"But that wouldnt be Planetside any more..."

[morf]

If you can't wrap your head around a better argument than this you need to get up off your ass, put on your hearing aid, and go back to rolling silverware at your local Denny's.

Please try to articulate specifically how a change would harm the game. We know it isn't Planetside anymore, it's Planetside 2.

This PSA brought to you by Morf.

[DviddLeff]

Agreed.

Planetside is about massive combat, an equal footing between new and old players with a blend of infantry, vehicles and aircraft.

Everything else can change yet those unique aspects define Planetside, not that it doesn't have head shots and long TTK.

[Rbstr]

I approve this message.

[2coolforu]

How much changed between Starcraft and Starcraft 2 or C&C Tiberian Dawn and C&C 3, Doom 1 and 2,Age of Empires and AoE 2, Grand Theft Auto 3 and San Andreas? Obviously we want a fresh game that is new but what we don't want is something that resembles Call of Duty or Battlefield too much , or that strays from the ideals of Planetside. The game was original and new and one-of-a-kind and the gameplay it brought was great, the statement 'that wouldn't be Planetside anymore' is generally used when a feature seems to lack the teamwork and wide-scale that made the original such a good and fresh game.

What we don't want is Call of Battlefield: Future Warfare 2, what we do want is 'Planetside 2'. A game that builds upon the greatness of the original and adds in new features that build the experience without making a game too far away from the original to be recognized.

[Logit]

How much changed between Starcraft and Starcraft 2 or C&C Tiberian Dawn and C&C 3, Doom 1 and 2,Age of Empires and AoE 2, Grand Theft Auto 3 and San Andreas? Obviously we want a fresh game that is new but what we don't want is something that resembles Call of Duty or Battlefield too much , or that strays from the ideals of Planetside. The game was original and new and one-of-a-kind and the gameplay it brought was great, the statement 'that wouldn't be Planetside anymore' is generally used when a feature seems to lack the teamwork and wide-scale that made the original such a good and fresh game.

What we don't want is Call of Battlefield: Future Warfare 2, what we do want is 'Planetside 2'. A game that builds upon the greatness of the original and adds in new features that build the experience without making a game too far away from the original to be recognized.

Well said.

[IceyCold]

How much changed between Starcraft and Starcraft 2 or C&C Tiberian Dawn and C&C 3, Doom 1 and 2,Age of Empires and AoE 2, Grand Theft Auto 3 and San Andreas? Obviously we want a fresh game that is new but what we don't want is something that resembles Call of Duty or Battlefield too much , or that strays from the ideals of Planetside. The game was original and new and one-of-a-kind and the gameplay it brought was great, the statement 'that wouldn't be Planetside anymore' is generally used when a feature seems to lack the teamwork and wide-scale that made the original such a good and fresh game.

What we don't want is Call of Battlefield: Future Warfare 2, what we do want is 'Planetside 2'. A game that builds upon the greatness of the original and adds in new features that build the experience without making a game too far away from the original to be recognized.

A major difference is Starcraft / C&C / AoE are strategy games, which have not changed much in years at all. Doom 1 and 2 were both created in the same era of shooters so they did not need to change much. And The GTA series did change DRAMATICLY from GTA 2 to GTA 3, funny that you would choose that as an argument point since GTA did not become as widely successful till it completely changed its mechanics from a top down game to a 3d one.

What one must remember is 8 years ago Planetside played quite a bit like many of the other shooters of its day in base mechanics; but now 8 years later the FPS genre has made huge advances and in order to be successful Planetside 2 must do the same.

I keep hearing that being like the Battlefield series is a bad thing, but honestly I thought that BF2142 was an amazingly well made shooter and anyone who was ever in a clan in that game knows that the level of tactical skill used changes the game a lot. I do not want Planetside 2 to be a carbon copy of any current shooter game, and I highly doubt it will be; but it would be absolutely stupid for the Dev team to not look to the current juggernauts of the FPS genre to see how PS2 can be made better.

[morf]

the statement 'that wouldn't be Planetside anymore' is generally used when a feature seems to lack the teamwork and wide-scale that made the original such a good and fresh game.

But that wouldn't be debate anymore.

When they switched Grand Theft Auto from top down to the current view did you say "but that wouldn't be GTA anymore"?!

It's a copout argument for a frustrated, cheeto-fingered 12 year old having a temper tantrum at the keyboard because he can't articulate his own position. If you're going to argue something, back it up with some sort of reason.

Sorry guys but every time I see this argument the image of the crying baby with caption "DO NOT WANT" comes to mind.

[Volw]

How much changed between Starcraft and Starcraft 2 or C&C Tiberian Dawn and C&C 3, Doom 1 and 2,Age of Empires and AoE 2, Grand Theft Auto 3 and San Andreas? Obviously we want a fresh game that is new but what we don't want is something that resembles Call of Duty or Battlefield too much , or that strays from the ideals of Planetside. The game was original and new and one-of-a-kind and the gameplay it brought was great, the statement 'that wouldn't be Planetside anymore' is generally used when a feature seems to lack the teamwork and wide-scale that made the original such a good and fresh game.

What we don't want is Call of Battlefield: Future Warfare 2, what we do want is 'Planetside 2'. A game that builds upon the greatness of the original and adds in new features that build the experience without making a game too far away from the original to be recognized.

We are looking at 8 years, so you should compare Red Alert (1) with Red Alert 3 - plenty of changes there. Also, mind RTS games didn't change that much over the years.

San Andreas was still called GTA3: San Andreas. Also again, not 8 years difference.

PlanetSide needs A LOT of fresh air. I'm not saying turning it into CoD or Battlefield, but getting it closer to what customers will play - it also means fixing all of the design mistakes PS1 had.

So far, most of the design changes are not dramatic and are fairly reasonable - yet a lot of people seem to nitpick every single thing and claim it's going to kill planetside. It won't. Sure some vets are/will be unhappy but that's the nature of change.

[2coolforu]

A major difference is Starcraft / C&C / AoE are strategy games, which have not changed much in years at all. Doom 1 and 2 were both created in the same era of shooters so they did not need to change much. And The GTA series did change DRAMATICLY from GTA 2 to GTA 3, funny that you would choose that as an argument point since GTA did not become as widely successful till it completely changed its mechanics from a top down game to a 3d one.

What one must remember is 8 years ago Planetside played quite a bit like many of the other shooters of its day in base mechanics; but now 8 years later the FPS genre has made huge advances and in order to be successful Planetside 2 must do the same.

I keep hearing that being like the Battlefield series is a bad thing, but honestly I thought that BF2142 was an amazingly well made shooter and anyone who was ever in a clan in that game knows that the level of tactical skill used changes the game a lot. I do not want Planetside 2 to be a carbon copy of any current shooter game, and I highly doubt it will be; but it would be absolutely stupid for the Dev team to not look to the current juggernauts of the FPS genre to see how PS2 can be made better.

Right, 8 years, care to enlighten me on the year of release of Starcraft and the year of release of Starcraft 2? Or the year of release of Battlefield 1942 and the planned release of Battlefield 3?

You also give special pleading to the RTS genre, "It hasn't changed in years" Bull Fucking Shit. Have you played Sim City? Or how about Total war, World in Conflict? End War... There are plenty of strategy games that broke the 'build a base. Spam 20 tanks. Kill enemy" layout, however what you are trying to avoid saying is that C&C stayed like C&C because that's what a fan expected, just like Total War stayed similar despite switching time periods and even weaponry (muskets) because that's the play style of the genre.

Imagine the uproar that would have happened if Starcraft 2 actually got release as a Dawn of War style game, where you had to capture resource points around the map? And your argument that GTA switched from top down to 3D is equally irrelevant; Starcraft switched from a top down 2D game to a 3D game where you can actually change your view point, zoom in and rotate your screen, it's totally different. In Command and Conquer 95 we had a 2d game with sprites.

I'm also not saying that taking tidbits from Battlefield is a bad thing, it's a great game. However we should consider how different Planetside is, it's larger scale and has more inherent teamwork and often a different style of fighting to the Battlefield games. The role of a medic in Planetside is different to the role of a medic in Battlefield, a Battlefield medic revives people to stop their points going down, a Planetside medic heals someone simply for teamworks sake and keeping your squad healthy and alive - it's a matter of convenience. There are many different situations and a far more diverse selection of roles and playstyles in Planetside than there are in Battlefield, Planetside's shooting mechanics left a lot to be desired so bring in better ones but don't forget the differences we have to account for.

What Planetside had as a game, and now as a series was large scale persistent battles where you could have 500 people shooting at each other, dogfighting with each other or healing each other, with nearly every vehicle people had to work together and this is a difference compared to Battlefield. In Battlefield you can easily get along on your own, you can killwhore a Jet VERY easily or you can man a tank on your own and heal it yourself. You can be a one man army if you wish and there is no reason to squad up beyond having a mobile spawn point to get you into the action quicker, this isn't what we want to see in Planetside. The entire reason Planetside died was because a vehicle was introduced that trumped teamwork entirely and could fill all roles with one pilot, that vehicle was called a BFR and it resulted in Werner having about 4000 players online during the Bending to about 400 afterwords.

And yeah, go ahead with the ad hominems "Everyone who disagrees with me is a fat 12 year old ass nerd", that is exactly the argument that brings the picture of a crying baby to me.

Bear in mind that I've agreed with almost everything the devs have added, I think territory control is cool, the iron sights look awesome, more specialized roles - hell yeah, headshots are needed. I'm just debating the fine details of what has been added, in fact the only things I really disagree with is the possible advantages old players would have on newbies and the removal of sanctuaries so go ahead and make ad hominems and straw men.

[IceyCold]

Right, 8 years, care to enlighten me on the year of release of Starcraft and the year of release of Starcraft 2? Or the year of release of Battlefield 1942 and the planned release of Battlefield 3?

I imagine you are quite capable of doing that yourself, I don't know why you'd want me to do it for you?

You also give special pleading to the RTS genre, "It hasn't changed in years" Bull Fucking Shit. Have you played Sim City? Or how about Total war, World in Conflict? End War... There are plenty of strategy games that broke the 'build a base. Spam 20 tanks. Kill enemy" layout, however what you are trying to avoid saying is that C&C stayed like C&C because that's what a fan expected, just like Total War stayed similar despite switching time periods and even weaponry (muskets) because that's the play style of the genre.

Soooo your argument is there are different TYPES of games in a said genre (which in my orignial comment I never once said there wasn't) But the face of RTS games has not changed much in recent years. C&C stayed like C&C because most of the early C&C games were simply reskinned games on the same engine. Why fix what isn't broken?

Imagine the uproar that would have happened if Starcraft 2 actually got release as a Dawn of War style game, where you had to capture resource points around the map? And your argument that GTA switched from top down to 3D is equally irrelevant; Starcraft switched from a top down 2D game to a 3D game where you can actually change your view point, zoom in and rotate your screen, it's totally different. In Command and Conquer 95 we had a 2d game with sprites.

In both DoW and Starcraft you conquer resource points, the difference only lies in that in SC you have to mine the resources manually, and DoW its just a point that feeds you resources. As to your second point you are now agreeing that success came with changes to the game? So why are you mad PS2 is changing? I am confused. Unless of course you missed that the change from 2d to 3d was aesthetic in one game (Starcraft) and completely changed the control mechanics in the other(GTA).

I'm also not saying that taking tidbits from Battlefield is a bad thing, it's a great game. However we should consider how different Planetside is, it's larger scale and has more inherent teamwork and often a different style of fighting to the Battlefield games. The role of a medic in Planetside is different to the role of a medic in Battlefield, a Battlefield medic revives people to stop their points going down, a Planetside medic heals someone simply for teamworks sake and keeping your squad healthy and alive - it's a matter of convenience. There are many different situations and a far more diverse selection of roles and playstyles in Planetside than there are in Battlefield, Planetside's shooting mechanics left a lot to be desired so bring in better ones but don't forget the differences we have to account for.

This point is silly. In both BF and PS a medics job is EXACTLY the same; keep your team alive so you can take control of the objective. The ticker in BF1942 / BF2 / BF2142 goes down based on how many points on the map you control, unless we are talking about the RUSH game type in BFBC2? Your saying the role of a gamewide class is changed by one of many gametypes in said game? Once again, I do not want Planetside to BE Battlefield, but it should learn from it.

What Planetside had as a game, and now as a series was large scale persistent battles where you could have 500 people shooting at each other, dogfighting with each other or healing each other, with nearly every vehicle people had to work together and this is a difference compared to Battlefield. In Battlefield you can easily get along on your own, you can killwhore a Jet VERY easily or you can man a tank on your own and heal it yourself. You can be a one man army if you wish and there is no reason to squad up beyond having a mobile spawn point to get you into the action quicker, this isn't what we want to see in Planetside. The entire reason Planetside died was because a vehicle was introduced that trumped teamwork entirely and could fill all roles with one pilot, that vehicle was called a BFR and it resulted in Werner having about 4000 players online during the Bending to about 400 afterwords.

Now THIS point my friend is a GREAT one and I hope more than anything that the Devs keep this in mind. I do NOT want any one man main battle tanks, under any circumstances. Planetside was never about the one man army and I hope they keep it that way, because honestly this point here is a major reason Planetside was what it was. On this point I completely agree.

And yeah, go ahead with the ad hominems "Everyone who disagrees with me is a fat 12 year old ass nerd", that is exactly the argument that brings the picture of a crying baby to me.

I can not say I disagree with this.

Bear in mind that I've agreed with almost everything the devs have added, I think territory control is cool, the iron sights look awesome, more specialized roles - hell yeah, headshots are needed. I'm just debating the fine details of what has been added, in fact the only things I really disagree with is the possible advantages old players would have on newbies and the removal of sanctuaries so go ahead and make ad hominems and straw men.

I will agree that there are a few decisions the Devs had made that I dont agree with, but I think my biggest concern on all this is that people are jumping the gun just a bit to sing songs of doom.

[tjmonk15]

Is it just me, or are people putting more effort in rebuttals in this discussion then most people put in the discussions about PS2 when they don't like a feature?

I 100% agree with the OP, and assuming I understand him what I think he means (And what I believe) is this:

Saying a feature is bad is fine, saying it won't be PlanetSide anymore is fine. What the issue is is that most people stop there. They say this feature sucks or will be unfair or will kill PlanetSide 2 and then nothing.

What they need to do instead is say WHY they feel that way. Saying head shots are bad and then backing it up saying they will be bad BECAUSE.... is what will give the discussion a chance of being useful/meaningful/etc.

This is what (I think) the OP means.

-Monk

[Bags]

Well of course the argument "BUT IT WON'T BE PS ANY MORE" is weak, but I don't think anyone is using it.

[Hamma]

As a community we need to avoid the pitfalls of other communities who were in the same position. We need to be open minded about PlanetSide 2 and realize there will be many differences between the two. Some may be worse, but in the end the tradeoff of getting to play a modern PlanetSide is an awesome thought.

People need to also put their brain in Sandbox mode and research some sandbox games and MMOs to mine some thoughts about how to improve PlanetSide 2 even more than what we already know. There is a MASSIVE amout of possibility we have only just touched the tip of the iceberg.

[tjmonk15]

Well put Hamma, as usual :)

Oh, and /agree

-Monk

[Vancha]

I agree this excuse is perhaps being overused as people struggle to come to terms with how different PS2 will be, but at the same time I think it's meaning is quite obvious.

Planetside 2 was not a realistic shooter. It was too far in the UT/Quake/Tribes direction to be in BF or CoD territory. At the same time, it was too slow and too tactical to be in UT and Quake territory either. In occupied a middle ground that was largely unique to FPS games (and still is).

I wholeheartedly accept that Planetside 2 will be very different to it's predecessor, but at the same time I can understand that when people say "But that wouldn't be Planetside", it's probably to do with PS2 becoming a "type" of shooter instead of holding that unique hybridization that Planetside had.

[WarChimp130]

I'm trying not to think of it as "Planetside 2" but as "The Planetside we all wanted." Of course some people will find some things they don't like, but I think generally speaking this is going to be the game we all hoped the first one was going to be.

[Malorn]

I think when people say "that wouldn't be Planetside" it could also mean that something doesn't feel right and they are having trouble articulating exactly what that is. It doens't necessarily mean the person is incapable of thinking about PS in a new light.

There are certain things that make "planetside" feel the way it does. Lots of things can change, but if certain things change then...well, it doesn't feel like Planetside anymore. That could be good or bad, but we should explore what exactly isn't wrong and understand the difference and the tradeoff.

To give an example, if they changed it such that I couldn't squad with my BR1 buddy, then...that wouldn't be Planetside :)

The underlying concept I'm trying to convey is that one of the great things about PS is that my newbie buddy could just jump right in the game and join in with a longtime vet on whatever they were doing without a hitch. But poor articulation of that might just end up coming out as "it wouldn't be planetside". Its not something I would want to see changed.

That said I would prefer people articulate what exactly is wrong with something rather than being vague and saying it isn't planetside. I'm sure they have a point to make and a reason but the community will have a hard time understanding that without explaining why.

[Redshift]

I'm willing to give it a chance, there are some design aspects i'm really not convinced on (and i will keep arguing them to make sure the devs see all the angles :P) but i'll wait until we get to play it before making my mind up.

[artifice]

As people above said, first person shooters have made major advances over the years. I don't want to play a reskinned eight year old game.

[Bags]

"Advances"?

lol

[Logit]

As people above said, first person shooters have made major advances over the years. I don't want to play a reskinned eight year old game.

I think this is exactly where the "It's not Planetsde" argument comes from.

Planetside is undoubtedly a pioneer in it's genre. As a community I think we can agree that we want the game to have the same feel, because the core of the game is an incredible idea, and even with all of the problems the first game had we still loved the hell out of it.

If you continue to change things that made the original so much fun, people aren't going to have that "Planetside" feel anymore, which is going to be no bueno.

You can advance Planetside without changing the aspects that made the game what it was.

[Ant001]

OK headshots are bad because its a one hit kill.
TTK in ps gave us time to attack a stairwell and push that corridor. Imagine 10 guys all camped in a corridor and trying to push through with zero TTK.

Now for me I "personally" LIKED the TTK in ps.It was kinda unique to fps's and it's what encouraged a lot of guys to play. With head shots and iron sight aiming all that will change.

What I have read and seen so far the game that used to be planetside will now be BF3 in space suits with larger battles and more people instagibing you with headshots and knives. For me that wasn't how the game felt and how it played.
But I drive a fork lift for a living ..what do I know?

[Bags]

I don't see how iron sights are bad really. I don't like 'em but I don't hate 'em either.

[2coolforu]

I will agree that there are a few decisions the Devs had made that I dont agree with, but I think my biggest concern on all this is that people are jumping the gun just a bit to sing songs of doom.

I don't like colossal negativity but I love criticism and actually having discussion over the new features and the game. We don't want a forum of yes-folk just constantly nodding to every idea we see.

Inevitably there will be great ideas and bad ideas, but I want an original game that captures the best parts of Planetside and removes many of its weaknesses. However I still want the essence and core of Planetside, just refined and improved - this is what sequels are for, developing and improving the original, creating a refined product. The best we can do is be a devils advocate for the devs and if we are really lucky we might make them think about something they wouldn't have and we will have had a positive effect.

But still, I think it's important that we pressure the game to be a balanced, large-scale teamwork based FPS, it's good to see squads and Outfits getting fleshed out because this is a good move towards teamwork.

[Forsaken One]

To say that wouldn't be a legit argument is both foolish and something only a Monkey would think.

an example would be having 2 games. Say S.W.A.T. 4 and Quake 4. Both have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLAYSTYLES even through they are both FPS games.

What the Monkeys are trying to do with Planetside 2 is instead of making Planetside 2 they are making battlefield 5 with expanded tech to have more players. (you think battlefield is really mindset on 64? they try to get the most they can get without massive lagfests, battlefield would happily have it 1,000 vs players if it had the tech.)

in a sense they are trying to make S.W.A.T. 5 play like Quake or Quake 5 play like S.W.A.T.

If the monkeys get their way it won't have the planetside "playstyle" anymore. some of the monkeys think "Oh well, it will still have massive battles even if we all fly around like Tribes or bounce around like bunny's in Quake." No... it won't In fact I remember a Tribes server or 2 having at least's 100 player slots.

Planetside is about being lost in the army. feeling like you are part of something bigger. Feeling like you are all one big machine no matter who is next to you.

The Monkeys are adding stuff for "self" which will end up with "inflated ego" and "competitive retardedness" you may have a lot of players shooting guns but you will no longer have the sense of "you are just as important as the next guy and he as you" that Planetside gives.

[Bags]

Gosh darn monkies takin' mah jerbs.

[Hamma]

Forsaken One, please be a bit more constructive in your posting. People are starting to tire of your monkey business.

[SKYeXile]

I agree this excuse is perhaps being overused as people struggle to come to terms with how different PS2 will be, but at the same time I think it's meaning is quite obvious.

Planetside 2 was not a realistic shooter. It was too far in the UT/Quake/Tribes direction to be in BF or CoD territory. At the same time, it was too slow and too tactical to be in UT and Quake territory either. In occupied a middle ground that was largely unique to FPS games (and still is).

I wholeheartedly accept that Planetside 2 will be very different to it's predecessor, but at the same time I can understand that when people say "But that wouldn't be Planetside", it's probably to do with PS2 becoming a "type" of shooter instead of holding that unique hybridization that Planetside had.

yea planetside i think today the closet types of games are TF2 and halo.

they both sort unrealistic damage to kill somebody.
they both use COF
pace of combat and TTK is about the same.

but who would want to make a game thats similar to TF2? COD and BFBC2 are way more popular.
Current Players Peak Today
52,242 65,398 Team Fortress 2
13,352 29,452 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
11,698 22,454 Call of Duty Black Ops - Multiplayer
9,441 12,057 Battlefield: Bad Company 2

even combined they're not as popular on PC LOL.

[Rarntogo]

It looks like this topic, and for that matter, this forum as a whole is taking on the right approach to a new game that is a sequel as well. The veterans (myself included) it seems, would like much of the old game to stay intact. All the things we love, the Bridge battles, Gal drops, MAX rushes etc... and even tho' in reality we know very little about the game play of PS2 many of us are making judgements about about the changes that are promised without really knowing how they fit in the new game. I know I am guilty of this. Things are changing and people are becoming more open to the new things. There are certain things I dont want. I have voiced my opinions sternly and with conviction. I also know that in reality (with hindsight) I'm talking out my arse because I have no idea how anything the Devs have planned is going to work. It's difficult to pick apart the tidbits the Devs have given us because we only have PS1 to base it on and we wont be playing PS1. I know that I loved the original and I put my trust in the new Dev crew that I will love the sequel as well. As long as it isnt a 1000 player death match with everyone killwhoring and not working towards the objectives I'm pretty sure I'll be happy. There will be things I don't like but I'm sure there will be much more that I do like. I'll hate getting sniped as I run out the door trying to defend my base and you'll hate when I sneak up behind you in my Infi suit and knife you. You'll say cloakers are over powered and I'll say sniper rifles need to be nerfed. As long as we both love the game and servers stay full... thats all that matters and it's what I'm looking forward to. :)

[morf]

As long as we both love the game and servers stay full...

But then it wouldn't be Planetside anymore.


oh look i made a great argument.

[Rarntogo]

But then it wouldn't be Planetside anymore.


oh look i made a great argument.

Sad but true...

[Tool]

To say that wouldn't be a legit argument is both foolish and something only a Monkey would think.

an example would be having 2 games. Say S.W.A.T. 4 and Quake 4. Both have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLAYSTYLES even through they are both FPS games.

What the Monkeys are trying to do with Planetside 2 is instead of making Planetside 2 they are making battlefield 5 with expanded tech to have more players. (you think battlefield is really mindset on 64? they try to get the most they can get without massive lagfests, battlefield would happily have it 1,000 vs players if it had the tech.)

in a sense they are trying to make S.W.A.T. 5 play like Quake or Quake 5 play like S.W.A.T.

If the monkeys get their way it won't have the planetside "playstyle" anymore. some of the monkeys think "Oh well, it will still have massive battles even if we all fly around like Tribes or bounce around like bunny's in Quake." No... it won't In fact I remember a Tribes server or 2 having at least's 100 player slots.

Planetside is about being lost in the army. feeling like you are part of something bigger. Feeling like you are all one big machine no matter who is next to you.

The Monkeys are adding stuff for "self" which will end up with "inflated ego" and "competitive retardedness" you may have a lot of players shooting guns but you will no longer have the sense of "you are just as important as the next guy and he as you" that Planetside gives.

People like you don't help or contribute at all, you act as though you already know how PS2 will play, is played, and has been played. It wasn't often at all that I actually felt like part of an armed force in Planetside, even in the begining. Just a lot of guys doing their own thing who happen to be fighting near each other, combined arms just happend to be a side effect which sometimes worked as it should.

Egos and self played a huge role in PS1 and you were never as important to the guy next to you when most players thought that shooting at the same enemy he/she was is trying to kill-steal.

Gameplay mechanics needed a fundimental shift from PS1 to PS2 in order to be successfull long term and have the tools in place to really promote teamwork instead of penalizing it.

Games like BF:BC2 are a great place to draw inspiration from, CoD not so much but obviously the PS2 team don't seem to be fans either which gives me great hope.

It's funny that you call the people advocating these changes monkeys yet your the one who is standing against evolution, which is what Planetside needs to do to survive and prosper.

[2coolforu]

But then it wouldn't be Planetside anymore.


oh look i made a great argument.

Planetside servers were pretty backed before the BFR business, also strawmen.

[morf]

Planetside servers were pretty backed before the BFR business, also strawmen.

Oh yeah BFR's. Well without them it won't be planetside anymore.

[Bags]

P
Games like BF:BC2 are a great place to draw inspiration from, CoD not so much but obviously the PS2 team don't seem to be fans either which gives me great hope.
.


Just as long as they don't copy BFBC having a crappy engine.

[2coolforu]

Oh yeah BFR's. Well without them it won't be planetside anymore.

ad absurdum

[Tool]

Just as long as they don't copy BFBC having a crappy engine.

Strange thing to say Bags as we all know it's developed on Sonys' Forgelight.:ugh:

Though I do understand what you mean in some sense, BC2s Frostbite wasn't bad at all.

[Bags]

Strange thing to say Bags as we all know it's developed on Sonys' Forgelight.:ugh:

Though I do understand what you mean in some sense, BC2s Frostbite wasn't bad at all.

I dunno, I get worse FPS in BFBC2 on lowest than I do in Crysis on high.

You got some inside information about Forgelight you'd like to share?

[2coolforu]

I dunno, I get worse FPS in BFBC2 on lowest than I do in Crysis on high.

You got some inside information about Forgelight you'd like to share?

BC2's engine was utter hell, it would overheat many CPU's because it insisted on using 100% for no reason (because it was a console port). It also ate up huge amounts of system resources for no good reason, even Crysis was less of a hog.

They took their sweet time patching 100% cpu glitch and map loading cpu glitch too.

[Bags]

Yup. I bought it for $5 to see what it was like, and it's not very playable. Empty map, starring at a non-moving tree, on low = 40 fps. Crysis, medium fight going on, all sorts of trees and bushes swaying in the breezes, explosions everywhere, on high = 40 fps.

It's silly. I didn't expect to be able to max it, but I figured on low I should be able to pull 60 FPS easily.

[Tool]

You got some inside information about Forgelight you'd like to share?

Umm no, do you? I simply brought up the gameplay comparison, you chimed in about the engine seemingly without making the distinction between PS2 and BC2 and their respective engine. Simply saying, your point is moot when thier not the same, if they were then it would've been a vaild issue.

Frostbite had it's issues, none of which I shared. Crytek was an amazing peice of work and Crysis only showed a portion of what it could do. Like always, it depends on the system and optimization.

[Forsaken One]

Games like BF:BC2 are a great place to draw inspiration from

I only need to really quote this part. At least I understand why you named yourself Tool.

As for how laughable what you say is. all I'll say is this.

Sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, press magic button to teleport into vehicle, flair, flair, flair, flair, flair, flair, ,flair, flair. Vehicle almost dead press magic button and teleport to safety then sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper. etc. BF:BC2 in a nutshell.

adding twitch stupidity to a game that required mostly Intelligence and Teamwork is like taking a Human and turning him back into a caveman and calling it better.

People like you don't help or contribute at all.

I explain everything. I say what needs to be said. If you find any of my posts hard to understand then reread them till you are able to.
:edit. for lulz. I'll help you understand that post. look at the OP's post. then look at my post and how it explains that the argument is valid by explaining that game series's as a whole have a type of playstyle and that playstyle is what the players enjoy and why they play that game. look at rainbow sin vegas, its dead. Because they tried to turn a game that took intelligence into a arcade shooter. I literally feel like my IQ dropped by trying to dumb it down for you.

[BlazingSun]

http://www.ideachampions.com/weblogs/change-architect-sign1.jpg


PS: BF:BC2 is a good game. The maps are a bit crap, but otherwise it's good.

[Tool]

I only need to really quote this part. At least I understand why you named yourself Tool.

As for how laughable what you say is. all I'll say is this.

Sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, press magic button to teleport into vehicle, flair, flair, flair, flair, flair, flair, ,flair, flair. Vehicle almost dead press magic button and teleport to safety then sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper, sniper. etc. BF:BC2 in a nutshell.

adding twitch stupidity to a game that required mostly Intelligence and Teamwork is like taking a Human and turning him back into a caveman and calling it better.



I explain everything. I say what needs to be said. If you find any of my posts hard to understand then reread them till you are able to.

Heh, my forum name is a moot point but is one of my favorite bands.

You have what's basically called a non-argument. Unable to discern the concept of gameplay to how some people play a game. Your also obviously upset over unknown factors in a game that isn't out, a common mistake mad pre-release.

What's that internet fad often used? Oh yeah

U mad bro?

[Gwartham]

Wonder why people try to inject intelligence into the debate.

Met smart twitch gamers and planetside players who were complete smacktards.

[Forsaken One]

read the edit I made before your post Mr.Tool I dumbed it down for you.

[Tool]

Wonder why people try to inject intelligence into the debate.

Met smart twitch gamers and planetside players who were complete smacktards.

I don't know either honestly, as if I gave some reason to draw my intelligence to question on an internet gaming forum lol.

It's usually just a cop out when people have a counter-point made against them or are criticized and they get upset. Which doesn't matter to me as I'll try to continue the discussion with people who have valid opinions.

[Rarntogo]

I don't know either honestly, as if I gave some reason to draw my intelligence to question on an internet gaming forum lol.

It's usually just a cop out when people have a counter-point made against them or are criticized and they get upset. Which doesn't matter to me as I'll try to continue the discussion with people who have valid opinions.

I may be picking a fight here, which is not my intention. However... by continuing your discussion with people that have valid opinions, do you mean only those that agree with your opinion have valid opinions? Because, from here, that's what it looks like. IMHO... thats not what forums are about.

[Tool]

If it appears that way it certainly isn't my intention. When people start giving opinions on why things such as locational damage shouldn't exist in Planetside, I'll try to counter, which is shown in many of my posts. Ex. Bags whom I've had a bit of back and forth with.

I don't want these next few posts to degrade into a personal discussion though so I'll just leave things at that.

[Hamma]

Yea guys lets tone it down, no need for personal attacks just discuss the topic at hand. ;)

[Ravanos]

damn when did battlefield become such a bad thing to emulate lol. i for one would love to see SOE "borrow" many elements of the battlefield series and make them work in a massive fight.

i have always seen planetside built on a few principals ...

massive fights
more options not more power
a new player can kill a vet if the new player is better
perfectly blending infantry and vehicles
teamplay required

as long as they keep to those principals it will be the planetside i know and loved. other than that i hope they DO take some of the mechanics from recent good FPS games.

[SwiftRanger]

How much changed between Starcraft and Starcraft 2 or C&C Tiberian Dawn and C&C 3, Doom 1 and 2,Age of Empires and AoE 2, Grand Theft Auto 3 and San Andreas? Obviously we want a fresh game that is new but what we don't want is something that resembles Call of Duty or Battlefield too much , or that strays from the ideals of Planetside. The game was original and new and one-of-a-kind and the gameplay it brought was great, the statement 'that wouldn't be Planetside anymore' is generally used when a feature seems to lack the teamwork and wide-scale that made the original such a good and fresh game.

What we don't want is Call of Battlefield: Future Warfare 2, what we do want is 'Planetside 2'. A game that builds upon the greatness of the original and adds in new features that build the experience without making a game too far away from the original to be recognized.
StarCraft was a runaway success for various reasons, PlanetSide wasn't. SCII is enjoyable but it is also stuck in the past gameplay- and UI-wise. I don't care if it's successful, it doesn't make my RTS-fanatic heart beat any faster. SupCom, WiC and DoW II did though.

Honestly, PlanetSide is the FPS with the most potential ever but it rarely furfills that potential. After all those years, with no development on it, an ageing UI/engine and with such a small player base the great moments decrease even further.

Battlefield (and especially CoD) are always taking the easy way out and have a lot to learn from the massive warfare stuff PS first offered. Unlocks alone fail to make a decent example of persistence. That being said, I wouldn't object if PS2 finetuned some details either. Whether those are coming from another shooter (don't think CoD or BF were always the first with their features) or even from another genre, I don't care, as long as it's fluid, as long as we can feel motivated to keep coming back and as long as we still get huge battles.

Last night I logged into PS after a very long time and I heard a platoon leader proclaim one of the current problems with PS: there are 1000 Darth Vaders and 1 Storm Trooper (which probably was me:D). The dearth of players and the hardcore that are still around make the game look like it's full of ego-boosting players. Which isn't PS, this is about total war and from the developer comments it seems PS2 still wants the game to be exactly that. For the record: I still experienced why I though PS was so good and also why I probably left. This could be so big if handled/supported right.

[Logit]

http://www.ideachampions.com/weblogs/change-architect-sign1.jpg


PS: BF:BC2 is a good game. The maps are a bit crap, but otherwise it's good.

We don't want to play Battlefield.

If we did, I'm sure we would go buy it, and play that no?

Planetside was good because it was the pioneer in it's class, why conform to "standard" FPS' when PS wasn't one.

[Tool]

More people play Battlefield than Planetside and SOE is a buisness, not your buddy. What does that add up to?

The success of PS2 depends on the amount of players, not what a very minor niche group of gamers expect. Like or dislike it, doesn't matter, it's the logical point of view.

[Canaris]

I agree that the use of this term has gotten abit over used..... especially by Morf :p

It really should be reserved for that silly thread someone posted up about leaving out the Vanu Sovereignty and the like, we're all going to have dislikes about some direction and changes that will be made for Planetside and that's fine but debate it and leave the childish posts to the fun threads and not the development side.

[Forsaken One]

look like it's full of ego-boosting players. Which isn't PS

I'd like to touch on this. The fact is Planetside is about War with mature players. most of the time when someone states they are better then everyone else its in jest. there is a lot of swearing (army people don't say fiddlesticks when shot.) lot of. "Yeah I'm the most badass because I just beat this" but with a overall "war moment" tone. aka its not as much ego as getting into the War.
Sometimes in War one player may even tell another player to "fuck off" that's healing him because of being in the war moment. Its again, not as much having a ego as a more "screw that and lets kick more enemies ass's" War moment.

Egos are more like what one would see in Twitch/self shooters that have less to do with teamwork. say CS/Halo/Quake. Less Ego in say games like CoD. then even less Ego in games like Battlefield. Then you have planetside, where Ego tends to take a full flip and turn into "hooah!" for the team.

[BlazingSun]

We don't want to play Battlefield.

If we did, I'm sure we would go buy it, and play that no?

Planetside was good because it was the pioneer in it's class, why conform to "standard" FPS' when PS wasn't one.

Who said PS2 should (exactly) be like the Battlefield games? I don't think anyone did. I'm also not sure what made PS1 soooo special, apart from the massiv combat. They didn't reinvent the wheel. Surely we all want PS2 to be even better than the first game ... if that means borrowing a good idea or 2 from a game like Battlefield, I don't see a reason why that should not be done.

[Duffman]

I loved PS and I still love to play BC2 i think it is a great game. I dont want PS to be BC2 but they could pull a lot from it. I also cant wait for BF3. COD on the other hand I havent played since COD3:MW.

[Logit]

Who said PS2 should (exactly) be like the Battlefield games? I don't think anyone did. I'm also not sure what made PS1 soooo special, apart from the massiv combat. They didn't reinvent the wheel. Surely we all want to be PS2 even better than the first game ... if that means borrowing a good idea or 2 from a game like Battlefield, I don't see a reason why that should not be done.

My main gripe is only this..stuff that works in small scale FPS', basically the entire FPS market, may not work in a grand scale such as PS2. I worry that they take too much from the games now, and incorporate it into a gaming environment that it's not going to have success in.

[Fews]

Not to throw more gas on the fire, but how has this worked out for the numerous games that have tried to emulate WoW in the RPG genre?
Frankly, the more I read the talking points and Q&A releases, the more I am moving away from the thought of playing this.

Planetside, was and is and always will be, the consummate army game. No other game had as many layers of gameplay, that tower you had to take in order to get a spawn point outside the tech plant that was needed in order to build more tanks that were lost at the last base, the AMS that comes into the SOI near the back door that finally allows a push into a heavily defended base, the small TR unit that went and flipped a base on Amerish that caused a 3 day war over it involving all sides – the goals weren’t about who you could shoot in the face or “look guyz, my K/D is awesomesausage!!lulz!” – it was about pushing Barney off their home continent.

Teams/Units were the most important point of the game, teams were responsible for pushing in a concerted effort to take continents, to push for that last base, to try and sanc-lock the one side while fighting off the other attempting to back into the territory you just took. These are what planetside is and was. The focus was on this part of the battle, not the BOOM HEADSHOT fire fights.

Look, I can log onto any number of FPS games and jump into a fire fight that ends in a few minutes to an hour and that’s it. Nothing gained, nothing lost – it’s the arcade feel of popping in your 25 cents worth of fun and walking away. In Planetside, things you did mattered on a larger scale. From what I read from the devs, they make PS2 out to be nothing more than a larger arena for a fire fight.

Some things that just turn me completely off…

Headshots… I have no words for this travesty. One-shot one-kill has never been fun aside from the 3 seconds of YAY on the shooter. Lest we forget the thousands of voices that cried out and were suddenly silenced by the triple-shot +1? Now I can accept the fact that snipers hitting someone in the cap and not outright killing them was highly unrealistic, but ffs, we are talking about a game that respawns your dead corpse, VS MAXs fly and shoot orbs, and the NC actually existed… if you can suspend reality for that stuff, you should probably be able to wrap your head around the fact that you need two and not one bullet to end someone. Speeding up TTK is one thing, but making it a bunny-hopping headhunting fest is a completely different beast.

No sanctuaries is HIGHLY disturbing to me given that one of the quintessential parts of PS was rolling out of sanc in huge numbers in organized fashion to take back a lost continent. Spawning on your squad? So the AMS is now out? Those were almost always key to advancing and if you didn’t bring one out, you were doomed; if it went and got itself discovered, it was a pigpile for the other side(s) to hit it so hard and fast that people cried out and men gnashed their teeth – because that was key to advancing the army. If you lost it, you probably lost the area – and that is HOW IT WAS SUPPOSED TO WORK. You lost, you go back to another farther base and you regrouped, or you lost the continent and you went back to sanc, no trophy, no bragging rights, no ‘you’ll get them next time, here’s an ice cream cone.’ You got called out for losing the continent, you probably got ripped apart on the forums as well… That was THE game… there were consequences and that is probably the biggest point.

Too many times I hear BF this and COD that. They are the gold standard of skirmish shooters and the mechanics are tailored to that style. The more I read about it, the more PS2 seems to be ham-fisting it into this game because “it’s the right business move” to pull players from those games. Why do more of the same only on a bigger map? Why make the game faster paced (in terms of gameplay and not the clunky graphics)? Oh because that is how things are done now? Says who? No one since PS has done what it did – and for that we have to consider it a failure and bring PS2 inline with every other shooter on the market? So that begs the question: other than a larger map and map population, why play this over anything else out there on the market? Why change key concepts of the original in favor of playing to other games?

For me, it was because the game Planetside 2 was supposed to stand out among them, and sadly everything I read about it makes it nothing more than a name amongst them – everyone I hear defending the clear departures from the PS of old seems to think it must measure up to par with other shooters on the market without any consideration of the concept of the game. The focus of the topics are always, make it faster, twitchier, head shots, but with more people on the screen to shoot and lost in all this is the core concept of what Planetside really is: a full on RTS with real players as the single units. Maybe I was hoping for a reskinned, updated netcoded Planetside because, quite frankly, the concept of the game still stands up as the most unique thing I ever played. Yeah, you can dismiss this as some long winded treatise from some aging gamer who captured lightning in a bottle some 8 years ago. I can accept that because I am, and there are a lot of us out here just waiting for someone to give us another chance and another bottle.

[ZeroOneZero]

It's not PlanetSide without the 3rd person view :D. I don't recall any other fps games having 1st person-view and 3rd person as well. I think it's essential to infantry and not just vehicles.

-No 3rd person inside facilities....Fine, no prob, but it's needed out in the open world. For instance, I want to know where I'm getting hit from, I switch to 3rd person and see from which direction the enemy is. It's also very effective in detecting cloaked enemies, switch to 3rd person and you can look at your surrounding area and notice a slight blur when the cloaker is making his move. <---only if you don't have dl implant.

But I agree with the people who just posted recently.

[Tool]

Fews, you have to understand that Planetside2 isn't Battlefield or CoD. Drawing inspiration from successfull titles is one thing but what your doing is making huge assumptions on little known gameplay mechanics.

A note about the referance between WoW and it's recent copy-cat clones on the market. RPGs have evolved little over the past decade while the same cannot be said for FPS titles. Technology has been the main factor for development and features, not basic concepts and core gameplay.

The broader market in FPS games show what people prefer and using that information to build a new FPS game isn't bad so long as progress is made. People really need to jump all over games like Cross Fire, Combat Arms, Wolfteam, Operation 7, etc. if you really want to complain about FPS clones.

[Fews]

Fews, you have to understand that Planetside2 isn't Battlefield or CoD. Drawing inspiration from successfull titles is one thing but what your doing is making huge assumptions on little known gameplay mechanics.

A note about the referance between WoW and it's recent copy-cat clones on the market. RPGs have evolved little over the past decade while the same cannot be said for FPS titles. Technology has been the main factor for development and features, not basic concepts and core gameplay.

The broader market in FPS games show what people prefer and using that information to build a new FPS game isn't bad so long as progress is made. People really need to jump all over games like Cross Fire, Combat Arms, Wolfteam, Operation 7, etc. if you really want to complain about FPS clones.

The broader market is stuck on a hamster wheel in my opinion with each game being basically the same small fire fight battle with different clothes and dingratz.

Putting it as basic as I can, I would rather see Planetside reskinned and updated netcoding, then BF/COD with a Planetside skin.

[Effective]

Planetside 1 is a game with terribly made/implemented game mechanics and a variety of other issues. It's time to realize what mistakes were made in the game (all of them, not just BFRs and hackers) just that ultimately brought the game to it's current state.

Give the devs feedback and WHY something is negative, and then tell them what they can could potentially do to make it better. Planetside 2 will NEVER BE LIKE PLANETSIDE 1.

[Fews]

Planetside 1 is a game with terribly made/implemented game mechanics and a variety of other issues. It's time to realize what mistakes were made in the game (all of them, not just BFRs and hackers) just that ultimately brought the game to it's current state.

Give the devs feedback and WHY something is negative, and then tell them what they can could potentially do to make it better. Planetside 2 will NEVER BE LIKE PLANETSIDE 1.

Then they should have called it something else, like the Agency :doh:. I am all for improvements and do like some of the talking points, but losing the core concept of what Planetside was in order to fit it into some template not suited for its mass is just a big disappointment.

And I'd have to argue that the current state of 1 came from under-development post CC.

[Tool]

Then they should have called it something else, like the Agency :doh:. I am all for improvements and do like some of the talking points, but losing the core concept of what Planetside was in order to fit it into some template not suited for its mass is just a big disappointment.

And I'd have to argue that the current state of 1 came from under-development post CC.

The core things that made Planetside, Planetside, is a short list:

Massive Battles
Equality between High/Low level players
Cert Trees and Implants
Air, Armor, and Infantry combined arms gameplay

The minor nit-picks few people tend to have are mechanics that have no bearing on those core elements. And like Effective said, you have to learn from what attributed to Planetsides lack of success. It was not soley BFRs or marketing, the shallow FPS gameplay attributed a lot more than what people credit it for.