Street fighting's fine, and so is the premise of giant mechs from the future looking different from realistic designs you'd get if you had today's military skunkworks at the drawing table. That's not the point. The kinematics look corny. The physics are bland.
Why does each Mechwarrior game's kinematics get better than the last, from I to IV? Isn't increasing physics/kinematics realism supposed to not matter and/or not be canon? Why does the MW4 intro's kinematics from 10 years ago look at least as good as those in the MW5 trailer? Did they somehow skimp on such an effective immersion device in MW5 by using obviously canned physics instead of something credible? I think they did.
If you're a prototypical long time MW fan, you might not care. If you're new to MW and/or like mechanized action that's more lifelike than not, the campy, corny animation takes away from the game, not adds to it. If you're a hardcore MW fan, do you prefer less rather than more lifelike mech animations? How do improved physics substract from the game? The MW4 intro's CG segments don't seem to show a trend away from increasingly lifelike kinematics.
I don't get how this needs to be argued. Arcade physics and esthetics are less impressive than realistic ones. Mechs aren't supposed to move like mimes. The MW canon doesn't exclude the laws of physics does it?
