A short time ago, at a computer terminal far, far, away, Tim Morten wrote:
>Will Day wrote: >> A short time ago, at a computer terminal far, far, away, Trav wrote: >> >Will Day wrote: >> >> I played Mechwarrior I for _years_. THAT's how you know you have a great >> >> game. >> > >> >That is the problem now with computer games. Companies think all we want >> >to excite us are stellar graphics etc. BIg graphics no meat. >> > >> >That is what I want -- CONTENT, not just awesome graphics. >> >> I was thinking about this. It used to be (in the earlier days of >> computer games) that the graphics systems available for computer games >> were severely limited. Their hands were pretty much tied in terms >> of graphics. So, in order to sell games, companies focused on >> the story and on the gaming aspects. This is what differentiated most >> games. Games had to stand out for their stories and their gameplay. > >Just so I get this straight for future games: MechWarrior 2, Ghost >Bear's Legacy, and Mercenaries are not fun to play?
Hi Tim, I hope you didn't misunderstand me. No, I did not say that Mech2, GBL, and Mercs are "not fun to play". At least, I don't think I did, because I don't believe that.
>They're just a bunch of pretty graphics?
No, not _just_ graphics, however that does appear to have been the focus of the games' development. That's where the games shine, and the story and gameplay appear to have received much less attention. That was my point - that Mech2, and other games I've played recently, seem to devote more attention than necessary to the graphics, and less attention than necessary to the story and gameplay.
In particular, for a scripted game, Mech2 didn't have what I would call a very strong background story. The game had pre-defined missions, with pre-defined goals, in a pre-defined sequence. It was, basically, telling a story. However, unlike games like Wing Commander, Ultima, or Mech1, the player's character wasn't anyone in particular. He was noone, with no particular role in the story, and no driving reason to participate. The player was, for the most part, entirely divorced from the story.
This was especially noticeable in the mission briefing outcomes. I remember de-briefings telling me something like the Wolf forces lost miserably and failed, while I on the other hand had just kicked Falcon ass all over the battlefield. Then, when I played the Jade Falcon missions, the de-briefings were virtually identical, even though I was now fighting on the other side, in what seemed like an entirely different mission from the corresponding Wolf mission.
Although Mech2 appeared to be telling me a story, there never appeared to be much story material there to be told. The de-briefings were about it, and the cut-scenes were few and far between. There was also no character interaction, as there were no characters seen in the game besides the player. If it was designed to be an RPG/story-type game, it didn't really cut it.
I never felt like part of any story, only that I was a clan mechwarrior with no particular goal except to win battles and advance in rank. Of course, this in itself isn't bad. Most simulator games are like this - Gunship, F-15, Falcon, etc. And, unlike Mech2, these games _are not_ scripted. I fight endless random battles, while accumulating rank or points or some other measure.
Mech2, though, didn't exactly pass as a simulator game, either, because when I was done with the scripted missions, that was the end of the game. Your character was retired, and could fight no more. There were no endless random battles, in which I could accumulate rank or points or some other measure. The campaign missions in which I _could_ accumulate were not random, and clearly not endless. And, the Instant Action missions, which _were_ random and endless, had no accumulation. Yes, I could fight endless missions in IA, but what would be the point? I wasn't achieving anything - no rank, no honor points, no money, no reason.
So, Mech2 had a wonderful 3-D environment and simulator engine - definitely the best mech-sim that I've seen on the PC (except Mercs of course).
But, a sim engine isn't a game by itself. It needs a game built around it, a system where the player can interact and/or achieve some goal. As an RPG-type game, Mech2 was lacking in background material and interactivity in the story. As a simulator, it was wanting for some measure of achievement in its repeat playability.
That's why I concluded that Mech2's focus appeared to be on the graphics, and not the gameplay. When either graphics or gameplay isn't given enough attention, then of course, playability suffers - and the game isn't as fun. So I guess I was saying that Mech2/GBL/Mercs are not _as fun_ as other games I've played (in particular Mech1), and not as fun as I thought they could and should be.
>Feeling like I just wasted 2 years of programming & producing, >Tim.
I would never want to make you feel like you wasted 2 years of your work, and I would hope that one player's opinion wouldn't have that monumental an effect on you. :)
Besides, I _don't_ think it was wasted. I'm very pleased that you made the game, and that I have it to play. However, I have to admit that I _was_ disappointed with Mech2, and I guess I'd hoped that Mercs would get it right. Since it didn't, though, I'm trying to explain why I was disappointed with both of them, and to hopefully someday play a mech game that's as fun as Mechwarrior 1 was when it came out.
===
Will Day