What exactly is the difference between American, Japanese, and European mechs?
- Thread starter Hectix777
- Start date
The only thing mecha have over other military hardware is the magical super armor that they all seem to be made of. So in real life were any military jet could take out a huge Gundam like thing with a nice heat seeking missile, in the mecha world it wouldn't work because the missile wouldn't penetrate the armor or it would get sliced in half with the hugely impractical plasma sword.
It you could build say the Gundams in Gundam Wing than there's whole lot of other much more practical things you could build.
It you could build say the Gundams in Gundam Wing than there's whole lot of other much more practical things you could build.
http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/members/1/348/347737/thumb_620x2000/24764_md-Apocalypse_Titan_Warhammer_40000_Warlord.jpgMcFlabbergasty said:
This. A Warhammer 40k Titan. Doens't get much manlier.
Western: What if we actually built these things?
Eastern: Fuck it, add more lasers.
That's my take on it.
Eastern: Fuck it, add more lasers.
That's my take on it.
American mech is just more functioning robot looking (block and bulucky looking) ie Warhammer and MechWarrior.
Japanese is more about apperance like human and experimental looking (Eva from Evangelion, Orbital Frame from Zone of the Enders and Gundam).
European mech err I haven't seen a proper one other than Phantom Crash.
Japanese is more about apperance like human and experimental looking (Eva from Evangelion, Orbital Frame from Zone of the Enders and Gundam).
European mech err I haven't seen a proper one other than Phantom Crash.
I don't know for sure, but knowing their culture.
I would image Japanse to be an extension of the person, while US tends to more over the top and European more designed of stuff that we already have.
I would image Japanse to be an extension of the person, while US tends to more over the top and European more designed of stuff that we already have.
Japanese mecha design follows what still remains of shintoism in their culture; in this case relating to samurai warriors: the idea of a samurai's body as a vehicle for the soul. Because of this, the mecha is more or less an extension of the pilot instead of as a tool, as it is percieved in the west. Because of this, Japanese mecha are set up to match their pilot's personality or other character traits. Ex.: The golden, shiny mecha with a huge beam-saber that has an affinity for fire or bright light = the typical anime protagonist; or the spiky mecha wielding a giant scythe with a dark color pallet = the whiny, brooding pilot always present in every anime and manga centering on mecha, ever.
As everyone else in this thread has already pointed out, western* mechs are based more on pure utility and function. The philosophy figures like this in contrast to Japanese mecha: "These are machines that are primarily geared for armed conflict and nothing more. They do not need hands, heads, faces, or even a recognizable human silhouette; if it isn't effective or necessary in combat, then it is not needed and will not be added. It is a tool, it is mass produced, and can be replaced. it is not an extension of the pilot - variation only exists in different chassis for different combat roles and weapon load-out for varying battlefield conditions." Very practical and much more based on simulation rather than escapism as the Japanese prefer.
Essentially just google Mechwarrior, then Gundam.
*(while early concepts of mechanized soldiers/bipedal vehicles differed, most of Europe and North America in the present seem to share the same current philosophy behind mech design)
As everyone else in this thread has already pointed out, western* mechs are based more on pure utility and function. The philosophy figures like this in contrast to Japanese mecha: "These are machines that are primarily geared for armed conflict and nothing more. They do not need hands, heads, faces, or even a recognizable human silhouette; if it isn't effective or necessary in combat, then it is not needed and will not be added. It is a tool, it is mass produced, and can be replaced. it is not an extension of the pilot - variation only exists in different chassis for different combat roles and weapon load-out for varying battlefield conditions." Very practical and much more based on simulation rather than escapism as the Japanese prefer.
Essentially just google Mechwarrior, then Gundam.
*(while early concepts of mechanized soldiers/bipedal vehicles differed, most of Europe and North America in the present seem to share the same current philosophy behind mech design)
So the difference between American and European mechs is that American mechs are plausible, while European mechs have a shit-load of guns?
Extra Credits did an episode on something like this but it was more about the depiction of weapons in Japan and the West. Japanese use of Mechs was mentioned in it.
Well, Danger Mouse had a robotic Loch Ness monster, and a huge robot dog, as well as several normal-sized robot animals.Lilani said:
Daleks might count, too, they are piloted, vaguely humanoid machines, after all.
And, of course, Marvin, at least before he got that Apple redesign.
Indeed, Western Mecha are totally clumsy, heavy, stiff and absolutely unelegant things ;-)Arina Love said:
Japanese mecha design follows what still remains of shintoism in their culture; in this case relating to samurai warriors: the idea of a samurai's body as a vehicle for the soul. Because of this, the mecha is more or less an extension of the pilot instead of as a tool, as it is percieved in the west. Because of this, Japanese mecha are set up to match their pilot's personality or other character traits. Ex.: The golden, shiny mecha with a huge beam-saber that has an affinity for fire or bright light = the typical anime protagonist; or the spiky mecha wielding a giant scythe with a dark color pallet = the whiny, brooding pilot always present in every anime and manga centering on mecha, ever.
As everyone else in this thread has already pointed out, western* mechs are based more on pure utility and function. The philosophy figures like this in contrast to Japanese mecha: "These are machines that are primarily geared for armed conflict and nothing more. They do not need hands, heads, faces, or even a recognizable human silhouette; if it isn't effective or necessary in combat, then it is not needed and will not be added. It is a tool, it is mass produced, and can be replaced. it is not an extension of the pilot - variation only exists in different chassis for different combat roles and weapon load-out for varying battlefield conditions." Very practical and much more based on simulation rather than escapism as the Japanese prefer.
Essentially just google Mechwarrior, then Gundam.
*(while early concepts of mechanized soldiers/bipedal vehicles differed, most of Europe and North America in the present seem to share the same current philosophy behind mech design)
As everyone else in this thread has already pointed out, western* mechs are based more on pure utility and function. The philosophy figures like this in contrast to Japanese mecha: "These are machines that are primarily geared for armed conflict and nothing more. They do not need hands, heads, faces, or even a recognizable human silhouette; if it isn't effective or necessary in combat, then it is not needed and will not be added. It is a tool, it is mass produced, and can be replaced. it is not an extension of the pilot - variation only exists in different chassis for different combat roles and weapon load-out for varying battlefield conditions." Very practical and much more based on simulation rather than escapism as the Japanese prefer.
Essentially just google Mechwarrior, then Gundam.
*(while early concepts of mechanized soldiers/bipedal vehicles differed, most of Europe and North America in the present seem to share the same current philosophy behind mech design)
Western mechs vie more for ton v ton, overarching, sometimes(more often) insanely stupid amounts of guns and armor, more or less one-man army, whereas Eastern mechs are more along the lines of specialized anti-regiment shock troops, normally lighter armor, more along the line of hit-hard, hit-fast, and fade away before they know they just lost fifty guys. But that's not always the case, just look at the old Front Mission games. Or look at Transormers
In terms of looks, we Westerners like to be ground in fact and functionality as a rule of thumb, but Eastern cultures favor the individual at times ("at times", trolls) and also like to bend current reality, if not cracking it and outright breaking the damn thing. Both of these I think have contributed to the mech evolution, with walking and occasionally floating tanks vs. human sleekness and speed. Just my opinion though.
In terms of looks, we Westerners like to be ground in fact and functionality as a rule of thumb, but Eastern cultures favor the individual at times ("at times", trolls) and also like to bend current reality, if not cracking it and outright breaking the damn thing. Both of these I think have contributed to the mech evolution, with walking and occasionally floating tanks vs. human sleekness and speed. Just my opinion though.
What American and European mechs are out there? 90's Microsoft games and mind-atrophyingly stupid 80's movies?Hectix777 said:
BattleTech? Aren't the BattleTech people the same people who did the art design and story for Mech Warrior (of 90's Microsoft fame)?Soviet Heavy said:
Also: 3 video games. That's it. I wouldn't say there's an American, or European, or AmeriEan or Euroican style of mech just yet.
What are the differences between the two Western approaches, the European and North American versions? Both seem to be based on the idea of these things being functionally useful and the designs seem to follow fairly similar philosophies. I guess my primary question is: Are there any fundamental differences (subtle ones count) between the European portrayal of mechs and the North American portrayal that are not easily attributable to franchise specific details and presentation? Is there a changed emphasis on the offensive utility versus defensive utility or something? European designs (shown in this thread primarily from Warhammer (so this may be a franchise specific point)) seem to be somewhat more detailed on the outside as if the form of the mech has a small inherent worth or something, is this relevant to European portrayal of mechs? Are the way they are handled in deployment or status within armed forces different? Are there even enough major franchises with mechs to make a distinction?
Nope. Long running tabletop franchises stemming from the 1980s. Warhammer 40000 has a metric ton of different mech designs ranging from short little Sentinel weapons platforms to gigantic war titans.funguy2121 said:
BattleTech has also been around for a long time. Mechwarrior is a spinoff, but still part of the same franchise.
Need more mechs? District 9's Combat Mech. The Avatar AMP Battlesuits, Heinlein's Mobile Infantry Suits, Megas XLR, the Symbionic Titans, the Xmen Sentinels, Iron Monger, Star Wars' ATAT, ATTE, ATST, and ATRT walkers, Transformers, Supreme Commander units.