Mechwarrior Online

[VF5SS]

First - you have missed the whole point of the game, if you hate the fill in the dots armor then you should just move on with no more comments - this game would never be for you.

The point of the game is to be badly designed? You know when people hated THAC0 in D&D they ended up replacing it with something that worked better. Or at least it caused less headaches. But I guess I can't ask Battletech to improve because being terrible is part of its charm or something.

I think you are wrong here. Given, I haven't bothered with the whole HG/Fasa thing for a while, but I used to own three of the aforementioned kits, and did a lot of research back in the heyday of HG licensing debates, and the kits WERE licensed by Tatsunoko to Twentieth Century Imports (I found the right name). Nichimo was not part of the deal on that, or, if they were, they were a minor participant only to supply product

Since the final resolution between HG and Fasa is undisclosed, we have no way of knowing exactly who did what wrong.

VF5SS- see above. Fasa might legitimately have thought they had full rights to the designs. What you are saying is speculation, as well. Reps from Fasa and, to this day, HG, still state that there is a non-disclosure clause in the settlement. Because of this, the particulars about who had the rights to what are locked away from our prying eyes.

Well since we now know Tatsunoko has no rights to those designs outside of merchandising you have to ask if what FASA did is merchandising. Even Jetfires had Tatsunoko stickers. That's just part of their rights to Macross. Regardless, Studio Nue is never credited nor is Tatsunoko mentioned anywhere with regards to Battletech and Sunrise isn't credited either.

Also Nichimo and Nitto must have also supplied box art since a lot of old Battletech art is literally traced from that box art.

Anyhow, regardless of who had the rights to what, I really enjoyed the Mechwarrior games. The idea of bulky, walking, tanks just comes off so much better in these games than the likes of Armored Core, which wants to have their cake (big heavy mechs) and eat it, too (jumping around like a bunch of fairies on meth).

jeez mang really? AC hasn't had robots jumping around like crazy since maybe the first game. Even then it was just a natural 3d platforming thing. They really felt like three dimensional versions of the Assault Suits games like Leynos and Valken (Target Earth and Cybernator) right down to how you moved your arms up and down to aim. Nobody is moving like a Legend of Zelda fairy in AC For Answer. Except maybe Fragile but he's a jerk.

Again, not saying I enjoyed Mechwarrior in many iterations but why are these games so stuck in the same rut as the first game from 1989? Game design has come a long way since then yet fans insist it has to be this way otherwise it's not "proper" Mechwarrior.

Edited November 2, 2011 by VF5SS

[TehPW]

can i ignore this troll, somehow? he's like NOT listening (*cough* not like i dont have simular issues when i b*tch however). What is the problem with BT? you hate circling in 5 circles from a Medium Laser to the Left Torso that much? Its a Pen & Paper game, first and foremuch. b*tching about how wrong or screwed up the various Mechwarrior titles is retarded. Its a pain to code a game to make it work the way you want. its also a pain to code a game while also not violating copyright or other factors (example: the look & game play comparisions of Activition's Mechwarrior 2 series, Microprose's Mechwarrior 3 or Microsoft's Mechwarrrior 4 series, three different in function and game play because they were not allowed to do the same, use previous game mechanics/code, etc.)

if all you're gonna do is POOP on the subject, please be polite and walk away, sir.

(a first! i used CIVIL words as opposed to gut instinct typical PW wordage!)

Edited November 2, 2011 by pensives_wetness

[TheLoneWolf]

I think you are wrong here. Given, I haven't bothered with the whole HG/Fasa thing for a while, but I used to own three of the aforementioned kits, and did a lot of research back in the heyday of HG licensing debates, and the kits WERE licensed by Tatsunoko to Twentieth Century Imports (I found the right name). Nichimo was not part of the deal on that, or, if they were, they were a minor participant only to supply product

If you read Harmony Gold et al v. FASA Corporation et al, the court could not confirm that Twentieth Century Imports had ever entered into a licensing agreement for model kits with Tatsunoko. If Tatsunoko denied involvement with TCI, and FASA wasn't able to prove otherwise, then I don't believe a licensing agreement ever actually happened. Moreover, Big West's 1982 merchandising agreement with Tatsunoko specifically excluded Macross model kits, so Tatsunoko never had the model kit license to begin with. If you have any pictures of old TCI/Battletech "Macross" model kits that bear the Tatsunoko seahorse sticker, that would be an earth-shattering revelation (at least to me). About Nichimo, you're right, they were only the product supplier, and it looks like TCI was the actual distributor.

Since the final resolution between HG and Fasa is undisclosed, we have no way of knowing exactly who did what wrong.

While the 1996 settlement is indeed confidential, FASA's attempt at burying the Warhammer/Destroid Tomahawk immediately after the settlement speaks volumes to me.

Edited November 2, 2011 by TheLoneWolf

[TehPW]

If you read Harmony Gold et al v. FASA Corporation et al, the court could not confirm that Twentieth Century Imports had ever entered into a licensing agreement for model kits with Tatsunoko. If Tatsunoko denied involvement with TCI, and FASA wasn't able to prove otherwise, then I don't believe a licensing agreement ever actually happened. Moreover, Big West's 1982 merchandising agreement with Tatsunoko specifically excluded Macross model kits, so Tatsunoko never had the model kit license to begin with. If you have any pictures of old TCI/Battletech "Macross" model kits that bear the Tatsunoko seahorse sticker, that would be an earth-shattering revelation (at least to me). About Nichimo, you're right, they were only the product supplier, and it looks like TCI was the actual distributor.

While the 1996 settlement is indeed confidential, FASA's attempt at burying the Warhammer/Destroid Tomahawk immediately after the settlement speaks volumes to me.

yeah, that they got screwed by TCI's 'snake venom' potion. Humble pie says they wanted NOTHING to do with the macross imagry (their version of the Anti-something) so of course they dumped it. painfully with a lot of regret.

perhaps thats why we only seen very few attempts at battletech merchantdicing after that. Either the major toy companies would have nothing to do with FASA (because of perception) or FASA was especially cautious from their experiances with toy companies.

[Dynaman]

The point of the game is to be badly designed? You know when people hated THAC0 in D&D they ended up replacing it with something that worked better.

I replaced D&D with GURPS... (see, I can refuse to accept the point too!)

[VF5SS]

can i ignore this troll, somehow? he's like NOT listening (*cough* not like i dont have simular issues when i b*tch however). What is the problem with BT? you hate circling in 5 circles from a Medium Laser to the Left Torso that much?

Considering my opinions are being met with people saying I should just go away or that I don't get it, maybe I'm not the one being close minded here. And as far as filling in little circles like an SAT, well players generally fire more than one weapon at a time. Let's not even talk about the designs that have nothing but medium lasers. While the system is somewhat simple, it's also something that slows down the flow of the game. I feel the good in Battletech and I must try to redeem it from the dark age side.

Its a Pen & Paper game, first and foremuch. b*tching about how wrong or screwed up the various Mechwarrior titles is retarded.

I have given examples of how things derived from the board game negatively impact the design of the Mechwarrior titles. Like the use of the set limbs as hit points works in the context of the board game because of random hit locations. You can't just hammer one part reliably to fill up those dots. However, even back in Mechwarrior 1, the precision of the weapons allowed for players to easily target certain body parts and destroy 'Mechs with little effort or the same repetitive strategy. If you ever played Mechwarrior 3 multiplayer, this was a huge problem. People would pick the same three or four designs, loaded with LB-X cannons, lasers, or missiles and run around shooting at legs. This problem was really widespread (even made it into the gamefaqs). So in essence, aspects of the board game that this particular PC game employed ended up making the game far less enjoyable than it should be. Maybe that's my own fault for gaming on the internet but we don't like to admit to the mistakes of our youth. Like I said previously, even the developers for the new game have admitted they are having issues reconciling guided missiles with how they want the game to be played.

http://mwomercs.com/...10/2-dev-blog-0

See how the problems of the previous games are shaping what they want to do?

Its a pain to code a game to make it work the way you want. its also a pain to code a game while also not violating copyright or other factors (example: the look & game play comparisions of Activition's Mechwarrior 2 series, Microprose's Mechwarrior 3 or Microsoft's Mechwarrrior 4 series, three different in function and game play because they were not allowed to do the same, use previous game mechanics/code, etc.)

I'm not going to argue game development is not difficult, however I do not believe the mechanics of Mechwarrior were so sacrosanct that other companies were not allowed to use them. There were several Mechwarrior clones for example, such as Earth Siege, Star Siege, Iron Soldier, the aforementioned G-Nome, and others. Now I'm sure companies were not willing to share code or design documents but there are many common issues to all of the Mechwarrior games which to me, says there are issues with the source material. Much of Mechwarrior is heavily based on the table top game proper so there is a transitive effect when it comes to their problems.

if all you're gonna do is POOP on the subject, please be polite and walk away, sir.

Sometimes we say this in Macross 7 threads but it rarely works :c

I replaced D&D with GURPS... (see, I can refuse to accept the point too!)

So you're saying that I if I don't like it, then leave? I was trying to suggest that a single game system can evolve over time without having to just abandon it for another. A franchise can and often will attempt to reivent itself in order to attract new blood. It's one of the things we mock Robotech for not doing. Nostalgia can only get you so far. Even Transformers does this to varying degrees of success.

but I guess we can't discuss this matter.

let's just go back to watching TheLoneWolf critical hit the FASA owned stuff theory

rolled a head shot

[Dynaman]

> So you're saying that I if I don't like it, then leave?

I did not say that, I said you did not get the point of the game - and you don't, you spefically say so (in so many words) when you complain about uber designs - making uber designs is a large part of the game. You are saying it is a terrible game when in fact you simply don't like it. Big difference.

[the white drew carey]

True that. It does speak volumes.

Some have argued whether or not TCI actually had any rights to pass along to Fasa. It could be that Fasa was duped by TCI into thinking they had more than they had any right to. Who knows? None of us.

It definitely didn't end well for Fasa, but we can't go around passing off speculation as fact, either.

[anime52k8]

> So you're saying that I if I don't like it, then leave?

I did not say that, I said you did not get the point of the game - and you don't, you spefically say so (in so many words) when you complain about uber designs - making uber designs is a large part of the game. You are saying it is a terrible game when in fact you simply don't like it. Big difference.

Or maybe he doesn't like it because it's a terrible game.

[VF5SS]

> So you're saying that I if I don't like it, then leave?

I did not say that, I said you did not get the point of the game - and you don't, you spefically say so (in so many words) when you complain about uber designs - making uber designs is a large part of the game.

i hafta use lots of words because then people will understand maybe i dunno :c

But seriously, Min-maxing like a Munchkin is just an outgrowth of terrible game design. I don't have any fantasies that game design in the 80's was anywhere near the science it is these days and it is very clear the the handful of guys who founded FASA didn't do much serious play testing. One BT fangirl I know put it best, level 1 Battletech is the most balanced because everything sucks equally. The stock 3025 designs so so quaint and simple, it's easy to see why people played with them. Of course, FASA was not prepared for the torrent unleashed when they published Battlemech design rules.

And that's what irked me about playing Mechwarrior 3. Here I was, a wide eyed youth moving through the campaign with my lunchbox trucks keep me repaired while I jammed to Weird Al's Running With Scissors. Then I try to flex my skills on the MSN gaming network and suddenly I'm confronted with hundreds of other players using essentially the same setup because the game has no balance whatsoever. There was no sense of skill involved because you could win with the same repetitive tactics.

Never give the players the power to design anything because they are smarter and dirtier than you can ever imagine.

[Einherjar]

Isn't being exclusively online and free-to-play a good way for the developers to make balance adjustments to the game over time to combat that? Online Betas even? Though it still might be a never ending problem.

[Penguin]

VF5SS, I can hear your pain, and you're certainly not wrong about the weaknesses of either the tabletop or computer games.

I never found anything too egregious about the tabletop combat rules (granted, I stopped playing about a 15 years ago, so dunno if they got worse later). The table top game always had an issue when it came to the design rules. Aside from the look of the chassis, every mech is any other mech of the same weight. For my players, I only let them run designs that officially showed up in the technical readouts, which forestalled a lot of abuse back then.

As for Mechwarrior, I strictly avoided playing it online. The ability to shoot for legs was too obvious a weakness. Only played 2 and 4, mind you, and at least 4 reduced the leg-destroy issue somewhat (just slowed a mech down). One thing I did like about it was that they restricted the customization. For example, weapons could only be installed in certain locations, and the types were also restricted as ballistic, energy, or missile. Only Clan omnimechs allowed weapons of different types in the same slots.

At least the new one's F2P, so nothin' lost but time if it has awful flaws.

My hopes for the new game, is that it places restrictions on customization at least at the level of Mechwarrior 4, if not moreso, and that there's some solution to leg-shooting. The slow down from Mechwarrior 4 wasn't too bad. At least there were no more kills just by destroying legs.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Penguin

[raptormesh]

[snip]

I actually find it genuinely disheartening to see people (not you. well maybe you :x) stick with Battletech and handwave its problems away through the excuse of "well that's just the feel of it all" when it is entirely possible to revamp the system while keeping the same look and feel. I'm certainly no stranger to brand loyalty but sometimes you have to learn to scrutinize a bad thing when you see it. Also I'm pretty tired of Battletech and Mechwarrior fans (again not you personally) lording their stuff over them inferior hippie Japbots because they believe the superior "Western approach" trumps them all.

tl;dr don't get me started :[

First of all, I admire your passion to post such a lengthy discussion over the subject. I read all your points and they are good ones. Secondly I never said that btech > macross/hippejapbots. I love both in equal measure, and i actually like the dancing in the skies part about macross.

That said however, I have learnt that it is rather futile to discuss the vestiges or the integrity of a fictional IP over the internet at least for me. I liked scopedog for what it is, macross for what it is, and dozens of any other fictional IP for what they are. If I wanted realism I would go back to my work. What mattered to me was that I had a lot of fun playing the tabletop and card game(oh the horror?) with my mates and those personal memories will never change. I also had a lot of fun with the pc games and books so far. I'd like to think that was the intended purpose of the IP. I guess I am guilty of "just the feel of it" thing that you mentioned but I guess we have different priorities and opinions which is fine but I will continue to support this IP and remain ecstatically optimistic about it.

[bluemax151]

Some have argued whether or not TCI actually had any rights to pass along to Fasa. It could be that Fasa was duped by TCI into thinking they had more than they had any right to.

That's pretty much what I've seen eluded to over the years. Didn't Scott (from HLJ) do a huge write up about this before?

Does anyone have/play the newer catalyst release of Battletech?

[the white drew carey]

If you read Harmony Gold et al v. FASA Corporation et al, the court could not confirm that Twentieth Century Imports had ever entered into a licensing agreement for model kits with Tatsunoko. If Tatsunoko denied involvement with TCI, and FASA wasn't able to prove otherwise, then I don't believe a licensing agreement ever actually happened. Moreover, Big West's 1982 merchandising agreement with Tatsunoko specifically excluded Macross model kits, so Tatsunoko never had the model kit license to begin with. If you have any pictures of old TCI/Battletech "Macross" model kits that bear the Tatsunoko seahorse sticker, that would be an earth-shattering revelation (at least to me). About Nichimo, you're right, they were only the product supplier, and it looks like TCI was the actual distributor.

While the 1996 settlement is indeed confidential, FASA's attempt at burying the Warhammer/Destroid Tomahawk immediately after the settlement speaks volumes to me.

If you are referring to No. 95 c 2972 then, yes, I have read it. At no point does the judge say that TCI didn't have the rights. He merely states that Fasa's argument that they had model rights doesn't apply here.

"Contrary to defendants' assertions, plaintiffs do not rely on the rights to Japanese model kits in bringing this suit. Rather, plaintiffs dispute FASA's use of the Macross designs for its entire "Battletech" product line."

He is basically saying that the model rights, whether legally obtained or not, are not the basis for the lawsuit. But he never even touches whether or not TCI had the legal right to distribute the model kits.

[Dynaman]

Does anyone have/play the newer catalyst release of Battletech?

No - I jumped ship when the clan junk started showing up. It was an obvious attempt at a money grab - and I was not going to put up with it.

[Load Master]

Funny, the battletech verse has a lot of appeal to me. I don't think the machines in mechwarrior are in anyway synonymous with beauty that's for sure. It's gritty, no nonsense squad based mech warfare. No dancing in the skies this one. I guess people who aren't exposed to the tabletop game and the books won't be able to see it, your loss .

oh I played the tabletop game, I bought it in 1988 to play. I still can't see it.

[raptormesh]

oh I played the tabletop game, I bought it in 1988 to play. I still can't see it.

Eh I'm not here to convince people to like what I like, different strokes for different folks. Also I was playing it in the late 90s so it was a long ways from when you played it.

[Chowser]

I actually had fun playing MW on the MODEM with a coworker back in the day. I was really looking forward to the new MW, but with this online only thing, I don't know. I don't play any online games on the PC. I'll have to try it out before I decide. I still have my MW1 floppies, and MW2/MW3/MW4 if I'm feeling nostalgic. I think I have my battletech disks somewhere too. (yes, I am a hoarder)

---

guess i could get it on the xbox.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Chowser

[kensei]

Seriously, I hate tools that take usernames and then never use them! I had to rethink and got inspired by a transformer ad from HLJ, so I am now Kensei Prime. Argh.

[TheLoneWolf]

If you are referring to No. 95 c 2972 then, yes, I have read it. At no point does the judge say that TCI didn't have the rights.

Yes, the judge never declared TCI's "rights" invalid because neither party had asked him rule on that. However, in his background summary, the judge did note that the court had no proof that TCI had ever entered into a licensing agreement with Tatsunoko.

"FASA claims to have acquired the rights to these model kits and images from Twentieth Century Imports ("TCI"), which allegedly acquired them from Tatsunoko."

Evidently, finding proof of any licensing agreement between TCI and Tatsunoko is as elusive as finding any proof of the Loch Ness Monster. Though I'd expect to see Nessie make an appearance at the local aquarium before I see proof of any model kit license between TCI and Tatsunoko.

[the white drew carey]

Evidently, finding proof of any licensing agreement between TCI and Tatsunoko is as elusive as finding any proof of the Loch Ness Monster. Though I'd expect to see Nessie make an appearance at the local aquarium before I see proof of any model kit license between TCI and Tatsunoko.

[TehPW]

Eh I'm not here to convince people to like what I like, different strokes for different folks. Also I was playing it in the late 90s so it was a long ways from when you played it.

Agreed. You play a game (either table top with friends or a Consule/PC game) for the joy of the game, not the guts if it's got Clan Buttzilla. Just some of you seem to not want to play those types of games (and have the addasity to call them bad. what? if the mech isn't Gundamn A$$wing, then it's a poor design? Is that really the criteria for what makes a good game or good mecha?

no, it shouldnt. you have your opinion, VF5SS but your opinion is not the Macross World community at large ,neighter is mine.

what -IS- the opinion at large is what we individually like or dislike.

[Einherjar]

So would it be worthwhile for Piranha to give players the chance to use the other military vehicles besides mechs in the game universe?

[Dynaman]

So would it be worthwhile for Piranha to give players the chance to use the other military vehicles besides mechs in the game universe?

I've always wanted to drive that triple PPC tank in a game, my wanting it is probably the death knell for the idea though.

[bluemax151]

No - I jumped ship when the clan junk started showing up. It was an obvious attempt at a money grab - and I was not going to put up with it.

I have some of the newer stuff but can't really get into it. I think it's because I've been spoiled by the better miniatures of other games. Also the Word of Blake stuff is a little weird

I'd find it interesting if you could play as some of the support vehicles as well. Some of them have packed quite a punch in previous games and it could certainly add some variety to the game depending on how they're implemented.

[VF5SS]

Agreed. You play a game (either table top with friends or a Consule/PC game) for the joy of the game, not the guts if it's got Clan Buttzilla.

I know this may sound strange, but generally the joy of a game starts with its mechanics. People enjoy Super Mario Brothers because it is a well designed game that offers what is on the surface, a simple platformer. The basic concepts of this game have survived for over 20 years and with revisions and new ideas, it has managed to stay relevant and fun.

By contrast, a game like The Cheetahmen is a platformer where one would have a hard time finding any joy in it because mechanically it's a complete mess. Just watch any youtube video of it and you'll see why.

Not that games with questionable or clunky game design can't be fun. We have people on MW swear up and down that VF-X2 is a fun game. I mean I've had fun with it and I sure played the US demo a lot back in the day, but it's such a relic of its time and has been surpassed by other games. I'd argue there were even games from the same time period that did many things a lot better than VF-X2.

My problem with Battletech is that it has become very insular and self serving. You may say my opinion is in the minority, but myself and others have all come to many of the same conclusions about Battletech with regards to its universe and game mechanics. Given that it is as you said, a table top game at heart, I believe you can make objective criticisms about how the game is built and how it is played. This is afterall, the whole reason for the game industry existing.

The way I see it right now, the game and its subsequent spinoffs do not encourage team play, do not encourage the use of varied configurations, do not encourage tactics outside the few exploitive things that can work repeatedly, and other things.

It is never a point in a game's favor when players are basically told to ignore the flaws and hope someone else is there to moderate things. It's also not a point in the game's favor when it runs smoothly when wrapped up in a program like MegaMek.

Just some of you seem to not want to play those types of games (and have the addasity to call them bad. what? if the mech isn't Gundamn A$$wing, then it's a poor design? Is that really the criteria for what makes a good game or good mecha?

I am not saying Gundam is the standard for which all mecha are judged. However, I do feel they are a good example of machines that are well designed and fit their universe. I could use almost any series really like say Patlabor. Patlabor has a wide range of different types of robots whose designs all offer advantages and disadvantages. Any Patlabor series has shown stuff like, this is an Ingram and these are the things it can excel at. When forced to confront the HAL-X-10, which is a very different type of robot, the Ingram must function within the limitations of its design in order to subdue the HAL-X-10. The same goes for a show like Xabungle, Gundam, Layzner, Dougram, etc etc.

Now you're probably asking what do I think is a bad design?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/5/53/FLC-Falconer.png

Right here. This is terrible. Its joints have no real range of motion. It has no torso, which I pointed out before is a huge disadvantage when it comes time to put it in a video game. While the table top game abstracts a lot of the functionality of designs so that they are all roughly equal, video games using 3d models cannot do the same without a massive redesign. As I said before, it is a design that offers no tangible advantages in terms of the game world and when transplanted to a three dimensional, direct fire based video game suddenly it's completely worthless. Now if the game said well it's lower to the ground or it trades agility for speed or armor, then maybe there would be a reason it looks like this.

Also why does it have a boomerang in its leg?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/4/48/CHP-2NCHAMPION.png

Here's another one. How does this even move? Is it like an old toy that hobbles along? How does it drop the prone position? How does it stand up after falling down with no knees? Even if it can stand up, wouldn't it be slower? How does it move its arms to target enemies? Where's the head? How are you supposed to be able to target a head on this thing from the rear??

If these are designs whose sole purpose is to exist in a game, shouldn't it conform to the basic rules of the game? Apparently not because FASA had to include such designs like the Glaug which don't conform the basic humanoid shape the rules are designed to cope with. Now these aren't the only designs I could use (cuz Btech's got a lotta shite) but these two just spring to mind.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/3/3a/3025_Atlas1.jpg

Now this is much better than the previous two. While not all of its articulation is evident, it has a good, solid humanoid shape. It even demonstrates its hip articulation because the artist totally posed it like all that Dougram art they were using. But hey, at least it has knees and even a waist joint for torso twisting. It still has some issues like how some of the random holes and tubes had to be repurposed into different things because the artist and stat writer were not on the same page.

Now my main complaint with the mechanical designs in Battletech also has something to do with the fans. They have rallied around these machines that employ blocky structures and restricted joints as if they mean something more than just primitivism and lack of design work. They say this is clunky and unworkable, therefore it must be realistic. The reality being that without a core of dedicated artists with clearly stated goals, Battletech just accepted whatever they could find to pad the ranks of each new source book.

It's actually kind of fascinating to see how Battletech art changed depending on the influence of the Mechwarrior games.

http://www.pryderockindustries.com/downloads/product_scans/1605/1605_36_lucky_stinger_big.jpg

Does an image like this conform to the walking tank ideal?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/File:EnforcerIII.jpg

What's this guy doing other than dancing in the skies? Give him a hulahoop and he's all set.

I think a lot of people just looked at Mechwarrior 2 (you know the one a lot people played) and said that because of the limited animations of the Battlemechs that this must be how they would really move. Now later games and their CG openings tried to deviate from this, but a lot of fans took it as sacrelidge to suggest anything outside the "walking tank" mindset. Of course the table top game made its hexagon battlefields correspond to a size that is bigger than the 'Mech that occupies it, which suggests they may be doing more than just running straight from place to place firing their weapons (and missing half the time). Again the Mechwarrior games took a very literal approach to adapting the table top game and did visible suffer for it.

Now I can't pretend to know what this new game will do, but based on the difficulties expressed by the developers, I don't have high hopes they are going to radically change anything.

I know it's possible to do a Battletech game that is truer to the spirit of the core game without being married to game mechanics that never worked well to begin with. All you have to realize is most people just like the big stompy robots and not so much the nitty gritty details of such.

Mechwarrior and Battletech are so utterly ubiquitos and yet so dated and insular. It's something that people have hailed as the most gritty and realistic of robot properties (and lord it over other people who disagree), but all I see is "this is how we did things and this is how we will continue to do things."

You know I've heard Mechassault managed to be the most played game on X-box live until Halo 2 came out. Yet the the vaunted Sarna wiki doesn't seem to acknowledge it.

[bluemax151]

MechAssault is/was fun but it's basically just a 3rd person shooter. It also has an arcade feel so I can understand why it's mostly ignored.