I have not seen any evidence to support this claim, but maybe we can talk about that again in a week.
Early, Critical Feedback, From RockPaperShotgun
- Thread starter HF22
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I have not seen any evidence to support this claim, but maybe we can talk about that again in a week.
Fighting against an intellectually inferior opponent is never going to tell you whether or not a system is complex; chess isn't a "simple" game just because a basic understanding of the rules, and the ability to plan one or two moves in advance, allows Average Joe to beat a five year-old or a shackled AI.
Nevertheless BT does not seem to be rocket science. Which is good, because I already have a job. 
Really now? Have you solved the combat mechanics then? That would be an impressive feat, considering the variable environments, customizable 'Mechs, competing engagement strategies... do you see where I'm going with this?
Ask anyone who participated in the Multiplayer Beta whether or not BATTLETECH is a simple game.
I don't think he ever claimed it's a solved game, just that it is not one that requires an advanced degree to play adequately.
Yes, really. Of course there will be some variables (heat, cover, biome, equipment) in combat, but that`s hardly news in gaming history.
If literal rocket science is the standard by which you determine whether or not a game is complex, then no game is complex; but that's not what Stucken was saying. They were using the idiom, which means "this is easy to fully do/understand".
The fact that you can min-max your forces for a specific environment and topography and OpFor, and still lose, puts to rest any assertion that BT is not a complex game. As much as the game is about choosing the right 'Mechs and the right loadouts for a specific map, it's about playing a smarter game than your opponent. That's why a lance of Locusts can take down an Atlas; why a force that is categorically outmatched by every measurable metric can still achieve victory. The hallmark of a complex game is when your ability to outthink your opponent, to adapt and overcome, is the greatest combat modifier on the field.
Nevertheless BT does not seem to be rocket science. Which is good, because I already have a job.
If you haven't played TT, then I can see you might think so. There was a pretty active MEGA MEK scene at one time. Its like poker, play against everyday people and you as a novice might win, play against someone who understood, how range of weapons, heat, movement, cover, and when and were they moved and you'll change your mind. You dont need to make TT a full time job, but you do need to be able to understand the mechanics.
with all due respect, how will I know if I am understanding the entire idea if I simple listen to the prescribe area? Seems you might need to listen to the entire thing to get the real point, which btw, isn't that battletech ( his opinion of course ) is bad. Merely he doesn't have the patience to learn or the desire to. Very much like how the title of this thread is almost click bait in nature by leaning towards the idea the Battle was reviewed poorly.
It's not elitism to note that beating a shackled AI - when you can routinely bring superior, customized forces against them - is not "mastery".
Greetings Mechwarriors,
Please post respectfully even in disagreement.
Please don't represent opinions as facts. This leads to friction
Please agree to disagree.
Please don't respond to disrespect, report it.
Posts choosing not to take this advice may experience Jump Drive malfunctions to the Far country to be used as nesting materials by the locals.
Thank you
Please post respectfully even in disagreement.
Please don't represent opinions as facts. This leads to friction
Please agree to disagree.
Please don't respond to disrespect, report it.
Posts choosing not to take this advice may experience Jump Drive malfunctions to the Far country to be used as nesting materials by the locals.
Thank you
I hope RPS is going to give Battletech a positive review because I trust their reviews a lot more than other mainstream gaming sites. From the streams I've watched, I'm impressed by the tactical layer, enjoying the plot line and okay but not impressed with the strategic side. However it was evident from the streams that even the streamers that spend time clicking through the NPCs on the Leopard/Argo completely fail to get key information and have to have it supplied by experienced stream watchers. Maybe that's just the stream watchers being quicker off the mark to supply answers that were there to be found, or maybe its that the answers aren't there and have to be intuited by experimentation. If it's the latter then there's bound to be some criticism about how opaque some aspects are. If people head to their favourite streams to find out how to get better, there's going to be a lot of streams out there that really don't help.
I agree with most of what you said except for the "allows Average Joe to beat a five year-old AI" part. The shackled AI perhaps yes, but not the 5-year-old AI. In 2009, 9 years ago a chess program operating on a cell phone was operating at a grandmaster level. Hardly something the average Joe is going to beat.
Not a 5 year old or shackled AI. A 5 year old or A shackled AI. A 5 year old human. Or a shackled AI.
The previews / news of RPS so far have been positive. The Tutorial has been a downer, but there is a lot of criticism about it here either. We`ll have to see, whether the game per se can convince or not. So far I am still optimistic, especially since they said in the Podcast that the combat was fun.
To your first point: You're arguing semantics.
To your second point: I don't know if you've looked at the games industry lately, but Battletech is complex by modern standards.
I have to disagree. The point he criticized was, that the Tutorial is way too long and full of badly written (aka boring) dialogue. How you come to the conclusion, that he is not willing to "learn" (what exactly?) is not quite clear. And, again, the thread title is perfectly fine, since there is early and negative feedback, for there is criticism being expressed concerning the Tutorial.
Uh? Chess is kind of solved. The vast majority of chess study is the proper sequence of moves for any given situation, not that it is actually easy to remember them all and apply it to a match.
Now Go on the other hand...
Now Go on the other hand...
I'm sure they'll give it a fair review, no matter which way they come down in its conclusion. They've always been pretty good at playing enough of a game to get a more-complete picture of it, and they're nuanced enough (and, wonderfully, not married to a scoring system) to be able to say something like "Well, tutorial aside, this game is wonderful!" or whatever.
I mean, come on, they're fans of Crusader Kings and Plunkbat, and both of those are the epitome of chucking a kid into a pool to see if they can figure out swimming on their own.
- Status