Lore accuracy?

[Nightskies]

Why does anything MW themed need to be lore accurate?

Mentioned Star Wars as an example, but that was a mistake.

[Toki]

I'm sure a lot of players just want a game that's fun and don't particularly care or know about lore.
Sure, they'd maybe care if something broke internal consistency within the game, but might not care in a larger scope, as they just want to play a fun game and aren't really trying to get invested in learning the ins and outs of some setting.

And the answer depends a bit on what the objective is in creating something.
(Money & creating value vs trying to continue the legacy of something, etc.)

Like, if someone made a game that's deemed unenjoyable & badly designed by 99% of the players and then argued: "But it's so lore accurate." most people wouldn't suddenly think it's a good product.
But the inverse has been proven to happen.

[Cursed Hawkins]

Originally posted by Nightskies:

Why does anything MW themed need to be lore accurate?

Looking at Star Wars as an example of lore being malleable and made up.

Comparing a movie that was made for selling merch in 1977, to that of a Tabletop game that was created in 1984 not only to sell miniatures but also the rules for the Tabletop as well as the books, its the same thing as Games Workshop's Warhammer series with Fantasy and 40K.

[Cursed Hawkins]

Originally posted by Atlun:

I'm sure a lot of players just want a game that's fun and don't particularly care or know about lore.
Sure, they'd maybe care if something broke internal consistency within the game, but might not care in a larger scope, as they just want to play a fun game and aren't really trying to get invested in learning the ins and outs of some setting.

That's the problem with OP's argument, Star Wars when it was created was JUST for selling merch nothing more than that, Battletech on the other hand has entire rule sets for the Tabletop, books, miniatures,etc. It's not the same thing what Star Wars was made for.

[Toki]

Originally posted by Cursed Hawkins:

Originally posted by Atlun:

I'm sure a lot of players just want a game that's fun and don't particularly care or know about lore.
Sure, they'd maybe care if something broke internal consistency within the game, but might not care in a larger scope, as they just want to play a fun game and aren't really trying to get invested in learning the ins and outs of some setting.

That's the problem with OP's argument, Star Wars when it was created was JUST for selling merch nothing more than that, Battletech on the other hand has entire rule sets for the Tabletop, books, miniatures,etc. It's not the same thing what Star Wars was made for.

Yeah, I think his question would have been better without any mention of Star Wars.
It might distract some people into talking more about Star Wars rather than assessing the actual question/idea he wants to discuss.
(And there's a lot of valid criticism to levy against Star Wars, but talking about it on MW5 forums might be a little out of place.)

[MAD-3R_Marauder]

Because, if you don't want to use the lore, why are you even using the IP?

Why not just creating a new IP with giant robots where you can do whatever you want?

I mean, for the latest SW movies (fight urge to vomit) piggybacking on the franchise and milking the audience as much as possible sort of makes sense, if you only look at short-term income.
For a franchise like Battletech, though?

Does this mean a Battletech/Mechwarrior game has to be boring/not-fun?
Of course not (I mean, I have a ton of fun with MW5 and even more so with HBS' Battletech)
But if you can't create a fun game without r****ing the IP to hell and back, then you are a pretty s***ty developer.

[Thundercracker]

Originally posted by Nightskies:

Why does anything MW themed need to be lore accurate?

Looking at Star Wars as an example of lore being malleable and made up.

better answer than what's been provided before:

star wars is science fantasy. space wizards. it makes no effort to be believable and give "actual magic" as the reason for some things.

mechwarrior/ battletech is science fiction, and a bit on the "harder" side. this means that there is tech that works "like magic," but they try to give a believable scientific explanation.

[Dracul]

Not sure if pointing to the dumpster fire that is star wars lore is a positive thing....

Also when you go too far off the rails you end up with Mech Assault, and is why most MW games chase either the golden era (of the succession wars) or the clan invasion rather than pushing into the *Gag* dark ages or further.

[Sentient_Toaster]

Any MW game is almost certainly to conflict with lore in terms of having a small number of player-controlled / allied mechs defeating far larger forces happy to throw possibly scores of mechs away per battle; and in the player eventually being able to accumulate extremely customized, optimized mechs stuffed full of rare tech that would be the envy of major houses. That's just part of it being a game with progression and all, and not wanting to do stuff like drastically limit refitting and have it be done only while spending time on friendly planets with proper industrial facilities, etc. Like, if the player were restricted to only having four mechs in bays at any one time, that were almost always just stock with it being a major effort to swap out weapons -- that'd be a lot less enjoyable for most players almost certainly.

But if you're going to have factions as possible employers, it makes sense to make them somewhat different, e.g. in. what gear they tend to field. If you're going to have a timeline spanning potentially decades, some tech development is reasonable. You could invent your own setting and lore, but BT has a lot already here, so *shrug* might as well look to it as a possible basis (perhaps excising things that seem to have been mistakes when it comes to gameplay, in hindsight).

[🍮]

if a mechwarrior game isn't lore based and is instead a generic arena shooter or something else that isn't BT based then i don't want it. there are plenty of trashy generic arena shooters to play that have no depth or history. go play one if you don't like BT or MW. a MW game should always be based on BT and be as much of a war sim as possible.

[Nightskies]

Ha- sorry, it wasn't my intent to argue that lore should be disregarded. I've spent an unknown number of afternoons reading Battletech stories, delving into lore, and playing the Mechwarrior games. I still remember reading when Phelan Kell caught ...whats-her-name, I think she was a Clan Elemental pilot ... with that guy. I was pretty upset. Phelan was a childhood hero. In lieu of any known players (in part thanks to my age at the time), I even played Battletech and Battlespace by myself, though that only served to think like a Steiner political general when it came to tactics and favored mechs. I was just a kid, okay?

Still, I was expecting more reasoning as to *why* Battletech lore should be more prevalent in Mechwarrior.

A better example than Star Wars would have been WWII. Games based on WWII are not historically accurate. Some are, but most, no. So why should Mechwarrior, an action video game, respect the history of Battletech any more than a WWII game respects real history? And to the real question behind the OP. Why should any Mechwarrior player?

This specific line: "a MW game should always be based on BT and be as much of a war sim as possible." This is why I ask this in the first place. Though an all-out Battletech war sim would be pretty awesome. I'd love that, personally.

So far, these are summations of the points given if I understand them correctly:

1. Players have hated games that largely disrespect lore
   I believe that fans of Battletech have shunned some games for deviating from lore. Then again, MechAssault has really high review scores. 4.7/97% google review, lowest I could find was a 7.7 from imdb. It is very non-canon with regard to Mechwarrior, let alone Battletech.
   
2. Battletech was made for wargamers
   True, but Battletech being made for wargamers doesn't seem to be a reason why any Mechwarrior game should respect Battletech lore.
   
3. Could just do a generic war machine game in lieu of respecting lore
   True, one could make a generic robot arena shooter, but Mechwarrior itself is established and recognized. A Justice League game would inherently net more customers than a generic superhero game would.
   
4. Battletech is a more realistic sci-fi (at least than SW)
   I think this is a good point.
   Yet, like a WWII game, they have licence to go off the rails to some degree. Would there really have been anything wrong if Black Inferno pulled a half-functional WarShip out of their asses and the player had to blow it up via an improvised Master Chief style jump through space in a battlemech from the dropship? Well, that's too ridiculous, but just for discussion's sake. ... ... Actually, that kind of thing did happen in lore, though I doubt it worked. It was mentioned that battlemechs function horribly in zero-G.
   
5. DLC3 happened. What's next, a Free Worlds League purple fairy 'mech in the name of equality?
   ...Yeah, I'm sorry for mentioning Star Wars, and take blame for that. That turned political. I understand the hate on DLC 3 though- MW5 was more true to lore before that came. It stands to reason that an individual game should be consistent with its regard to lore. Hence why the aforementioned WarShip would be too ridiculous.
   
6. MechAssault is what happens when you go too far off the rails
   Okay. Yet the world seems to love the game.
   
7. (contradicting point) A Mechwarrior game can't/shouldn't completely be lore-accurate and player-friendly...
   Couldn't agree more.
   
8. ...but being more lore-accurate is cool.
   You win a gold star. Just like a WWII game, more respect for lore and history is cool.

...

There doesn't seem to be a good reason why Mechwarrior should be lore-accurate aside from it would be cool if it were. In other words, its not cool to disrespect Mechwarrior players who don't respect Battletech lore.

As one modder put it: "What made sense for a tabletop wargame made more than 30 years ago has little bearing on what makes sense for a live action game from the point of view of a battlemech pilot."

[Bovril Brigadier]

I honestly thought your original OP was weak bait so refused to get involved in this topic. Your reply proved me wrong.

In answer to a lot of what you've raised well can be summoned up in one word that I am honestly loathed to use but is quite relevant in this context. That is "immersion" You don't have to follow the lore 100%, or even 50% in some cases. If do you follow the lore to some degree though it helps brings an air of familiarity with people who are already invested in the franchise. It helps them fill in the gaps with what is meant to be going on or what is meant to be going on. If you get essentially a "lorenerd" for want of a better term they enjoy seeing such trivia as it means the developer has paid attention to the source material.

In reply to the points you raised well:
1)MechAssault was praised by critics but panned hard by fans of the franchise. Critic views are often meaningless in this regards as they rarely have any real investment in the subject matter.
HBS Battletech for example was actually heavily panned and hated by Periphery players cause it took a huge steaming dump on the previously established lore. It was seen as rewriting what did not need rewritten.
2)Actually for the longest time FASA tried in vein to push the RPG components of Battletech. a lot of their lore and game design was meant to incorporate this. Unironically could say the problem with the Clans is that they tried to balance them around their Mechwarrior RPG rather than the wargame part.
3)There's also a lot of the Battletech Universe that has barely been touched on so you could write your own story if brave enough. HBS Battletech had sorta of the right idea here but got it so wrong in this regards. If they literally chose any other part of the Periphery they could have had something that wouldn't have generated as much hate from the lorenerds.
4)Lots of crazy things in Battletech to fight that routinely get missed out on. Don't need something like a Warship to fight which would honestly be gunned down by Aerospace in a heartbeat.
5)You really don't want to know about House Marik parade colours
6)MechAssault put a lot of emphasis on fun.
7+8) Well return to a first thing I said about "muh immersion"

[Toki]

I think at the end of the day we can all agree that MW6 should have a Minecraft & Doctor Who crossover DLC. And maybe Genshin Impact DLC.

[pete]

Originally posted by Strayed:

I honestly thought your original OP was weak bait so refused to get involved in this topic. Your reply proved me wrong.

In answer to a lot of what you've raised well can be summoned up in one word that I am honestly loathed to use but is quite relevant in this context. That is "immersion" You don't have to follow the lore 100%, or even 50% in some cases. If do you follow the lore to some degree though it helps brings an air of familiarity with people who are already invested in the franchise. It helps them fill in the gaps with what is meant to be going on or what is meant to be going on. If you get essentially a "lorenerd" for want of a better term they enjoy seeing such trivia as it means the developer has paid attention to the source material.

In reply to the points you raised well:
1)MechAssault was praised by critics but panned hard by fans of the franchise. Critic views are often meaningless in this regards as they rarely have any real investment in the subject matter.
HBS Battletech for example was actually heavily panned and hated by Periphery players cause it took a huge steaming dump on the previously established lore. It was seen as rewriting what did not need rewritten.
2)Actually for the longest time FASA tried in vein to push the RPG components of Battletech. a lot of their lore and game design was meant to incorporate this. Unironically could say the problem with the Clans is that they tried to balance them around their Mechwarrior RPG rather than the wargame part.
3)There's also a lot of the Battletech Universe that has barely been touched on so you could write your own story if brave enough. HBS Battletech had sorta of the right idea here but got it so wrong in this regards. If they literally chose any other part of the Periphery they could have had something that wouldn't have generated as much hate from the lorenerds.
4)Lots of crazy things in Battletech to fight that routinely get missed out on. Don't need something like a Warship to fight which would honestly be gunned down by Aerospace in a heartbeat.
5)You really don't want to know about House Marik parade colours
6)MechAssault put a lot of emphasis on fun.
7+8) Well return to a first thing I said about "muh immersion"

Really - all that good work and then you spoil it with the 'I" Word

[Nightskies]

Originally posted by Atlun:

I think at the end of the day we can all agree that MW6 should have a Minecraft & Doctor Who crossover DLC. And maybe Genshin Impact DLC.

Atlun, that's ... it's ... wanna start a Kickstarter? :3
...I would have bought The Saotome Gambit after reading the first chapter... shout-out to Ranma 1/2 fans.

**Re: "muh immersion": Dual HOTAS now mandatory for all lore masters.

[JtDarth]

I mean, to be totally blunt, if you want to keep a Mechwarrior game remotely lore-accurate, it would end up playing a lot more like Mechassault, with the limited loadouts and (unless I'm drastically misremembering mechassault, or maybe confusing it with a Power rangers mech game I seem to vaguely remember) smaller scale of battles.

Straight up, your average difficulty 50+ 'warzone' mission in MW5 is a 'height of the succession wars' sized conflict, when it comes down to the number of mechs involved. Trying to have the player have 'full agency' just means you immediately have to throw out lore accuracy, because the Battletech timeline is fairly precise with major events fairly well-documented, leaving little ability to just insert an important player character without having them doing absolutely ridiculous feats and disrupting the timeline.
A lore-accurate mechwarrior game would involve a lot less mech combat and a lot more dangerous basic ground vehicles. It would be smaller scale and more focused. It'd be like comparing OG ghost recon/SOCOM games against their modern incarnations.