've played...

To me, those are the kinds of things that resonate with a "simulator"

Let's look at Falcon 4.0:
You have to control your landing gear, flaps, speed brakes
You have to control radar slew modes
You have to target friends and foes
You have to set your weapons up to fire
You have to use your navigation equipment to get from point A to point B
Here is an example of what you have to do just to start the jet (makes any mech game look like childs play imo )

These two examples (MWLL and Falcon 4.0) are simulation.  One based in reality, the other not so much (I'll let you guess which is which )

Let's imagine (tragically) for a second that there is no such thing as aviation.  All of our airplane simulators would have these flight characteristics (speed, maneuverability) based on nothing but imagination.  Yet they would still be simulators, no_

If we were to change the flight characteristics to be faster and more maneuverable, would that make it any less a simulator_  You'd still have to put your gear and flaps up after taking off, you'd still have to tune in a navigation aid to get from point A to point B...  We would simply have to accomplish these tasks at a quicker rate due to the increase in speed.  This actually happens in real life aviation, you learn to fly on a slow airplane, and then you learn faster and more maneuverable airplanes, yet you still have all the same tasks to accomplish (generally more tasks actually), just at a faster rate now, or you'll crash and burn.

As you will note from this example:  Speed and maneuverability do not have anything to do with simulation unless what is being simulated is realistic.

Going back to MWLL:  Could it have been made a faster game, and keep the simulation elements_  Absolutely.  Would it lose the amount of strategy necessary_  Not at all.

Bringing it back to this:

Quote

"...MechWarrior which is very simulation: much slower and more strategic. "

Now do you see the issue there_  Simulation isn't related to speed and strategies.  It is related to what you must control to accomplish your tasks, regardless of how fast or how strategically you do so.


From watching the HAWKEN videos, it looks absolutely awesome.  I have no qualms with the speed I'm seeing, or with the employment of tactics and weaponry.  Of course, that could either change or not once I have a chance to play it.

I'm simply mentioning this because I would hate to see people thinking inside the box of "simulation is slow and strategic whereas arcade is fast".  That's simply not true.

Do I think the HAWKEN team is doing a good job, yes.  Please nobody take this post the wrong way

EDIT:  A good comparison between simulation and arcade would be comparing Falcon 4.0 to Over G Fighters.  Aircraft speed and maneuverability is generally the same, the difference between whether its simulation or not is in how much of the aircraft you actually control vs what's automatically being done for you by the game.

[JackDandy]

You'll have to remember- it seems what they're trying to achieve is an action game, which doesn't forget it takes place in giant hulking robots.

I think that's a fine approach. I hate robot games in which you just zip around like a ninja on steroids, but I also can't really get into most hardcore mech simulators because they're not that much fun for me. However, I do appreciate their semi-realistic ideas and systems, like overheating and limb damage..

If this game will be able to reach that sweet spot between the 2, it will be magnificent.

[FREEBIRTHTOAD1]

I pretty much only play mech games when it feels like the machine I am piloting is an actual mech. Things like the later Armored Core games, while good games, are more grounded in fantasy and magic than a simulation of real mechanics (around the same place that Gundam is located at).

Quote

Just out of curiosity: Why does a mech "simulation" have to be slow_ A preconceived notion perhaps_

Because they are gigantic. No kind of solid material or alloy that we have knowledge of, theoretical or otherwise, would even allow a mech of similar size to move at even a fraction of the speed that Mechwarrior mechs do. Battletech had to create their own kind of alloy and armor just so their hulking machines were even remotely feasible in their sci-fi setting.

And maybe you didn't notice, but most games that would be considered sims DO have them moving pretty fast. Battletech mechs can move at well over one hundred kilometers per hour. Considering they can reach that speed in a little under a few seconds is impressive.

Which brings us back to the Armored Core and Gundam examples earlier. They sit more along the extremes of where reality meets fantasy. They are instances where things that weigh hundreds of thousands of tons are able to move faster than the speed of sound and are able to stop instantly so they may move in any other direction at the same speed.

The reason this distinction matters is the fact that many games now will manufacture the notion that they are going for a simulator feel, like they are holding nothing back from the player in the interest of dumbing it down or keeping it simple for people who may consider it too hard to get into, and then they'll cut out half of the controls, or they'll speed everything up several times faster than it should be able to realistically go, or they'll use a simulation model of a sports car or a fighter jet.

Do I expect Hawken to be that way_ Of course not, what I mentioned previously is only something that maybe a few mech games, ever, got just right. And it describes itself as something that is toeing the line between arcade and sim, which means it is going to have to take a few liberties to remain fun. Which I am okay with, I am so starved for good Mech games that I honestly don't care which direction it goes.

[RedVan]

FREEBIRTHTOAD said:

Quote

Just out of curiosity: Why does a mech "simulation" have to be slow_ A preconceived notion perhaps_

Because they are gigantic. No kind of solid material or alloy that we have knowledge of, theoretical or otherwise, would even allow a mech of similar size to move at even a fraction of the speed that Mechwarrior mechs do. Battletech had to create their own kind of alloy and armor just so their hulking machines were even remotely feasible in their sci-fi setting.

Exactly the problem.  If you want to base "simulation" on reality, then no mech game is a sim.  Because there is no such thing as mechs.  The BT universe is completely made up, they could have made it so that they had some super light super strong metals they used to make their mechs, which would allow hyper maneuverability.  That would have then become the standard for "mech simulation".

Simply because BT made mechs move they way they do, that is what must be considered how all mechs will move to be considered simulation_  As far as I'm concerned, even BT mechs are so far outside reality that I could consider any Mech Warrior game an arcade game.

Simulation is not directly related to reality.

The point is, don't limit gameplay based on preconceived notions on what a "mech sim" or "mech arcade" should feel like.

Also, as I said before, HAWKEN looks good, and the dev team is making a good balance of speed and weaponry as far as I can see.  The only reason I bring this up is because I'd hate to see some bad gameplay mechanics get introduced on the basis of "reality".

This is just a reality check

[Irrelevant]

Yes, a simulation doesn't refer to the pace of the game however; In this instance simulation is used to differenciate this game to other, more faster paced games in the FPS Genre.
The term "simulation" and the setting(futuristic mechs) are used to explain why the game plays differently.
"I would describe the gameplay itself is fast-paced. Some controls like turn speed won’t be as fast as a typical FPS with human characters."
-http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/11/hawken-interview-the-indie-team-behind-the-best-mech-game-weve-seen/  
There are people who do base their expectations on whatever game they has the most fun with('Mechwarrior or Armored Core)

I doubt the developers would add a feature that would not make sense within the context of the game.
Which is what this comes down to, if you dont enjoy the context then some features simply will not make sense.
Since the developers are aiming to please both sides of the field they will wont please people who are on the extreme ends of both sides.

[Kaliops]

Simulating a Giant walking mech with components is different than simulating reality.  If I show you blue prints on how a pulse laser works, with weight, heat, range, etc, and how it hooks into the chassis, and its location the heat sinks, cable lines, and cockpit connections, we've created a new reality together.

Then we simulate that reality.  That doesn't mean its arcade.  It just means we're simulating the cool alternate reality we made together.  If we all agree on those components, well now we have a working world within to simulate our greatest mech fantasies.

Calling out "This impossible Reality isn't real" is a cop-out for people that don't want to be weighed down by or dislike complicated controls (and non ADD friendly learning curves).

[RedVan]

Kaliops said:

Simulating a Giant walking mech with components is different than simulating reality.  If I show you blue prints on how a pulse laser works, with weight, heat, range, etc, and how it hooks into the chassis, and its location the heat sinks, cable lines, and cockpit connections, we've created a new reality together.

Then we simulate that reality.  That doesn't mean its arcade.  It just means we're simulating the cool alternate reality we made together.  If we all agree on those components, well now we have a working world within to simulate our greatest mech fantasies.

I agree.

Quote

Calling out "This impossible Reality isn't real" is a cop-out for people that don't want to be weighed down by or dislike complicated controls (and non ADD friendly learning curves).

I disagree.  Someone saying "since mechs aren't real, let's not limit ourselves to preconceived notions" isn't a cop-out at all.

However, saying "in order to be considered a simulation, mechs must move in certain ways", is a very closed minded way to think about things, especially when simulation has very little to do with movement.  This should not be used as an argument in any game as to why something should be made a certain way.

I've been on the private tester team with Legions: Overdrive since the IA days (a few years).  I saw many people try to change the movement in L:O to be more like Tribes because "Tribes movement was more realistic".  Ok, you're flying around with a jetpack that size creating that much thrust.  Nothing realistic about it.  Why would the L:O dev team limit movement in such a way just because another similar game, just as unrealistic, had slower movement_  Not a good argument for developing something.

It would be nice to keep HAWKEN from being plagued by preconceived notions like those.  All they do is limit what could be done.  I guarantee you, if I see a post in a thread saying something down the lines of:  "HAWKEN should be made like this because it's more realistic", I'll be asking for a better argument as to why it should be made like that

[Flyingdebris]

i'd be down for fast movement + sim factor.

hell i'll take just about anything + sim factor so long as the setting is relatively consistent with its own rules.

I'd play a combat version of barbie horse adventures if it had simulation elements.

[3leggedFreak]

Flyingdebris said:

I'd play a combat version of barbie horse adventures if it had simulation elements.

Me too! Throw a game proposal together and get it made before someone steal the idea.

[Kaliops]

Hopefully Hawken can use different size chassis and abilities to give the player base tons of options. (ie please everyone (impossible!)).   The problem that we run into is peoples preconcieved notion of what a sim is (Slow and clunky so you have time to push all the blinky buttons) and a FPS (Bunny hopping through counterstrike).  These words don't mean what they used to, but we tend to cling to the old meanings and defend them.  Sim doesn't mean speed or not.  

I was certainly generalizing when I said "FPS/nonsim = ADD or don't have time to take the learning curve" but that's from personal experieince.  I would LOVE to fly the new AC-10 Warthog simulator, but I downloaded the 700 page manual and put my chin in my hand, knowing i wasn't willing at this point ot put the time in to really learn it.  I just figure others fear the same type thing, on a smaller scale.  As in "I just wanna point and shoot, not mess with all that engineer stuff".   Hopefully Hawken will find  a way to keep point and shooters happy, while not boring me to death with only having the ability to point and shoot and jump sideways.

[RedVan]

Kaliops said:

Hopefully Hawken can use different size chassis and abilities to give the player base tons of options. (ie please everyone (impossible!)).   The problem that we run into is peoples preconcieved notion of what a sim is (Slow and clunky so you have time to push all the blinky buttons) and a FPS (Bunny hopping through counterstrike).  These words don't mean what they used to, but we tend to cling to the old meanings and defend them.  Sim doesn't mean speed or not.  

I was certainly generalizing when I said "FPS/nonsim = ADD or don't have time to take the learning curve" but that's from personal experieince.  I would LOVE to fly the new AC-10 Warthog simulator, but I downloaded the 700 page manual and put my chin in my hand, knowing i wasn't willing at this point ot put the time in to really learn it.  I just figure others fear the same type thing, on a smaller scale.  As in "I just wanna point and shoot, not mess with all that engineer stuff".   Hopefully Hawken will find  a way to keep point and shooters happy, while not boring me to death with only having the ability to point and shoot and jump sideways.

I concur   From the looks of it, HAWKEN is going to be just that.

Of course, the amount of simulation features that games like MWLL has is still pretty minimal and I think could easily be incorporated (for the most part) into a faster paced game.

OT:

Quote

I would LOVE to fly the new AC-10 Warthog simulator, but I downloaded the 700 page manual and put my chin in my hand, knowing i wasn't willing at this point ot put the time in to really learn it.

Ahh yes...  I'm thinking DCS A-10C is the next Falcon 4.0   that thing is a beauty!  Really wish I had the time and $$ (for the new Thrustmast HOTAS Warthog) to learn it.

[DarkS7ar]

Kaliops said:

Hopefully Hawken can use different size chassis and abilities to give the player base tons of options. (ie please everyone (impossible!)).

What I'd like to see is once a player has changed his chassis/body/cockpit, the HUD changes to fit that certain chassis. For ex. where the ammo counter is, or your mech's health/armor, or even the design of the support bars in the cockpit. I think this falls under Sim where as if everyones exterior is different models and parts, should the interior that the pilot  sees be the same interior as the enemy he is throwing down lead with_

[Robert1374]

I vote sim like Steel Battalion Line of Contact as opposed all of the Chromehounds and AC fans wanting to try to creep arade elements along the line.

Steel Battalion was the most sim mech game ever made, and it did it perfectly creating the best gameplay experience i and many people have ever witnessed. Far exceeding CH. The pace and speed was the perfect blend creating a game with steep learning curve (high skill ceiling so you never hit a barrier) and the most strategic gameplay ever. If chromehounds was like proto tanks creeping into position; many SB players will instinctively tell you SB was like WWI dogfighting flanking, strafing dodging incoming rounds, conserving momentum, coming out of the sun rat-a-tatting into into enemy mechs wings. Jittering legs and sweaty palms, That was the experience.

From everything i've read, these Hawken guys are a fan of the singular genre of that one game. I hope they stick to their vision cause they're making a game for the sheer awesomeness of it.

Don't listen the CH people seeing a bright flashy new game wanting to make ugly mechs, or the halo people wanting quick skill-less violence.

Please don't CH this Hawken cause CH was a bad game!

[Flyingdebris]

The thing for me is that I want the game to reinforce the feeling above all that i am driving a machine.

Not a mech shaped bag of HP.  not a moving camera with a pair of guns attached

a metal, plastic, and fuel machine

Very few games do that right.  Steel battalion definitely did it.

And part of that is why i always tend to rant about wanting detailed damage systems, because few other things enforce that feeling like a machine breaking down around you, or relishing in that you are doing the same to your opponent.  I want to feel that visceral connection to my machine and to the damage that i am doing.  That natural drama that comes out of trying to squeeze just a few more seconds of life from your ride while trying to stay on top of a myriad of different issues and kill your enemy.

Not to mention simmy damage aspects introduce tactics that spice up gameplay.  I mean anyone can just jump around and shoot each other.  But it takes a little extra to consistently hit the same area twice, or to go for the smaller weakpoints, or to attack from an advantageous angle, or to concentrate firepower on a damaged area, all while trying to mitigate and counter these tactics.

Aside from that having a few systems to juggle never hurts.  So far hawken's got heat and jjet fuel, couldn't hurt to add ammo too.

Now granted, i'm not advocated needing like the entire keyboard or turning this into a full blown sim.  Hell if anything, controls could probably stand to be relatively straight forward.  I mainly just want what goes on under the hood of the game to be deeper that simply shoot it till it dies.