The Ostscout is a bit of a puzzle for me- but the reason was pretty plain by the criteria they used in the KS voting. Basically they redid the most popular/affiliated designs- full stop. The whole point is a line refresh to be competitive with the modern look- something MWO I think sort of drove home was that TRO PP was not a acceptable substitute for the modern player base. I am not even sure a majority of that art fit in at the time the book was produced.
Well, a lot of what was in PP was objectively terrible and some of the minis were not great either. Some of the later revisions to the same art really help and some of the later minis just look better like the later PP MADs.
But at heart you had art that was torn between being lawsuit-safe without, I think; knowing how distant it had to be to
be safe (The most recent lawsuit reveals that HG are basically crazy anyways) and also paying homage to the originals. Some are better than others, but overall what drove popularity as it went was having something official again for the unseen.
I don't think
modern had anything to do with it. PP was just a lackluster result, full-stop. There were some redeeming standouts here and there, but the Marauder is and always will be key and it was universally-panned. Given technology and budgets at the time, I am not sure what could have been done to avert that. I'd love to say; apply common sense and don't make it look like an excavator had a baby with an AT-ST, but I wasn't there to see what was going on, so I can't really judge.
You'll never please everyone. I value loyalty to the original material and completeness; full stop. I look at anything that got a torso-twist and didn't previously have one as invalid. I see any gaps in the line and I'm not happy. On the flip-side are people who hate everything the unseen stand for, but especially the aesthetics (The marauder CAN'T WALK!) and won't use anything in-game they think of as "fugly". Likewise; the graphics of MWO have convinced many that this is the light and the truth and the way the game needs to go.
I can beat the drum to the end of time on how much can be done with new and better minis (Highlander, Flashman, Centurion) and maintaining harmony with the original art. But if the aesthetics of the game *itself* are the problem, either in fact or in popular perception among TPTB and the fanbase; well...I'm not really sure what can be done, ultimately.
MWO was more popular, I think; because a computer game is always going to be more accessable. Even on the pay-to-win model (as an example). Appearances were key, because graphics matter almost more than anything in modern games. They are the trademark of the game itself in many ways. You have to screw up on the engine pretty bad or leave a lot of bugs in before a game becomes truely unplayable so long as you have frequent save points, short games (1:30-5min battles) and nice eyecandy to appreciate.
The problem with graphics in games is that they are often a solution that demands a problem; you *need* different kinds of models to showcase what the graphics of the game can really do. A model which is simplistic doesn't show off as well. It's the old story-medium dilemma. Like; picture HG trying to do a modern-tech game with the Macross/RT models? They'd almost certainly need to set it farther long the timeline to take advantage of the more detailed and dynamic-looking models the series has later-on or significantly re-work their older stuff. It's too bad that no-one is really does this at the moment; because their approach to a 40-year-old IP in a 2020-release video game might be very instructive. I also see this in WOT all the time where the older models that have been around forever are very simply textured and newer ones; especially premiums are increasingly festooned with accesories and stowage; sometimes to their detriment when they forget that a roof-mounted MG can give away your tank early.
So too paralelles in advances in miniature design and production. We can simply do things today that we could not do economically or at all in 1982. How much better-looking is the 3rd Sculpt Atlas than the first? While still modelling the same art. Part of the problem of 3d-printing (not opening that can of worms more than to peek) is how far-again of an advance that is; just in the way things are made and how that allows minis to be designed. In terms of design; modern technology makes fan input not only possible (as in the highlander and flashman fan-funding) but almost demands it and I am increasingly baffled when I see projects going forward without it. Even 40K, though they will never admit it, took the inspiration for the new Primaris Space Marine models directly from the universally-lauded fan works in "true-scale" which have been appearing online for over a decade now.
If you're looking for a connection between PP and MWO in terms of what the fanbase will accept...I'd really need to know how much of the playerbase for MWO were actual active or semi-active BT fans? The MechWarrior series has ALWAYS been much more accessible and widespread than the tabletop game and as goes the MechWarrior games; so go the vast majority of their mechwarrior players. Judging anything of the tabletop playerbase by the computer game playerbase would thus be a mistake. I'm sure we can find people on this board (thread?) who came here from Mech Assault, MW4, MWO or even Crescent Hawk's Inception. But if the vast majority of the people who play those games never make the leap to the tabletop, is it wise to be marketting to their taste in aesthetics? Which is not to say that no-one who plays mainly or only the TT wargame Battletech does not prefer the models of MWO or BTPC. The overwhelming vocal opinion is that this is not only wise, but imperative. So, okay. But a few more points to add;
Two aspects of tabletop gaming that this current approach to certain models robs us of is the scenario-gamer and the power-gamer.
Neither of these care a whit about how a given design *looks*. While they may appreciate something attractive on the tabletop, they can do without it in order to have the satisfaction of playing the scenario as-written or having the best-possible mech for the points on the board. What they want is to be able to display the model a given scenario (be it historical to the setting or random from that awesome table going around) demands or to take advantage of the strengths of a given model.
If I am doing Delta Company vs Cochraine's Goliaths (or I've just wanted to FOREVER); I need Goliaths, about 36, actually and they should look as-described in the book; tall elephantine-take on a headless AT-AT with a turret on top. Likewise if another scenario or RAT roll calls for a Scorpion. And the Ostroc is one of the better 3025 60 tonners. The Ostsol; one of the best overall zombie-mechs of all time. In neither case do I care a lot what they look like; save it would be nice to have something basically appropriate for the era. if I am going to proxy; I can do so just as well with Micromachine AT-ATs or bottle caps as with a PP Goliath. Heck; with even just the art i can do standees.
A downfall of these one-piece, fixed-pose KS minis is limited draw for a multiple-buy for the modellers among us. I have four Ostwars I am working on. With their construction I can build each one in a different post to differentiate them. I know you'll get to multi-part minis, eventually, or at least; I hope so, but right now it is a drawback.
An advantage is the potential for enhanced affordability and (eventual) access to the individual models for bulk and custom-purchases online (oh PLEASE LET IT BE SO!), do down the road I could go onto the site (whichever it is) and buy those two Warhammers; the Stone Rhino and three Stingers that I just decide that I want for reasons.