From willday@rom.oit.gatech.edu Wed Oct 9 10:46:47 EDT 1996 Article: 187017 of comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action Path: prism!not-for-mail From: willday@rom.oit.gatech.edu (Will Day) Newsgroups: alt.games.mechwarrior2,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,rec.games.mecha Subject: Re: Activision sucks! [was: ...MW2's Mechlab in Mercs] Date: 9 Oct 1996 01:20:06 -0400 Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, OIT Tech Support Lines: 157 Message-ID: <53fcm6$1up@rom.oit.gatech.edu> References: <324CA3DA.2DF8@alumni.caltech.edu> <32532C23.4220@activision.com> Reply-To: willday@rom.oit.gatech.edu (Will Day) NNTP-Posting-Host: rom.oit.gatech.edu X-Newsreader: Trn version 3.6 (20 Nov 1994) NNTP X-no-archive: yes Xref: prism comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action:187017 rec.games.mecha:74988 Status: RO -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Tim Morten writes: >> Doug Gould wrote: A short time ago, at a computer terminal far, far, away, Doug Gould wrote: >O.K. Speak up ye who like the current implementation of >joystick/turret control! I havn't heard *one* person say they like >it. The most positive thing that I have heard is that people don't >mind, 'cause the mouse control is so much better. The fact is, that >the mouse works O.K. but the Joystick could be much better. As I wrote previously, I would, in fact, argue that virtually EVERYONE dislikes the forced-centering. Some _realize_ what the problem is, perhaps after playing similar games that do _not_ force-center, such as VWE Btech or Earthsiege. I've played these, and even then it took me a few games to figure out what was bothering me about the game controls. Most players, though, notice only that joystick targeting is very difficult. How many times have you heard someone say, "I don't use the joystick." or "I use the mouse for for targeting. It's much more precise." IS THERE REALLY ANY WONDER WHY??? Just try and find a Mech2 or Merc player that admits to preferring the joystick for targeting. Virtually no one does - it's too hard - because of the forced-centering!! Doesn't that make it clear enough?! I'd have thought so, myself. >Myself and many others use USENET as a means of determining what we >will or will not purchase. I find that gaming newsgroups provide a >much better insight to the quality and playability of games than paper >reviews. I'm sure CGW and CGR will come out with favorable reviews, >exalting the pretty pictures, but honestly that's not what I'm >interested in. I'm interested in a game that is fun and easy to use. >I game that will grab my interest and hold it for a few weeks or >months. I've also been bothered by the less-than-critical and shallow reviews I read in many magazines. I've come to rely more and more on comments, criticisms, and reviews by fellow gamers on Usenet. I also try and do my share of comments and reviews, as well. >From reading this group I have discovered. > >1. The graphics are greatly improved. >2. Mercs is buggy >3. You ruined the mech lab >4. You haven't bothered to fix the joystick thing that I was waiting for. >5. The AI can shoot better, but still has some serious problems. >6. Salvage wasn't implemented as well as in MW1 > >So why should I buy this game? One who has a P166 and is impressed by >pretty pictures, seems to be the only person I can think of who would >enjoy it, and this doesn't describe me. Hmm, that's me with the 166, and you should probably add "is a diehard BattleTech fan who wouldn't dare _not_ to buy the game, but will make sure to let his criticisms be heard if it doesn't measure up." >Old Quote from the MW2 Faq, part 2. >% From: "Tim Morten" >% Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:59:12 -0800 >% >% We are now actively looking at making the centering optional >% based on yours and others suggestions. >% >% It pains me to hear frustrated users . You might also notice that this matches the current responses in reference to salvage and forced-retirement. Based on the past results, then, I can't reasonably expect a much different outcome this time around, despite the hopefulness of Tim's and Jack's posts. As I've said, though, I never mind being proved wrong. I guess we'll see. >Activision may be satisfied to cater to a growing market of clueless >new Pentium owners who are impressed by flashy graphics at the expense >of gameplay. If so, I highly recommend that Activision move into the >"Interactive Movie" genre, but traditionally the sim market has been >composed of mature serious gamers who demand quality products. If >Activision can't satisfy us, then I'm not interested in buying their >products. Overall, I've noticed several disappointing aspects of Mech2 and Mercs' development, that seem to indicate focus more on "appearance", "shallowness", and appeal to "arcade" or "simple-minded" gamers, rather than on "quality", "depth", and appeal to "thinking" or "experienced" gamers. Let's make a list: - the keyboard configuration: you can't configure all the functions, nor select all the keys. We're just supposed to accept the designer's selections. - the joystick control: the forced-centering is _very_ arcadish, and wouldn't be acceptable to any semi-serious simulation fan, nor in particular fans experienced with any other robot-sim on the market. Every single one I've played has incremental joystick control on the torso: VWE BattleTech centers, EarthSiege I (haven't tried II), Kesmai's MPBT Solaris, and most recently Interplay/Bioware's Shattered Steel. Presumably, the argument is that the forced-centering makes it "easier" to deal with for beginners, but not only does that support my contention, but I would argue against the truth of the statement as well. - the background story: Presumably we wouldn't think enough to notice that Mech2's mission debriefings don't correspond to our mission outcome, and that they're unbelievably _identical_ for both sides of the conflict. - the salvage system: It _appears_ to have salvage, but either we're not expected to think enough to notice that our actions have no effect, or we're just supposed to accept the simplistic design and blindly follow the designer's pre-determined outcome. - the forced-retirement: Not only does this conflict with anyone having experienced the freedom of endless play with Mechwarrior 1, but it also flies in the face of those who have played almost _any_ kind of serious simulation, where you have never-ending opportunity to gain and accumulate rank, points, medals, and improve your skills while having something to _show_ for your accomplishments. - lastly, the focus on improving the appearance of the graphics engine, which is usually the only thing that matters to arcade players that look only at the shallow features of a game, instead of developing the gameplay, depth, control, and freedom that the thinking gamer so desires. Now, it may be that it was not, in fact, the goal or design of Activision for Mech2 to be arcadish or simple, but through their choices that's the way the final product appears to me, at least in these particular aspects. The actual sim engine, as I've posted before, is actually very impressive, and quite well done. However, it seems as if Activision were relying on this facet, almost entirely, to sell their game and attract customers. I just don't think it's sufficient to have a beautiful engine, without a deep game to support it. === Will Day #################################### http://rom.oit.gatech.edu/~willday/ # Unofficial MW2 Mercenaries FAQ # ..brought to you by Comstar Newsnet.. # http://rom.oit.gatech.edu/mercs/ # "All the Fighting, All the Time" #################################### -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Comment: http://rom.oit.gatech.edu/~willday/pubkey.asc iQCVAwUBMls2ARDHlOdPw2ZdAQFGuQP+KQJqnZoHCVP8Jf2V9GZuFKBjlk1GfAC1 vdc5dLnLOSgnyGiopcDPnDCJG+muSRxpbxm4xiRZNvDwooO0pQd/uPB8eB/oYGM2 W4qVbGwHSOIsaaKr5TBwR9w0fVdgY4RpUnpx2s1sDkMYrLS0EYcARLxs0mrZe6x3 AoyiSvKtvPM= =jez5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----