>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.
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:
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
(ref: willday4)