From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


That's not the official site for the video game, at-least not anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


I believe the MechWarrior games deserve their own page. The differences between them is major, especially when you compare MechWarrior2 to the other MW games. Atleast their differences need explaining, as well as origin, plot, etc. As I said, if anyone is willing to make a MechWarrior (Computer Games) thread, I'm willing to help. ;)

Yes I was surprised to see them all listed together when other games, such as The Settlers, has seperate pages and the difference between versions is less significant. - Shiftchange 09:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Mechwarrior 2 and its expansion Ghost Bear's Legacy, as well as the spinoff game Mercenaries, not to mention their excellent soundtracks, were immensely popular in their time and are still remembered fondly by many people. It seems only appropriate that they should have their own page, with a significant portion dedicated to the soundtrack, though I am sadly not well enough versed in the technical details nor experienced enough in article management to create it. The composer for the soundtracks for MW2, MW2:GBL, and MW2:Mercenaries was Jeehun Hwang, who also did the soundtrack to the later and somewhat similar game Heavy Gear, among others. He may end up deserving a page as well, though I know almost nothing else about him. Hardly the best start for even a basic biographical article for a moderately well-known artist...

It needs a brief discussion of the two mech commander games. Lynx, Lyran Alliance

MechWarrior 5?[edit]

Anyone know anything about the future of MechWarrior PC simulations? DrAlbertHofmann 23:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC) S* In my opinion, Microsoft's just going to wring all the money it can out of the franchise. The BattleTech there is now almost barely resembles FASA's BattleTech. Unfortunately :( -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No mention of Multiplayer Mechwarrior which used the same game engine as "Mechwarrior 1"?

Multiplayer Mechwarrior or "Multiplayer BattleTech" as it was really called was released shortly after Mechawarrior 1 and was perhaps one of the first massively player games on GENIE (General Electric Network for Information Exchange). You paid a fee per hour of online time to play. The difference was that the Multiplayer version of Mechwarrior used a different universe interface and you fought for control of planets though battles identicle to those in the single player version of the game. The exception was that those battles were fought real time, with one team of warriors fighting cooperatively with others online. YOu could do player vs player combat in the arena where universe wide rankings were automatically updated according to the out come of team and single player vs single player matches.

Like the original single player Mechwarrior game, the battles were fought out arena style with one to four mechs fighting one to four mechs of the "enemy" family/house or mercinary unit working for the family or house. House ranking was by vote of the military composed of players. You could choose your regement and slot and recruit according to your rank. The military houses had a very large number of slots that player characters could be assigned to.

Mercinary units could fight for any house they choose but were limited to company size with four squads of four player characters each. Each squad had a squad leader.

The multiplayer game went beyond the single player game in that you could collect parts from the damaged mechs on the battlefield as well as capture mechs exactly like in the single player game. The game changed over time like current day massively multiplayer online games. Initially, you could attack a planet deep in enemy territory by bringing along a store of extra mechs and extra parts. Certain mercinary groups who unofficially banded together on their own forming regements to increase effectiveness forced changes in game design as military units protested being decimated by these units who captured the military home planets every saturday for about a year.

MechWarrior: Living Legends is the only fully-licensed and authorized MechWarrior 4 successor game currently publicly known to be in active development, and actually has a playable product available to boot. The MW reboot by Smith & Tinker is itself also in development hell, and assumed by those in the development community (I'm one of them) to be vapor-ware, as the only thing ever produced was a key-framed video rendered in the Battlefield 2142 engine that immediately resulted in a cease and desist order from Harmony Gold due to S&T's bad-faith use of intellectual property that they were in contract negotiations for but did not yet own the rights to. No further work from that studio or any other is known or officially licensed. Besieged (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

BattleTech: The Crescent Hawk's Revenge[edit]

I would not consider BattleTech: The Crescent Hawk's Revenge to be a RPG game at all -- instead, I'd consider it to be a Real-time tactics game dougmc 22:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No mention of the arcade style games?[edit]

Back before Mechwarrior 2 came out, possibly even before the first Mechwarrior game, there were these networked Mechwarrior games that you could pay about $10/game to play at places like Dave & Busters if I recall correctly. Only a few cities had them -- Houston and Chicago come to mind.

They were truly before their time -- networked, high-end (for their time) graphics ... if I recall correctly, they ran on PCs with dedicated 3D hardware before 3D hardware was the vogue ...

dougmc 22:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The simulators you refer to at D&B do not predate the MW games by any stretch. The first MechWarrior came out in 1989, BattleTech Center opened in Chicago in 1990 - D&B didn't acquire their first Tesla Pods until some time later. The hardware in them is actually semi-complex and unique: this and the licensing have made them difficult if not outright impossible to upgrade or do further development on them. Besieged (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

TV series[edit]

Am I the only one who remembers a mechwarrior cartoon series. Why can't I find any info about it!

i saw a few episodes posted on youtube a while back, it was somewhat interesting kind of like GI-joe with CGI battle sequences under the mask of some data system the pilots would activate. 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mechwarrior2box.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Mechwarrior2box.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

RPG, split and renaming proposal[edit]

I split the RPG section into MechWarrior (RPG). I think it is distinct enough from the video games that they should be separate. I also recommend renaming this article to MechWarrior (video games) and turning MechWarrior into a disambig.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I have to imagine that people come here looking for info on the CMG and a surprised to find a discussion of the video game instead. A disambig seems to be good because there is no definitively dominant usage of the term "MechWarrior." Scaletail 17:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, there is also the new tabletop game, and of course the in-universe meaning of 'mech pilot'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Good thought -- disambiguation seems necessary. I see this was proposed several months back, so given that no one's against it, I'd say go ahead! Huwmanbeing  12:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the proposed move; this page now disambiguates between the various MechWarrior incarnations: video games, role-playing games, miniatures game, etc. Huwmanbeing  18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

MechWarrior: Living Legends[edit]

In the interest of transparency, I should mention that I'm one of the team working on MechWarrior: Living Legends.

While we are a MOD team, producing a total conversion of the game Crysis, we have been issued a full non-commercial license by Microsoft to use the MechWarrior intellectual property, and been given the Cryengine SDK by Crytek.

I thought the list of MechWarrior games was incomplete without an mention of MW:LL so I added one, which was promptly deleted :(

I understand the guidelines about advertising, but how exactly is an entry for our game different from the ones already listed there?

Is it only promotional if someone working on the game posts an entry about it, as opposed to some random guy who heard about it?

Not trying to start a flame war here, just discussion :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WormSlayer (talkcontribs) 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who deleted it (and some others). • One of the non-negotiable, fundamental policies here is neutral point-of-view. From that stems the long-standing policy that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, i.e., not to be used for promotion. That, in turn, led to the guideline that conflicts of interest are to be avoided. • I would advise completely avoiding any arguments of the sort, "Such-and-such is already listed; how is our effort different?". Such arguments tend to be characterized — sometimes unfairly — as "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS". In other words: Two wrongs don't make a right; present arguments that stand on their own merit. • If you want to counter these concerns, my suggestion would be to find a reliable, third-party source which asserts that your game is notable. Please understand that "notable" at Wikipedia has a very specific meaning. See Wikipedia:Notability for details. • I appreciate you taking the time to bring this discussion here, and hope there are no hard feelings. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is not part of the team for MechWarrior Living Legends, I'm getting a lot of people undoing for no good reason my section about Mechwarrior Living Legends. The game is a fan mod, but it is part of the MechWarrior Canon. The game has also been authorized with a non-transferable license by Microsoft. To all who believe this deserves to be deleted, I ask you not to do so until we can resolve this. Lets discuss this peacefully here. --Rockstone35 (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

According to whom? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
According to microsoft. I'll get proof tonight. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A non commercial license means nothing. Microsoft will not actually acknowledge this game as part of the mechwarrior series because it is not. They will however acknowledge the fact that the license. Get a source from Microsoft saying that this game is indeed part of the Mechwarrior series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanrise (talkcontribs) 23:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is a fallacy. Mechassault is not part of the Mechwarrior Canon either, but that is there. --Rockstone35 (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Both Mechassault games are set in the battle tech universe. Also, they were official games from Microsoft, the owner of this franchise. Oceanrise (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. It doesn't matter one whit whether this is "official" or not. What matters is that nobody has ever seen fit to cover this fan-game. Without that coverage (which is why I asked "according to whom"), this doesn't bear mentioning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? There is coverage. By most mod sites, several magazine articles etc. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Such as? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe when we're talking about a mod pertaining to this page, it being official comes into play. How come all the Star Wars mods don't make their way onto the Star wars games page? Or all the Matrix mods that came out for HL years ago, why aren't they mentioned on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanrise (talkcontribs) 22:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Oceanrise (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A licensed fan mod might indeed belong here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Are any of the sources in the MechWarrior Living Legends article reliable sources? What about [1], [2], or [3]? If there aren't reliable sources to show the games' notability, shouldn't its individual article be prodded? At the least, AfD would establish consensus on notability of the game. —Ost (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick words of thanks to Izno! His changes I think meet middle ground between us! Thank you! --Rockstone35 (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't revert, because you do realize you've been [long term] edit warring on this article, correct? There's even a 3RR violation you've made. And so I wanted to see if you & the others would take that first. If AMiB or another doesn't revert, then that should be fine for now. I personally don't think it should be listed on this page... --Izno (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the fangame section, it wasn't very encyclopedic. If indeed this game becomes part of the series, add it to the list of series games instead.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I re-added MechWarrior: Living Legends entries, here and throughout the Wikipedia, including improving references and citations on the original article page, of which references include two concurrent years of awards by community votes for the project. I too must disclose that I am a developer for this game, and while I understand the two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right thinking, our project is vastly more notable than the Smith & Tinker reboot which is linked everywhere even though it is: 1.) a commercial, for-profit enterprise, and, 2.) vapor-ware with nothing more than a canned-animation video to its credit - in other words, there is no wrong committed except focusing on a now clearly valid project when you should be nominating for deletion all the listings for the S&T reboot that amount to nothing more than promotion. This project is officially licensed, an on-going work, and has a firm place in the Battletech and MechWarrior histories. I have seeded appropriate references throughout as I can, however as a single volunteer individual I cannot easily ensure thoroughness throughout overnight. None-the-less, I have not yet seen a credible argument against notability for a project of this size, scope, length and establishment. It has a player base, it is under active development with regular releases, it is recognized by the game modding community as seen by the ModDB awards received, and removal of the references only introduces ignorance of a distinct attribute and history of the parent article in question. I have to call in to question the biases or impartiality of anyone deleting this entry again - it IS an accepted and licensed part of the series, period. Besieged (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


The title "MechWarrior (video games)" is relatively confusing, as as first glance it may appear to be MechWarrior (video game). I propose following Wikipedia VG naming conventions and renaming the article "Mechwarrior (series)." --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Scaletail (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Mechawarrior (video game series)? The series is a bit too disambigious, I think (since we have other mechawarrior series, of games, books, etc.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 20:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

– The video game series article seems like the obvious primary topic since most, if not all, entries on the disambiguation page MechWarrior are about subjects either part of or related to the video game series. Steel1943 (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Kharkiv07Talk 18:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I would support the move from the series to the non-disambiguated title per PRIMARYTOPIC. I think the disambiguation can actually go away per WP:DABCONCEPT. --Izno (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I was also thinking about if the disambiguation page was necessary or not; however, some of the subjects on that page are referred to specifically as "MechWarrior" with no additional words. So yes, I would have to argue that the disambiguation page should stay due to this. (I mean, I even removed a partial title match to make it more of a valid disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – no great rationale for a primarygrab here. Dicklyon (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.