MechWarrior 2: Resource Forum

Mechwarrior3 and 4 were never made...

How do you think the Netmech community would be like today...

Like it is now with no league and hardly no players?

Maybe have a league with 50 - 100 players?

Still be booming like it was back in the day?

What are your thoughts?

In that case, AT1 might be a commercial or commercial-grade product by now, I think. Or do you exclude AT1 as well?

i probably would exclude AT:1

Assuming Technology stayed the same, and the programmer potential that was put into AT:1 would have been applied towards hacking and modding mw2

I have not been part of the MW2 leagues, so I will not speculate on what drove the crowds away from NetMech, but I can give insights into what I think cannot be done with MW2. From what we have learned, I see three bugs that we may not be able to fix. The first is that rendering uses a flawed implementation of the depth-sorting in all editions of MW2. It sorts polygons by distance rather than by a scale product, which is why you can see some objects through others in some cases. The two other bugs that appear in all versions of MW2 are timing-related issues like self-hitting missiles and jump jets that do not recharge. I doubt we will be able to completely fix these three bugs. Apart from that, we are now able to mod the game very much, to the point where we can almost create new campaigns.

I wonder if Activision would have lost the rights to MechWarrior if they would have released MW2: The Clans. That might have given them more time to work on a 3D enhanced edition for the Refusal War, resulting in something like a bug-free Titanium Trilogy. But if they would have stayed with what MechWarrior was, or if they would have followed a similar route as Microsoft did with MW4 and MechAssault, we will never know.

the change from mech 2, to mech 3 and beyond

was from a simulator, to a video game

plain and simple

that is why no matter how hard they tried, they couldn't capture the same game play, or audience

what would be the difference between a simulator and a video game between mech2-4?

At the time it came out, MW2 was an "action game" quite unlike its contemporaries, which were still mostly stuck in "2.5D" at most (Quake came out the following year). MW2 has much more the feel of a flight sim, and Repomancer mentioned that he'd done work on commercial flight sim stuff before doing work on the MW2 engine. Like flight sims (including space sims) and unlike other shoot-'em-ups of the time, MW2 used 3D polygons, had multi-function displays, had weapons that didn't instantly hit and stressed "piloting." It can't be overemphasized that in MW2, the mech is a piloted vehicle -- the cockpit has a variety of instrumentation, the mech has a variety of controls that, with practice, allow the player to move it as he wishes. There is never the sense that you're a corridor crawler that somehow found himself outside. I can't say the same for MW4.

Comparatively, MW4 features simplified controls (fewer jump jets, at least), a simplified cockpit, and a different notion of how a mech operates. Mechs in MW2 are agile, but solid and smooth moving; mechs in MW4 bounce the cockpit around but can maneuver like jello in comparison. I know I'm not the only one who thinks that the feeling in MW4's mechs is like being a guy thrown around in a big robot suit instead of piloting a vehicle. (This feeling would work better for Heavy Gear, which has much smaller mecha.)

If both MW2 and MW4 are "simulations," they're simulating different things. I expect a simulation game to be fiddly, with instrument readings and something involved with piloting. There really is simply less piloting to do in MW4. Even though the "circle of death" is common to both games, duels in MW4 are much more about shot timing (to use the knock effect) and pre-positioning (pop tart) than MW2's rather extravagantly swirling dogfights, where shots can be dodged, positioning can change rapidly, and a well piloted mech can quickly destroy the other by DFA.

MW4 came out in the Quake3/UT era, and these were quite advanced 3D FPS games compared to the situation in 1995. In 2000, the PC gaming hardware-pushing torch was passing (if not already passed) to the FPS genre from the flight sim genre, where it had been held for years. Shoot-'em-ups had a much larger market and now wanted push lots and lots of polygons too. Trying to make MW4 like a contemporary flight sim wouldn't have made much sense -- Falcon 4, really the standard in consumer combat flight sims, had been initially released in 1999, and was to be really the über "study sim." The standard of simulation of real things had increased quite a bit in the intervening years between the development periods of MW2 and MW4 to the point where the difference between action and simulation was quite vast. (I've alluded to something I refuse to touch in greater detail, which is the question of what it means to simulate a mech, because it can too easily take us even deeper into Comic Book Guy territory than we already are.) Another comparison would be space sims -- MW2 (1995) and Tie Fighter (1994) vs. MW4 (2000) and Freespace 2 (1999) -- but I can't figure out what (if any) insight this could give.

If MW2 and MW4 are both "action" games, they're from different eras and have different influences. If they're both "simulation" games, they're simulating different things. MW4 "simulates" a large tank-like battle better than MW2 does, while MW2 emphasizes "simulating" the control of the mech (whatever that means). I would agree with Cyril that MW2 has important elements of a simulation game that MW4 lacks, while MW4 makes concessions to multiplayer gameplay that make it less about piloting and more about Counterstrike with lasers, so to speak. They're both just games in the end though.

My feeling/opinion that the entirety of the mechwarrior series are both simulators and video games.

I'll make some comparisons between MW2 and MW3 and MW4

MW2 Cockpit: While there is no actual buttons or switches that you physically push/pull, actions are generally viewed through the Heads Up Display (HUD). Mech damage, weapons (grouping, selected, being fired, destroyed, etc...), Radar, targeting, sending orders to Starmates, Night Amplification, Enhanced Imaging, etc..

MW3+4 Cockpit: While there is no actual buttons or switches that you physically push/pull, actions are generally viewed through the Heads Up Display (HUD). Mech damage, weapons (grouping, selected, being fired, destroyed, etc...), Radar, Targeting, Sending Orders to Starmates, -- I cant recall Night Amp, and Enhanced Imaging is clan tech only (that it being actually integrated into a warrior's brain or whatever), etc...

MW2 Movement: Keyboard or Joystick Controls. First Person Cockpit View or 3rd Person Mech View. Mechs able to move forward and in reverse. Mechs able to torso twist. Mechs able to use Jump Jets (jump to different elevations, maneuver, etc...)

MW3+4 Movement: Keyboard or Joystick Controls. First Person Cockpit View or 3rd Person Mech View. Mechs able to move forward and in reverse. Mechs able to torso twist. Mechs able to use Jump Jets (jump to different elevations, maneuver, etc...)
I will point out (because if I dont, I'm sure many others will ) that MW2's Jump Jet system was more versatile/agile than MW3+4. MW3 (i cant recall for 4) did have directional jump jets, but not in the same agility that MW2's mechs had jump jets -- being that the jump jets in MW2 allowed you to change course mid-flight very easily while MW3(&4) only allowed you to fly in a certain direction with limited or no ability to change flight path mid-flight.
I also do contend that the use of jump jets in MW2 is not in par with how Jump Jets were used in the battletech board game -- i.e. you cant jump forward 2 spaces and then all of a sudden decided to go back 3 spaces. Although thanks to MW2's Jump Jet system, DFAs were made easier (although DFAs were intended as last resorts, and generally looked down upon by clans unless as last resorts). But also, not always has the mechwarrior series stuck to battletech cannon characteristics -- like the Kodiak DFA-ing the Mad Dog in GBL Opening.
Also, Jump Jets in Battletech (the game and novels) were not designed to "dodge" shots. Jump Jets were designed to assist mechs to get to higher/lower elevations, get into better positions, and make shots more difficult for chances to hit (in Battletech, your movements are first then your weapons phase is next).


MW2 Single & Multi: Single Player Storyline Campaign, Single Player "Instant Action", Multiplayer enabled
MW3+4 Single & Multi: Single Player Storyline Campaign, Single Player "Instant Action", Multiplayer enabled

MW2 Mech Loadouts: Able to Customize mechs freely
MW3 Mech Loadouts: Able to Customize mechs freely
MW4 Mech Loadouts: Able to Customize mechs with dedicated hardpoints, and omni sections (i.e. only energy weapons in Right Arm, Left ARM can hold Ballistics only, etc, etc...)
I know that the MW4 Loadout system is unpopular by many here, but I do like the loadout system in MW4. To me it makes sense and it also forces the player to be creative in their choices in mechs. As many of you here are aware, when most of us play a game of c1 in netmech, pretty much it comes down to the same load outs: Load up on a lot of ER Meds, if not ALL ER Meds, maybe a few pulse lasers, and put as many heat sinks and JJs as possible. It involves a lesser degree (IMO) of creativity, and mostly the game comes down to either luck of where you place your shots or DFAs.
As far as hardpoints in mechs in MW4, it makes sense to me because not all mechs are made the same, and not all mechs are Omni-mechs.
As far as "pop-tarting" in MW4 multiplayer, I hadnt had much gaming on MW4 Multi. I did play for a few months, but in the earlier days of MW4 -- i guess before poptarting was invented and mods came out for mw4.

IN summary, Mechwarrior 1 (i know most of you havent played MW1) through 4 have had pretty much the same basics, but had some variations between each game. All games were a pilot in a cockpit, with ability to move and shoot, the ability to customize a mech, and a storyline. It wouldnt make sense to me to classify mech2 as being the only simulator in the series when the other games had the same concepts. Of course all 4 games in the series had very different gameplay styles, that doesnt make one game in the series to a simulator and the others not of being the same genre. Admitly so by Microsoft, MW4 was geared to be more combat based...but that has been true for the entire series before hand.

Another (weak) analogy is saying that Starcraft 2 isnt an RTS because the gameplay is/will be different to Starcraft 1

Again, this is all just my opinion.