So,
what frosty pint of robo-goodness do I prefer? As a self-described
“hard-core” gamer, I feel that Mercenaries is the best
out of the bunch in terms of game design. I prefer open-ended
games over graphical eye-candy; as far as I’m concerned,
unpredictable storylines beat fixed mission campaigns every single
time. With the exception of Mercenaries, all of the ‘Mech
games are relentlessly linear. Every mission plays the same, and
salvage – that be-all, end-all of Battletech goodness –
is determined by the mission designers, rather than combat performance.
Mercs was not perfect in this regard – it took nearly a year
before “proper” salvage rules were put into effect,
but its player-paced campaign combined with the economic conundrums
of running a ‘Mech lance gave this game legs.
I’m
not blind, however. I don’t have a $300 dollar Voodoo 5 video
card in my rig simply because 3dfx is my favorite tax-deductible
charity (although the company is rapidly approaching that level…)
Mercenaries’ graphics can barely be considered “modern”
– they’re accelerated, but the Mercs stomping grounds
are sparse and blocky, while the engine’s horribly-close
pop-in is almost a feature in itself (“Where the hell did
THAT drop-ship come from?”) Weapon effects are simple lines;
particles are Lemmings-esque pixels. Mercs graphics work, but
they constantly remind one that they are playing a four-year-old
game. This doesn’t bother me too much, but then again, I’m
“hard-core” (or a game nerd, take your choice).
For
those who require eye-popping graphics, the choices are simple:
you get your MechWarrior 3, or you get your MechWarrior 4. Despite
the fact that the two games were created by two different design
groups, the sims are remarkably similar – and that includes
graphics. MW3 has (arguably) more detailed ‘Mechs, but its
battlefields tend to be vast, flat plains (encouraging long-range
sniping); MW4’s ‘Mech modeling isn’t up to the
previous game’s level, however, the battlefields are far
more varied, encouraging very-up-close-and-personal catfights.
Beyond
graphics, both of the above have design quibbles that leave me
a little fussy. MW3 has idiotic A.I. (fellas, never walk backwards
in front of a fully armed and operational Awesome!), ‘Mechs
falling over at the drop of a hat, and “legging”. MW4
has a too-generic ‘Mech building system, ‘Mechs that
do not fall over at all (including catastrophic-loss-of-leg-casualty
situations), and a “less sim, more action” feel.
The
next contestants on Scharmers’ hit parade are two sims that
are fairly decent, but have the “what the hell is wrong with
the controls” sticker pasted all over them. They are StarSiege
and Heavy Gear. Both sims wanted to move away from the “realistic”,
but newbie-unfriendly torso/legs combination, and more towards
a FPS-style movement system. StarSiege did it somewhat half-assedly,
so players who are comfortable with the conventional ‘Mech
controls only have to make minor (if irritating) adjustments.
HG2,
on the other hand, came up with an unholy combination of number
key usage (for movement) and mouse-look. I could have lived with
this if HG2 allowed me to remap the movement keys to my favorite
FPS configuration, but it didn’t let me use the SHIFT key
for “left strafe”. I could have just used my usual HOTAS
setup for HG2, but that would have taken a lot of the Gears mobility
out of the picture. If you can get around these limitations, then
Heavy Gear 2 is an exceptional battlesuit game. StarSiege is essentially
an updated EarthSiege 2.
As
for the rest of the older titles, I would recommend them to completists
only – with the exception of Heavy Gear, which should be
buried into Arizona underneath a few thousand cubic tons of concrete.
‘Mech fans should be pretty appreciative – beyond the
just-mentioned HG1, there have been no “bad” robot simulations,
and while they are very similar at their core, there are enough
significant differences between all of them to apply to every
teenager deep within us that craves ‘Mech-stomping fun. See
you on the killing fields, Commander, and pray I don’t get
an LRM lock on you.
So,
what frosty pint of robo-goodness do I prefer? As a self-described
“hard-core” gamer, I feel that Mercenaries is the best
out of the bunch in terms of game design. I prefer open-ended
games over graphical eye-candy; as far as I’m concerned,
unpredictable storylines beat fixed mission campaigns every single
time. With the exception of Mercenaries, all of the ‘Mech
games are relentlessly linear. Every mission plays the same, and
salvage – that be-all, end-all of Battletech goodness –
is determined by the mission designers, rather than combat performance.
Mercs was not perfect in this regard – it took nearly a year
before “proper” salvage rules were put into effect,
but its player-paced campaign combined with the economic conundrums
of running a ‘Mech lance gave this game legs.
I’m
not blind, however. I don’t have a $300 dollar Voodoo 5 video
card in my rig simply because 3dfx is my favorite tax-deductible
charity (although the company is rapidly approaching that level…)
Mercenaries’ graphics can barely be considered “modern”
– they’re accelerated, but the Mercs stomping grounds
are sparse and blocky, while the engine’s horribly-close
pop-in is almost a feature in itself (“Where the hell did
THAT drop-ship come from?”) Weapon effects are simple lines;
particles are Lemmings-esque pixels. Mercs graphics work, but
they constantly remind one that they are playing a four-year-old
game. This doesn’t bother me too much, but then again, I’m
“hard-core” (or a game nerd, take your choice).
For
those who require eye-popping graphics, the choices are simple:
you get your MechWarrior 3, or you get your MechWarrior 4. Despite
the fact that the two games were created by two different design
groups, the sims are remarkably similar – and that includes
graphics. MW3 has (arguably) more detailed ‘Mechs, but its
battlefields tend to be vast, flat plains (encouraging long-range
sniping); MW4’s ‘Mech modeling isn’t up to the
previous game’s level, however, the battlefields are far
more varied, encouraging very-up-close-and-personal catfights.
Beyond
graphics, both of the above have design quibbles that leave me
a little fussy. MW3 has idiotic A.I. (fellas, never walk backwards
in front of a fully armed and operational Awesome!), ‘Mechs
falling over at the drop of a hat, and “legging”. MW4
has a too-generic ‘Mech building system, ‘Mechs that
do not fall over at all (including catastrophic-loss-of-leg-casualty
situations), and a “less sim, more action” feel.
The
next contestants on Scharmers’ hit parade are two sims that
are fairly decent, but have the “what the hell is wrong with
the controls” sticker pasted all over them. They are StarSiege
and Heavy Gear. Both sims wanted to move away from the “realistic”,
but newbie-unfriendly torso/legs combination, and more towards
a FPS-style movement system. StarSiege did it somewhat half-assedly,
so players who are comfortable with the conventional ‘Mech
controls only have to make minor (if irritating) adjustments.
HG2,
on the other hand, came up with an unholy combination of number
key usage (for movement) and mouse-look. I could have lived with
this if HG2 allowed me to remap the movement keys to my favorite
FPS configuration, but it didn’t let me use the SHIFT key
for “left strafe”. I could have just used my usual HOTAS
setup for HG2, but that would have taken a lot of the Gears mobility
out of the picture. If you can get around these limitations, then
Heavy Gear 2 is an exceptional battlesuit game. StarSiege is essentially
an updated EarthSiege 2.
As
for the rest of the older titles, I would recommend them to completists
only – with the exception of Heavy Gear, which should be
buried into Arizona underneath a few thousand cubic tons of concrete.