From a tactical gamer, jaded by 'trendy' modern shooters

[brighthand]

THIS IS A WALL OF TEXT FOR SOME, BUT I THINK YOU MIGHT AGREE WITH IT

I have seen this proccess develop in more than one of my choice shooters: A game that was deep and rich and required the player to learn to balance all by himself on the waves of the steep learning curves- and reap the great rewards once accomplished, has its core features ripped out of it, like William Walace on the eviscerator, in the name of profit.

Killzone 2 on ps3 was a game I enjoyed thoughroughly and it only gave the kill to the higher-skilled player. There was no aimassist, and no killcam/kill streaks. Spawn points were determined by a smart (or dumb) tactician- but an autonomous tactician. Thinking and options were offered to the player.

Killzone 3 took away all of those things, and replaced it with simplified mechanics and static spawn points so that the supposed mental strain of deciding where to place spawn points would be lifted from the 'new modern FPS player,' freeing what few brain cells he may have remianing to be allocated to the most important thing....killstreaks :rolleyes:

This is one example. I am not going to get into what happened to Battlefield with bf3; many of us already know, and that is why we are here, looking to YOUR game, Planetside 2.

All of the creativity, the emphasis on skills, and the tactical pacing and planning seems to have been drained out of many of our games these days, and I find myself like a nomad, ever searching for that one game that didn't cave to the masses; that in the face of a flood of demand for mediocrity and genercness on the part of the 'new generation of gamer,' would stand firm and say 'NO, this is our game and you will learn how to play it or you will leave.' So far, I have seen no game do that. I thought bf3 was going to be it- I was prepared to spend years playing a good next-gen tactical shooter, but it turned out to be COD with vehicles.

I would venture to say that the people taking note of your game, are other people like me; the people who have lost a taste for the other games that are out there. Said another way: the masses aren't looking at your game, because they are too busy lapping up everything that EA and Activision are feeding them. The majority of players will stick to their premium and elite subscriptions, and like it, but there is a minority of us who have higher standards and are very willing to throw our dollars/euros/sols/crowns/pounds/pesos/shells at you for a game UNLIKE the 'modern shooters' that we have been encountering frequently throughout this generation.

So with this understanding I ask this: that you please...PLEEEESE be that oaisis of old-school, difficult and tactical gaming that I have been wandering the vast expanses of a dillouted FPS desert for. There are many others like me, and I am not sure that you guys understand how thirsty we are for something genuinely unique, creative, oozing with passion and above all, faithful to its roots.

I never played the first Planetside, but I have done quite a bit of research on it, and from what I have discovered, this game -if left untampered- will be the game of the decade. I do not propose any changes myself, as I feel I am in no position to make such proposals; Only the vets who have played the game for years should have that chance; they know what makes a great battle in planetside.

If anyone over there is plotting to look at charts and trends data for FPSes, march into that office immediately, set fire to those documents and promptly throw the offending analyst out of the nearest window.

The charts and trends data will tell you the following:

easier kills = more sales and more money
significantly less waiting = more sales and more money
in game aids such as 3d spotting = more sales and more money
emphasis on killing = more money
simplified tactics if any at all = more sales and more money
kill streaks...kill cams....faster and frequent spawning....
all kinds of rubbish = more sales and more money.

DICE, and Gurilla Games OBAYED those trend data sheets, and as a result, their original fanbase assuredly are searching for other games to play and won't be supporting them again -unless perhaps if they cleaned up their act- which is unlikely.

I am one of those millions of the minority who despondently left a game that I thought would be great but was a dud, and happened to discover your game; and my hope is that this game truely is a new Planetside, and not Battleplanet 2: Easy Ops.

[Juturna]

tldr

[ringring]

There are quite a few people with this fear. We'll see.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Oh no... It's one of these threads again. Raunching, foaming mad men will be here any moment...


I generally agree with the concept you propose, though. Killzone 2 is my favorite shooter of all time. I didn't much care for KZ3, though.

[Sledgecrushr]

We can hope that the devs are properly intrigued with the tactical meta games to incorporate and deliver a deeper experience.

[Envenom]

Slow Clap - YouTube

[Reizod]

Right on the money with your post. Welcome to Planetside my friend!

[Emperor]

This game has huge potential to be a heavily tactical game, but on the flipside the accessibility brought by its F2P model will also bring in a lot of non-tactical players. Mechanics-wise, the game right now seems to cater a bit to both.

tldr
I wish this term was a bannable offense on every forum on the internet. Is your attention span really so low that you can't take 2 minutes to read something longer than a paragraph?

[maddoggg]

Amen brother!
I feel 100% the same.
I prey this game wont be casualized.
I respect the veterans opinion(i am not a ps1 vet myself)and i think they should be the ones doing the balancing.
I came to this forum to vote against any sort of CODification and n00bification of the game,so we can FINALY have an FPS PC game that is NOT made for brain dead 14 years old kids.
Cheers!

[GreatMazinkaise]

I wish this term was a bannable offense on every forum on the internet. Is your attention span really so low that you can't take 2 minutes to read something longer than a paragraph?

Without knowing the quality of the content, that could very well be a waste of time. Sturgeon's Law is even more true on the Internet.

[EisenKreutzer]

I absolutely do not think that my opinion on how the game should play does not count because I am not a veteran of Planetside 1. I am a passionate fan of Planetside 2, and my opinion should be worth as much as anyone elses in the beta.

Not saying OP ment this, but I just thought I'd make it clear.

Other than that.. Theres something about OPs tone I don't like, a vague hint of elitism perhaps. But it's subtle.
Otherwise, i find myself nodding in agreement. I too, want Planetside 2 to be a rich and complex experience, not another cookie-cutter shooter of the gunmetal gray and dogshit brown school.

So good show, OP. Jolly good show.

[Marsgrim]

I think every PS vet is arguing to maintain the strategic and tactical flexibility in a more modern engine.

[ElectroEsper]

I hope this game will be up to those expectations !

The closest I got were Project Reality on BF2, during highly organised tactical tournaments. Hope I can have this daily with planetside 2 !

+1

[leecH]

@op when i was your age i played this:

http://www.tactical-ops.de/pics/screen14.jpg

[super pretendo]

I agree

[diLLa]

@op when i was your age i played this:

http://www.tactical-ops.de/pics/screen14.jpg

you rock sir. So did I :)

[ArmedZealot]

Planetside was not a tactical shooter, nor will PS2 be.

Planetside was a strategic game however, and PS2 has not lost those elements.

[Sledgecrushr]

I can imagine the game right now as I sit at my desk. Me and a hundred devil dogs are winding our way through valleys looking to flank the enemy. Organized into a staggered armour column with our MI safely tucked away and covered by air power. And being relentlessly assaulted by waves of near zombie like hordes of suicidal newbs. Outfit tactics will win the day.

[Dloan]

I never played the first Planetside, but I have done quite a bit of research on it,
and from what I have discovered, this game -if left untampered- will be the game of the decade.

:confused:

[vVRedOctoberVv]

"elitism" another term like "overpowered" and "unbalanced" that are thrown around way, way, too much...

It's just as simple as he has strong feelings on something, and dislikes the tendency to appeal to the masses. By definition, appealing to the masses means simplistic and generic, so as to be easily accessible to the most people. Any thing firm in one direction or another risks alienating swathes of people, so PERFECTLY NEUTRAL is the preferred modus operandi. Good example: politics. Take absolutely NO stance on anything, that way you don't offend ANYBODY. Of course, this also means you have nothing of value to offer anyone... Same principle applies to games, and anything else for that matter.

Not saying that's what SOE is doing. That's just what many developers/producers (whether or entertainment or other products) are doing.

Ironically, the catering to everybody so as not to lose anybody approach, inevitably ends up losing large numbers of people who do have standards/beliefs one way or another... I guess it's a catch 22.

[FuzzyandBlue]

I'm having trouble applauding the OP for this post. Maybe I'm just ignorant to all of the old school tactical shooters out there. But can some one give an example? Can someone tell me what divides an "old school tactical" shooter from a "modern day trendy" shooter?

My issue with the post in general is that the OP didn't provide an example of a tactical shooter. He mentioned Killzone 2, which takes away aim assist and compensates by making everyone move slower. Watch a video of that game the base movement speed is turtle slow.

He said that Killzone 2 awards the skilled player with the kill. But so does every other competent FPS out there; even CoD. If you have ever played BF3 or CoD against a really good player 9-10 they kill you in one on one fights.

As someone who really enjoys a good match of BF3, I get the felling that people who make post like this just aren't that good at most modern shooters.

[Badjuju]

Well said. Hopefully the devs keep this in mind as we move through beta and things get tweaked.

[Top Sgt]

I agree with you OP

problem is most publishers and devs have sold out games to maximize money.

COD (console) started this trend.. make a shooter dumbed down and very easy to pick up and rambo play, market it to kids etc .. Well they made alot of money doing so as sales went bananas.

But.. this also hurt gaming (shooterwise) a ton As many publishers and devs followed suit hoping to cash in on the cod sales etc.. now the market is flooded with easy pick up and play shooters that have no skill base play to them at all.

In these games it's designed so a brand new player can engage a Highly skilled player and they can have an equal chance as these games now are based on "connection wins" especially on console.

It sucks to us older skill based vets of shooters.. but money wins out in most cases.

So far PS2 does not seem to be too bad in that area.. As long as they don't majorly change things from beta until release the game looks to be ok so far in that area.

Hopefully SOE let's them stay that way.

[brighthand]

I absolutely do not think that my opinion on how the game should play does not count because I am not a veteran of Planetside 1. I am a passionate fan of Planetside 2, and my opinion should be worth as much as anyone elses in the beta.

Not saying OP ment this, but I just thought I'd make it clear.

Other than that.. Theres something about OPs tone I don't like, a vague hint of elitism perhaps. But it's subtle.
Otherwise, i find myself nodding in agreement. I too, want Planetside 2 to be a rich and complex experience, not another cookie-cutter shooter of the gunmetal gray and dogshit brown school.

So good show, OP. Jolly good show.

Don't worry my friend, no elitism. Just my fatigue from a stangnating genre that takes its cues from some of the most generic shooters arround, which in turn is dictated by the behavioral attributes commonly found in a significant fraction of the audience that plays those types of games: instant gratification, entitlement, no desire to learn or try.

Its like going to the swimming pool during adult swim hours or something and still finding a bunch of screeming kids and babies, still paddling around- and some crapping their diapers in the water.

I am not saying that everyone who plays games like COD is a kid. I have a friend who is quite an intellegent, civilized and respectable person, doing Law at Vanderbilt actually- plus he is a complete beast at Starcraft 2 online, and he loves COD; There are many others like him.

I am saying that let the kids have their swim time, and let us players who want a deeper more mature experience, have ours.

I would like my search for the ultimate FPS to end at Planetside 2.

[Comet]

From what I can tell from the research I've done on PS2 (Never played PS1) it is going to give the players the most tools and offer the most depth strategically (at the very least...) compared to any FPS out there right now. If the PS2 players want that big experience and that big reward for being a smart player, that experience will be found in PS2 if you and your squad mates want it to.

Even if there are some parts of the game you don't care for, this game will reward tactical thinking players if everything they've shown us so far gels well with things like the command tree and they stay true to their current design philosophy.

[ArmedZealot]

Don't worry my friend, no elitism.

Its like going to the swimming pool during adult swim hours or something and still finding a bunch of screeming kids and babies, still paddling around- and some crapping their diapers in the water.


Nope, none at all.

[EisenKreutzer]

I would like my search for the ultimate FPS to end at Planetside 2.

I concur wholeheartedly.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@Fuzzyblue

Tactical people tend to favor realism and emphasis on teamwork. Whereas most games center almost solely around twitch reflexes and running balls to the walls everywhere. It's TeamDeathMatch syndrome. A bunch of independent people who happen to be on the same team.

It's not that teamplay is impossible in such games, quite the contrary in fact. It's just that the presented game style encourages solo run amuckness. Simplistic mechanics and an emphasis on "everybody being able to do/have access to anything" so that "everyone feels equal".

In many ways, they try to take a field that is not inherently "equal" (as people have various skill levels and abilities to comprehend things at different rates) and water it all down where the field is more even. Not that there are not still "skilled" and "unskilled' players.

Many games cater to the instant gratification "I-WIN" tendency. Everybody wants to win, of course. That's why we're all here. It's a matter of perspective and approach, really.

This is not directly related to TTK (shorter TTKs are actually more realistic). It's a complicated topic. Perhaps I've explained it in a easy to read/understand manner?

Examples, as you asked for

Tactical Shooter: Counterstrike, Arma
Games characterised by lots of options and complexity. Not that they are "hard to learn", but that not everyone is going to be good at everything.

Twitch Shooters: Unreal Tournament, Call of Duty, Battlefield
Games characterised by lots of options, persay, but little complexity, and center on reflexes more than not. Everything is simplified so as to be usable by people who have no idea what the hell they are looking at, so anyone can get in and feel like a "badass" of whatever flavor they choose, be it infantry, tank driver, helicopter pilot, etc. Low learning curve, in general. Skill is present, but the simplification of mechanics greatly reduces its effects.

[brighthand]

I'm having trouble applauding the OP for this post. Maybe I'm just ignorant to all of the old school tactical shooters out there. But can some one give an example? Can someone tell me what divides an "old school tactical" shooter from a "modern day trendy" shooter?

My issue with the post in general is that the OP didn't provide an example of a tactical shooter. He mentioned Killzone 2, which takes away aim assist and compensates by making everyone move slower. Watch a video of that game the base movement speed is turtle slow.

He said that Killzone 2 awards the skilled player with the kill. But so does every other competent FPS out there; even CoD. If you have ever played BF3 or CoD against a really good player 9-10 they kill you in one on one fights.

As someone who really enjoys a good match of BF3, I get the felling that people who make post like this just aren't that good at most modern shooters.

My gameplay in bf3 is all over the place depending on how I feel. And since I don't care about my k/d, I usually get myself killed trying to get an objective, and then other times I down people left and right holding a capture point. These days I have been doing alot of flying in the Super Huey, and that tends to get rammed, JAVed, t90ed, etc no matter how well you fly- and I consider myself to be a good pilot- see video

Battlefield 3: Effective use of Venom transport helicopter - YouTube

What I'm saying is, my stats won't be an accurate reflection of my skill, but I do consider myself a good player, and my post does not address frustration with not getting kills in afrementioned games, it addresses the dumbing-down of the meta game, which is entirely irrelevant to whether one is a good player or not; if tactical options and other details arent there in the game in the first place, then they simply aren't there; and that is something that some people, including myself, take issue with.

[soulsurfsublime]

I to hope that this game is more tactical and organized outfit driven. Like I stated in another post about k/d, I think if you find a core group of players or better yet an outfit that is like minded to your play-style all will be well.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

I to hope that this game is more tactical and organized outfit driven. Like I stated in another post about k/d, I think if you find a core group of players or better yet an outfit that is like minded to your play-style all will be well.

This is the main and most important thing. Surround yourself with people of a like mind, then it doesn't matter what the other people are doing.

[ArmedZealot]

Tactical Shooter: Counterstrike, Arma
Games characterised by lots of options and complexity. Not that they are "hard to learn", but that not everyone is going to be good at everything.

Twitch Shooters: Unreal Tournament, Call of Duty, Battlefield
Games characterised by lots of options, persay, but little complexity, and center on reflexes more than not. Everything is simplified so as to be usable by people who have no idea what the hell they are looking at, so anyone can get in and feel like a "badass" of whatever flavor they choose, be it infantry, tank driver, helicopter pilot, etc. Low learning curve, in general. Skill is present, but the simplification of mechanics greatly reduces its effects.

No offense meant, but it just seems like you are choosing games arbitrarily to put into each category.

CS for example relied as much on twitch as COD or BF do. It was also faster paced than the two because of it's round system along with having similar TTK's.

[Baneblade]

I think that as long as SOE stays true to what PlanetSide is, things will be fine. PS1 had a lot of flaws, but at its core it had the right idea. Hopefully PS2 isn't to PS1 what 'SWTOR' was to 'SWG. A new and improved, bigger and better steaming pile of shit, with good voice acting.

[The Kush]

I agree I want a tactical difficult game that rewards skill and teamwork. Not a game where everyone is running around crazy and a noob can kill you because you have dumbed down the game so much

[Sledgecrushr]

@Fuzzyblue

This is not directly related to TTK (shorter TTKs are actually more realistic). .

I read some stuff on body armor on wikipedia. Durin the american civil war death to injury ratio was nearly 1-1. In vietnam that had climbed to 2.5 injuries per death. In Afghanistan our modern american army has 7 injuries per death. So all I can conclude from that is modern gameplay does not realistically potray body armor and the ttk in modern games would be more similar to civil war casualities when everyone only had a dyed wool jacket to stop bullets.

[ArmedZealot]

I read some stuff on body armor on wikipedia. Durin the american civil war death to injury ratio was nearly 1-1. In vietnam that had climbed to 2.5 injuries per death. In Afghanistan our modern american army has 7 injuries per death. So all I can conclude from that is modern gameplay does not realistically potray body armor and the ttk in modern games would be more similar to civil war casualities when everyone only had a dyed wool jacket to stop bullets.

How does this help with the sentiment that players shouldn't be 1 man armies?

I think the 1-1 ratio would be a better to appease players that think tactically wouldn't it?

[EisenKreutzer]

I agree I want a tactical difficult game that rewards skill and teamwork. Not a game where everyone is running around crazy and a noob can kill you because you have dumbed down the game so much

I really hate the term "noob" passionately.

Are you saying that a new player should have no possible way of killing an experienced player?

[Ratstomper]

The charts and trends data will tell you the following:

easier kills = more sales and more money
significantly less waiting = more sales and more money
in game aids such as 3d spotting = more sales and more money
emphasis on killing = more money
simplified tactics if any at all = more sales and more money
kill streaks...kill cams....faster and frequent spawning....
all kinds of rubbish = more sales and more money.

I am one of those millions of the minority who despondently left a game that I thought would be great but was a dud, and happened to discover your game; and my hope is that this game truely is a new Planetside, and not Battleplanet 2: Easy Ops.

I agree for the most part. Bear in mind that you CAN wind up on the other end of the spectrum, which is just as bad. For instance, having super long TTKs (like in the original Planetside) only makes the game frustrating and not fun. There has to be a delicate balance struck with these things, not just according to player taste, but also according to how the game is designed.

[Baneblade]

The longer the TTK, the less impact an individual player has overall. I always do better in non PS shooters than I do in PS1.

[Ratstomper]

I really hate the term "noob" passionately.

Are you saying that a new player should have no possible way of killing an experienced player?

I completely agree. If ever there was a term used by some of the biggest assholes as an excuse to badmouth and berate anyone and everyone around them for no decent reason, it's the term "noob".

However, I think he's saying that the game shouldn't facilitate new players to the degree that they'll have an even playing field as a vet, even though the vet knows the game better. I.E. super low TTKs.

[lawnmower]

He said that Killzone 2 awards the skilled player with the kill. But so does every other competent FPS out there; even CoD.
what
cod has among the very lowest skill difference mattering out there

As someone who really enjoys a good match of BF3, I get the felling that people who make post like this just aren't that good at most modern shooters.
modern shooter types are among the easiest fps games there has ever been.
so if someone complains on them and references other games for being better in some way, then thats not the thing.

[brighthand]

I agree for the most part. Bear in mind that you CAN wind up on the other end of the spectrum, which is just as bad. For instance, having super long TTKs (like in the original Planetside) only makes the game frustrating and not fun. There has to be a delicate balance struck with these things, not just according to player taste, but also according to how the game is designed.

of course. I wouldn't want an identical game to PS1, I would expect whatever ailments from PS1 to be addressed while new changes/additions are made so that the game ends up being a better, grander, sexier Planetside; the natural evolution of itself.

[EisenKreutzer]

what
cod has among the very lowest skill difference mattering out there


If that was true, I would have a lot more kills and a lot fewer deaths whenever I play Modern Warfare 3. I average about 3/15 during a normal round. Meh, that game is too fast for me.

[Sledgecrushr]

I think a low ttk is both unrealistic and rewards spray n pray tactics. If you need to land several headshots against a max with your carbine rifle to bring it down then that would effectively make ps2 more skill oriented in its gunplay.

[EisenKreutzer]

How is low ttk unrealistic?

[Comet]

Brighthand, I believe the developers are trying to design a game that you're going to like. Until you actually play it though, all this forum-talk is just theoretical.

By the way, nice chopper flying in your video :)

[Ratstomper]

If that was true, I would have a lot more kills and a lot fewer deaths whenever I play Modern Warfare 3. I average about 3/15 during a normal round. Meh, that game is too fast for me.

It really comes down to a different...I hate to use the word "skillset". With low TTKs, it's more about moving and training yourself to react quickly. If you can move your cursor over that guy before he gets his cursor over you, you win. Anyone with a more deliberate, tactical playstyle will probably not be impressed with the CoD franchise (except the first one, which was pretty awesome).

Which is a shame, considering it's supposed to be a military themed shooter. As someone else on these forums so aptly put, modern shooters are a "pastiche of military combat".

[EisenKreutzer]

It really comes down to a different...I hate to use the word "skillset". With low TTKs, it's more about moving and training yourself to react quickly. If you can move your cursor over that guy before he gets his cursor over you, you win. Anyone with a more deliberate, tactical playstyle will probably not be impressed with the CoD franchise (except the first one, which was pretty awesome).

Which is a shame, considering it's supposed to be a military themed shooter. As someone else on these forums so aptly put, modern shooters are a "pastiche of military combat".

Yeah, thats my experience too. I do much better in slower paced shooters with higher TTK. I really enjoyed and excelled in Section 8: Prejudice, for example, which had a relatively high TTK and a much slower pace (though you were exeptionally mobile in that game).

[Rat]

I agree I want a tactical difficult game that rewards skill and teamwork. Not a game where everyone is running around crazy and a noob can kill you because you have dumbed down the game so much

Oh, a noob will kill you...but the diff is that the rest of your squad will make him pay, and you will be revived by your medic.

[brighthand]

Brighthand, I believe the developers are trying to design a game that you're going to like. Until you actually play it though, all this forum-talk is just theoretical.

By the way, nice chopper flying in your video :)

thanks. Exclusive chopper-flying destroys one's stats and doesn't offer alot of points, but those hot extractions, tacitcal drops, and gunner cover are all worth it. I am looking forward to flying Galaxies (and possibly liberators) in Planetside 2, where my piloting will be more meaningful :)

[FuzzyandBlue]

This is not directly related to TTK (shorter TTKs are actually more realistic). It's a complicated topic. Perhaps I've explained it in a easy to read/understand manner?

Yes I understood you perfectly. But I almost feel like that was a jab at my IQ. Probably not though. I have never read you post and thought "this guy is a total troll"

As far as you're examples, I would have to lump Counterstike in with twich shooters. However I will say that because of how precise everything is in Counterstrike it does emphasize a high skill ceiling.

As far as Arma goes, I would have to agree that Arma Has a huge emphasis on smart movement, due to the fact that you can die from one bullet. Communication is important due to the fact that you have to find the enemy with you're own eyes. Which can be nearly impossible if they are not moving. But even Arma make many concessions in order to be more accessible.

PlanetSide 2 is going to be a modern shooter with huge scale and a gameplay based around the capturing of resources. How the meta game shapes out will be totally dependent on how we play the game. More specifically Organized outfits and the unorganized players working towards common goals.

@ Brighthand
Stats never are a good reflection of skill. From what I saw you were an extremely good pilot. You were using the transport chopper for its intended purpose, transporting.

Skill is a matter of practice. Being a good player on the other hand depends on what the objective of the game is. In Conquest if you are not helping your team cap and hold flags, then you are not a good player. In Rush if you are sitting back in the spawn sniping and not spotting, you're not a good player. I could care less about someones K\D. They may be bad at getting kills but if they contribute in some other meaningful way then they can still be a good player.

As far as meta game goes, the meta game is not entirely defined by the game mechanics. It is a combination of the mechanics and how the players use those mechanics. Naturally that means bad mechanics and or stupid players lead to a bad meta game.

[FatherJack]

I read some stuff on body armor on wikipedia. Durin the american civil war death to injury ratio was nearly 1-1. In vietnam that had climbed to 2.5 injuries per death. In Afghanistan our modern american army has 7 injuries per death. So all I can conclude from that is modern gameplay does not realistically potray body armor and the ttk in modern games would be more similar to civil war casualities when everyone only had a dyed wool jacket to stop bullets.

No, that injury rate is mostly thanks to modern medicine and the speed we can get casualties treated. Modern body armour still isn't going to stop a direct AK round (unless you have armour plates to back it up) and you will still lose your leg when an IED goes off. Even when you get a glancing shot it can still take you out of the action.

[Sledgecrushr]

How is low ttk unrealistic?

America has been at war with a Couple of third world countries for almost a decade so Perhaps the thinking is that everyone we face will be killed with a couple of shots. And this is a correct assumption when you are fighting guys in a t shirt and sandals. Right now our troops wear jackets that stop high powered ak47 rounds. It is very difficult to kill american troops while using a rifle. So the three body shot kills in generic modern shooters is unrealistic.

[Littleman]

I don't think it's the gunplay of the game that "dumbs down" games like CoD and BF so much as the lack of anything else to think about. Killing is king in CoD/BF. In the latter, capture points are often the objective, but the maps are static, temporary, and the number of players and vehicles available is actually very low still.

If DICE had made Battlefield 3 on the same scale with the same player numbers and vehicle acquisition and persistant territorial dominion as Planetside 2 is touting, it would genuinely be a good game because at that point, it would introduce a strategic and meaningful meta game. No matter what, you can't help but look at even the largest BF3 maps as "just another match."

You don't feel the urgency to win in Battlefield or Cod, and THAT is what I think is Planetside's crowning achievement over other FPS titles. Winning has a cause and an effect and it matters. Players can see the results of their labor as their team colors spill across the map.

Mind you, a quite literal $#!%-ton of people in a single instance is pretty awesome too.

Planetside 2 will have TTK's akin to BFIII, possibly slightly higher. Videos show fairly short, but that's going full auto with all shots connecting which is done primarily at shorter ranges for obvious reasons.

Thing is, Planetside 2 WILL be easy for newbs to get into, but it will be the strategists and meta game players that win the fight, not the "zerglings" as we call them; dying, respawning, rushing in, clogging up a barrel, respawning, rinse and repeat. Getting back into the fight will be quicker as well. This game is about fighting, and making people wait 30 seconds to respawn just to hoof it 300m (a punishment in itself) to get back into the fight is asking a bit much when the game lives and dies on its player counts.

Unfortunately for many people in here, this game will need to cater to the... "simpler" crowd for it to survive a decade in better shape than PS1 did. Being F2P helps.

[Reizod]

thanks. Exclusive chopper-flying destroys one's stats and doesn't offer alot of points, but those hot extractions, tacitcal drops, and gunner cover are all worth it. I am looking forward to flying Galaxies (and possibly liberators) in Planetside 2, where my piloting will be more meaningful :)

I'm also a decent pilot and put a lot of time and effort into being very good at it. I can assure you that your efforts/pilot skills will not be in vain when playing PS2. Unless, they nerf, change or gimp the flying mechanics more than what they are now.

Looking at your vid, I can say with confidence you will be a-okay. ;)

[EisenKreutzer]

America has been at war with a Couple of third world countries for almost a decade so Perhaps the thinking is that everyone we face will be killed with a couple of shots. And this is a correct assumption when you are fighting guys in a t shirt and sandals. Right now our troops wear jackets that stop high powered ak47 rounds. It is very difficult to kill american troops while using a rifle. So the three body shot kills in generic modern shooters is unrealistic.

This is blatantly untrue. Modern combat armor in use by current militaries is capable of stopping high-velocity shrapnel and small arms fire, like a 9mm round. It will not, however, stop high powered rifle rounds, like the rounds of an AK-47 or a sniper rifle.

EDIT: A littrle research later, and I've found that most modern combat armor have special armor inserts that, when used, allow the armor to absorb high caliber rounds, like the NATO 5.56, at reasonable ranges (200 metres for example). Point blank, however, is another matter entirely.

[Sledgecrushr]

Mail Call - Dragon Skin® Body Armor - YouTube dragonskin body armor versus ak47 this was in the show mailcall a couple years back.

[Total Overkill]

dragonskin body armor versus ak47 this was in the show mailcall a couple years back.

Go find me a US soldier that wears dragonskin that didnt purchase it himself :rolleyes:

[EisenKreutzer]

Mail Call - Dragon Skin® Body Armor - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNY1MtsVwG8) dragonskin body armor versus ak47 this was in the show mailcall a couple years back.

While impressive, the Dragon Skin is not in widespread use by any military agency.

[Kezz]

...high powered ak47 rounds...
AK47 rounds are not high powered. They're a short round, low-medium powered to permit some degree of control over autofire. They're more powerful than a pistol round, but not even "full powered" like NATO 7.62.

It is very difficult to kill american troops while using a rifle.
While using an AK, sure. Most "proper" (.30 cal or better, full power) rifle rounds have rather better penetration performance against all but the chest and back plates of current body armour, AIUI

So the three body shot kills in generic modern shooters is unrealistic.
That may be so, but it's largely irrelevant to PS2, since it's "Science Fiction" (more Science Fantasy, really) and any terminal ballistics performance can be handwaved. Your C21st Barrett .50cal might well bounce off whatever they make HA's exosuit out of, and there aren't many gaps. But personal weapon technology can be handwaved too, so whatever "TTK" makes the most fun game can be set in the game. Not that TTK means a fat lot when there are so many different weapon systems out there to compare. TTK of a LA targeted an MCG at 20m is going to be a lot shorter than TTK of a HA targeted by a Pulsar at 180m.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

I read some stuff on body armor on wikipedia. Durin the american civil war death to injury ratio was nearly 1-1. In vietnam that had climbed to 2.5 injuries per death. In Afghanistan our modern american army has 7 injuries per death. So all I can conclude from that is modern gameplay does not realistically potray body armor and the ttk in modern games would be more similar to civil war casualities when everyone only had a dyed wool jacket to stop bullets.

Well, this is true to an extent.

It depends on the army in question, really, at least in RL. Most militaries do not have large amounts of body armor, although some others do besides the US. In the case of PS, where everyone has armor, I would suppose I would have to accept your statement there. A higher TTK would probably be more realistic.

Actually, incapacitating injuries would be the norm, rather than death. I suppose PS1 was closer to realism in this respect, since when you were "downed" a medic could come by at some point and revive you. Killzone 2 simply animated you rolling around on the ground in agony :P Same result however, provided you weren't gibbed by a rocket.

@other dude about my examples

You're right, I suppose Counterstrike fits into almost exactly the same playstyle as Call of Duty. MilSim with twitch reflexes. My bad. Whatever the rest of my writing, that was a poor choice.

[brighthand]

I'm also a decent pilot and put a lot of time and effort into being very good at it. I can assure you that your efforts/pilot skills will not be in vain when playing PS2. Unless, they nerf, change or gimp the flying mechanics more than what they are now.

Looking at your vid, I can say with confidence you will be a-okay. ;)

haha, thanks :)

[EisenKreutzer]

Lets end the realism debate. It serves no real purpose, sorry for starting it.

[Tatwi]

in the face of a flood of demand for mediocrity and genercness on the part of the 'new generation of gamer,' would stand firm and say 'NO, this is our game and you will learn how to play it or you will leave.' So far, I have seen no game do that.

In the world of MMOs, you'll be happy to know that there are some developers who share this sentiment. The Secret World (http://www.thesecretworld.com/news/blog_lead_designer_martin_bruusgaard_explains_char acter_development) (live), Salem (http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/salem) (closed beta), and The Repopulation (http://www.therepopulation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=175&Itemid=457) (alpha) all take that approach and even Smed said that with Everquest Next SOE's doing it's own thing, "Zigging everyone else's zag".

Sure, it may not be every studio out there that sees the value in making unique, honestly fun game play that can tickle the brain cells, but it's by no means the entire industry that has forsaken these tenants of good, fun game design. Fret not.

[Sturmhardt]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QBwUuiehwBQ/T4IExllkxQI/AAAAAAAAA5Y/Rrxy4fkHypc/s200/george-bush-gif.gif

[Ratstomper]

Sure, it may not be every studio out there that sees the value in making unique, honestly fun game play that can tickle the brain cells, but it's by no means the entire industry that has forsaken these tenants of good, fun game design. Fret not.

This may tarnish my reputation as a PvP-hardened PS1 vet, but EQ classic was my first online game and EQ Next MAY be even more exciting to me than PS2. At least in terms of nostalgia.

I would LOVE to feel that feeling of playing EQ classic again. Anyways, back to the topic at hand....:D

[Littleman]

While impressive, the Dragon Skin is not in widespread use by any military agency.

Which is unfortunate, but it makes a point.

However, as we can make dragon skin armor, so too can we one day make weapons and ammo that render it completely useless, if we haven't already.

High TTK's can be infuriating for newbs because they expect to win when they get the jump. Super low TTK's can be infuriating because a stray round can instantly kill you.

My sweet spot for TTK is where weapon inaccuracy will artificially lengthen TTK's, but one doesn't need to score too many successive hits to kill someone. I've always favored the 5-8 round life span (In PS2, that's shields AND health combined.) No more than 11 unless the target is built specifically to take damage, like the HA with their shield on, or a MAX unit.

Planetside LIVE had acceptable TTK's before the reinforced battle armor (rexo) buff and the empire weaponry was fairly balanced before the buff as well. In fact, the rexo buff pretty much single handedly made the TTK's too long. Agile armors are quick but not too easy to dispatch. I'd say they're just about perfect, sans all the warping from the crappy net code.

[KiddParK]

I have read the first post in this entirely, and scanned the responses of those people who's opinions I have come to rely on around here to be the voice of reason.

I have to agree with him mostly.

I Come from Ghost Recon / Rainbow Six. I'm talking 2001 Ghost Recon on the PC, which was the greatest tactical game I ever played. I tried like crazy to bring that style of play into planetside with the Primer (http://ps.warriornation.net/index_files/page0022.htm), that SOE linked to everyone and it worked for us, because WE wanted to play that way.

I think the tools should be available to play the game however you want. If you have the discipline to organize a bunch of guys to be Delta Force (and the time, dear lord the time) then best of luck. If you can be the 'calm within the storm' of the bigger game then that's a win. I have missed the tactical shooter this past decade (minus DayZ) and I don't expect it ever to return, so we just have to make it ourselves in the games we play with the crew we know.

kp

[Ratstomper]

My sweet spot for TTK is where weapon inaccuracy will artificially lengthen TTK's, but one doesn't need to score too many successive hits to kill someone. I've always favored the 5-8 round life span (In PS2, that's shields AND health combined.) No more than 11 unless the target is built specifically to take damage, like the HA with their shield on, or a MAX unit.


That point is brilliant: artificially lengthening TTKs with inaccuracy promotes control and tactical gameplay over twitchiness and spraying. Never thought of it that way.

[Top Sgt]

Duck hunt for the original Nintendo- most tactical shooter ever made /thread

[OnexBigxHebrew]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QBwUuiehwBQ/T4IExllkxQI/AAAAAAAAA5Y/Rrxy4fkHypc/s200/george-bush-gif.gif

Indeed, lmfao.

And to Mr. Realism talking about historical death to injury ratio as they relate to TTK, you have entirely missed the meaning of that statistic. It doesn't take less time now to mow someone down with a machine gun lmfao, medical science had just evolved. People in the civil war era literally died of infection from breaking a limb, or having a small laceration. Let's not pretend that antibiotics are a useful tool in discussing TTK in a video game.

In the end, it's stupid to use that as an example, and twice as stupid to cite realism in a shooter discussion about a game with purple guys using dubstep guns.

And for the record, bf3 normal (non-hardcore) has a very high TTK for a shooter set in the present, especially compared to CoD.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Yes I understood you perfectly. But I almost feel like that was a jab at my IQ. Probably not though. I have never read you post and thought "this guy is a total troll"

Uh, no. I wasn't insulting you in anyway. I was specifically referring to my tendency to write lengthier posts. I hear Malorn does that, too :P I was hoping I was clear and to the point, without rambling.

Anyway, moving on...

And I agree with the rest of what you say. My use of Counterstrike as an example was probably not so great. And Arma is also greatly simplified from reality. But it's more complex than anything else out there, really. TOO much complexity can get unnecessary, not every aspect of every game needs to be Microsoft Flight Simulator... But TOO simple is also not desirable. Giving gamers a little credit for not being dumbasses is appreciated :P

edit

My example of Arma is I guess biased from using ACE, MMA, and other enhancements :P Base Arma is fairly simple :P

[Ratstomper]

In the end, it's stupid to use that as an example, and twice as stupid to site realism in a shooter discussion about a game with purple guys using dubstep guns.

You're right about the medical stuff. I agree on that point. However, saying realism has no place in a game like PS2 is kind of illogical. Obviously, you can BS tech for whatever you need in a futuristic game, but that doesn't mean that basic logic regarding the way reality works should be thrown out the window. If anything, designers should stick as closely to realistic as possible and use that BS tech as excuses to promote (or eliminate) certain expects of realism for the sake of fun.

People have a basic idea of how the universe works. Being willing to chuck all realism out the window makes a game with facets people won't understand or want to use. Alot of the infamously cheap shooter tactics fall into this category: dolphin diving, clipping through walls or ridges, etc.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

How is low ttk unrealistic?

That's what I'm saying. Don't worry though, I blew his 'evidence' out of the water a few posts ago lol.

You're right about the medical stuff. I agree on that point. However, saying realism has no place in a game like PS2 is kind of illogical. Obviously, you can BS tech for whatever you need in a futuristic game, but that doesn't mean that basic logic regarding the way reality works should be thrown out the window. If anything, designers should stick as closely to realistic as possible and use that BS tech as excuses to promote (or eliminate) certain expects of realism for the sake of fun.

People have a basic idea of how the universe works. Being willing to chuck all realism out the window makes a game with facets people won't understand or want to use. Alot of the infamously cheap shooter tactics fall into this category: dolphin diving, clipping through walls or ridges, etc.

Yeah, fair enough, I just meant it moreso in the TTK discussion, should have clarified, my bad.

[Lumberchuk]

I agree with OP, I hope they didn't take that from BF3 (the conforming part)

[Ratstomper]

Yeah, fair enough, I just meant it moreso in the TTK discussion, should have clarified, my bad.

Ah, ok. Sorry, I misunderstood. :)

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Back to the TTK part.

It is true though that some militaries use body armor, and that these people are not necessarily taken out of commission by one shot, unless it's a direct hit to the head or unarmored body part.

I think everybody's made some good points all around, including the medical aspect, which doesn't really factor into the scale of PS.

And as Rat mentioned, saying "realism has no place in this discussion" is erroneous at best.

[EisenKreutzer]

And as Rat mentioned, saying "realism has no place in this discussion" is erroneous at best.

How so?

[Reizod]

I agree with OP, I hope they didn't take that from BF3 (the conforming part)

Well they kinda of did. It's something they have to "adapt" to if they want to bring in the $$$ to sustain the game and keep everyone happy and gaming. The toughest jobs for the Devs, particularly Higby is to try and find that balance. Major kudos to them if they pull this off. I will be a rabid fan for life.

[damijin]

Long thread is long. OP seems to be citing a lot of console shooters that have suffered the dumb-it-down syndrome.

I would offer a theory on that. Shooters hail originally from the PC, where, for the most part, they have been thriving ever since. Even in the era of CoD, there are great PC Shooters with unique gameplay that remind us why the mouse and keyboard are superior (Tribes: Ascend, Counterstrike: GO, TF2... theres so many types of gameplay!)

So, I would offer the theory that console shooting is really just.. not meant to be. Aiming with dual thumb sticks is just, handicapped, honestly. But in this era, more people have a 360 than a great PC with horsepower to play new stuff. So, as a result, shooters have been getting dumbed down for those controllers. I have not noticed this trend AT ALL in the realm of PC Shooters, unless you are including the PC ports of console shooters in your assessment. MW3 is designed for consoles. BF3 is, most likely, designed for consoles more than PCs. Console design is bad for shooters. Planetside won't be on a console. Welcome back to the golden age of pew pew pew.

[Ratstomper]

How so?

I was speaking about the game generally. If you throw out all realism because "nanites" then you're going to have a game world governed by rules that most people won't really understand. For instance, If I shoot someone in the head multiple times and he doesn't die, the first thing I'm going to say is "WTF? I shot him in the head multiple times!!" the game has to be based on realistic principles, because that's what people have gotten used to since they were born.

Excuses of futuristic tech should only be used to add or remove aspects of reality that are nonviable for balance or fun.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@dam

Yeah, you're right. It's mostly consoles or console ports, which have to compensate for the clumsiness of joypads. Hadn't considered that. PC specific games usually are the more complex/precise ones.

[MrBloodworth]

http://0.asset.soup.io/asset/3239/2336_cf60.gif

I'll just sum up this whole dam thing in one image.

[Ratstomper]

http://0.asset.soup.io/asset/3239/2336_cf60.gif

"9 year old with leukemia"

:lol: That's hilarious.

[Miniman]

Sliiiightly agree with the sticking to your guns message here, but PS was slow. Too slow. Ever tried shooting down a Galaxy with AV? Kills in large fights were generally rare and only obtainable by frowned upon tactics (camping, plasma etc) or organised tactics. Fine if PS is a hobby and you belong to outfits, but to the more casual gamers, who can't commit to getting to know 'friends' in-game, PS was just not fun at times.

PS2 right now is looking hugely to similiar to BF3. A triple A shooter, released less than a year ago - 8 years after PS. Trying to avoid similarities to BF3 or even.....COD :/....would be neglecting 8 years of FPS progress.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

http://0.asset.soup.io/asset/3239/2336_cf60.gif

I almost died lmao

[vVRedOctoberVv]

How is "camping" frowned upon, except by dipshits? If somebody can't handle a stationary target, sounds like a personal problem... I guess RL snipers are "dirty camp whores"?

[Reizod]

How is "camping" frowned upon, except by dipshits? If somebody can't handle a stationary target, sounds like a personal problem... I guess RL snipers are "dirty camp whores"?

+2 My friend :thumbsup:

[MrBloodworth]

How is "camping" frowned upon, except by dipshits? If somebody can't handle a stationary target, sounds like a personal problem... I guess RL snipers are "dirty camp whores"?

Snipers run in teams, and that's why they are broken in "modern shooters". Not to mention artificial distances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_team

[Ratstomper]

Snipers run in teams.

And their job isn't to have fun and be sportsmanlike... It was kind of loaded rhetoric and a clumsy analogy.

[EisenKreutzer]

How is "camping" frowned upon, except by dipshits? If somebody can't handle a stationary target, sounds like a personal problem... I guess RL snipers are "dirty camp whores"?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a sniper lying in a corner, oneshotting people who have no way of defending themselves or even knowing he's there is a legitimate, non-cheese tactic?

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Yes. It's a WAR game. The idea is to kill WITHOUT getting killed. Sniping requires as much or more skill as rushing a doorway.

[EisenKreutzer]

Yes. It's a WAR game. The idea is to kill WITHOUT getting killed. Sniping requires as much or more skill as rushing a doorway. You speak as one of the individuals I described who is incapable of dealing with a stationary target...

I'm sorry, with your statement there, you just lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Eisenkreutzer -5 Internet Reputations

No, this is not war. This is a game. And in a game, there is such a thing as cheesy tactics.
If you don't believe me, try 6- or 7-pooling in Starcraft 2 and see how popular you become.

Also, dealing with a stationary target is easy. Dealing with a stationary who is cornercamping like a little bitch isn't.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Snipers run in teams, and that's why they are broken in "modern shooters". Not to mention artificial distances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_team


Snipers do usually work in teams, yes. In part this is because RL sniper deployments are for hours or days, and they often rotate between spotting and sniping. It is not that any one of them is incapable of headshotting you. The spotter simply assists with target acquisition and the calculations if it's very long range. For ranges under 500 meters, I seriously doubt most snipers "need" spotters, since many hunters operate at ranges out that far.

Artificial distances are an issue, though, I'll agree. Most games are restricted to distances less than 100 meters (where a sniper is unnecessary) and guns are artificially reduced to being unable to fire that far.

[Miniman]

Camping in the sense of just putting yourself in a very adventitious position and waiting for the kills to come to you. No real purpose other than to get kills. Snipings is a tactic - suppressing infantry, allowing you to progress.

[Baneblade]

Camping has another name:

Ambushing

[vVRedOctoberVv]

No, this is not war. This is a game. And in a game, there is such a thing as cheesy tactics.
If you don't believe me, try 6- or 7-pooling in Starcraft 2 and see how popular you become.

Also, dealing with a stationary target is easy. Dealing with a stationary who is cornercamping like a little bitch isn't.

Sorry, dude. It is a game yes... A WAR game. Thus WAR tactics can/should be applied. The only part about "corner camping" that could be wrong is if you are in third person view and can see around the corner when your opponent can't. That is unfair, I agree. That not being the case, anybody complaining about it is being a whiney bitch.

"cheese tactic" is a term the lazy/stupid use for when they can't handle something simple. Know what fixes a corner camper? Grenade. Yep. Everytime. Reality, in close quarters, the first guy around a corner is the one most likely to get shot. Nothing "cheesy" about that, it's just reality.

Camping in the sense of just putting yourself in a very adventitious position and waiting for the kills to come to you. No real purpose other than to get kills. Snipings is a tactic - suppressing infantry, allowing you to progress.

Same thing. Camping is preventing an enemy from taking or travelling through an area without resistance.

The whole purpose of the fighting in general is to get kills and or to win the encounter/battle/match (whatever the case may be). That's silly to even say that!

-edit

One last comment at Eisen, regarding "see how popular you become"

I could really not give a shit less how popular I am on the internet. My feelings of self-worth are not based off what postage stamp sized pictures of people, or angry text walls, think of me.

[EisenKreutzer]

Alright, fine, I relent.

Camping is a legitimate, though infuriating tactic. It has it's advantages (easy to get kills) and it's disadvantages (campers are easy to kill once you know where they are).

A good camper will pick a new camping spot to put up his tent in once he's gotten a few kills.

I don't particularly like camping as a tactic, but I have to admit I have camped in the past.

There are, however, people who will do nothing but cornercamp for an entire match (mostly in CoD), and these people piss me off. Because they kill me. And I don't like that.

[brighthand]

Long thread is long. OP seems to be citing a lot of console shooters that have suffered the dumb-it-down syndrome.

I would offer a theory on that. Shooters hail originally from the PC, where, for the most part, they have been thriving ever since. Even in the era of CoD, there are great PC Shooters with unique gameplay that remind us why the mouse and keyboard are superior (Tribes: Ascend, Counterstrike: GO, TF2... theres so many types of gameplay!)

So, I would offer the theory that console shooting is really just.. not meant to be. Aiming with dual thumb sticks is just, handicapped, honestly. But in this era, more people have a 360 than a great PC with horsepower to play new stuff. So, as a result, shooters have been getting dumbed down for those controllers. I have not noticed this trend AT ALL in the realm of PC Shooters, unless you are including the PC ports of console shooters in your assessment. MW3 is designed for consoles. BF3 is, most likely, designed for consoles more than PCs. Console design is bad for shooters. Planetside won't be on a console. Welcome back to the golden age of pew pew pew.

I have a feeling you are referring to technical features offered by the PC over consoles while I am more referring to core mechanics that up until planetside's sprawling openworld battles, could actually be offered on consoles as well; its just that the devs don't want to because the complexity scares the money away.

A good example would be Killzone 2 (TWO) for ps3, which was in no way a dumbed down shooter; infact it was a great hardcore shooter that some believe should have been made for PC- they even had a server browser and customizble lobbies when everyone else had matchmaking. The game's sequel, Killzone 3 was dumbed down in every aspect of the game. Killzone 2 fans were appaled. I attribute that to trends and not exclusively because it is on console.

bf3 however was dumbed down due to a console-centric development process, but also because of a disire to appeal to as many people as possible. As a result, they took out many features that would have made it a rich and tactical experience, which despite being on console as well, could have been implemented, but would not sell as much.

Still, I'm with you on the PC exclusivity. That should help keep the watering down contained a bit, as the PC demographic IS different than that of the console one (generally speaking), and the PC player expects more.

I play both console and PC depending on the game. I am not fanboying; I simply acknowledge that as a console player, I am in the minority when it comes to the likes and dislikes of my target demographic, and as a PC player, a PC exclusive runs a higher chance of producing something that appeals to my tastes.

[EisenKreutzer]

Sorry, dude. You're officially labeled an idiot now, as far as I'm concerned.

Was that really neccessary? Do we need to stoop into ad hominem territory every time we meet someone who disagrees with us?
I might have employed a harsh tone, but theres just no call for that. Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed. You usually construct such compelling arguments.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Alright, fine, relent.

Camping is a legitimate, though infuriating tactic. It has it's advantages (easy to get kills) and it's disadvantages (campers are easy to kill once you know where they are).

A good camper will pick a new camping spot to put up his tent in once he's gotten a few kills.

I don't particularly like camping as a tactic, but I have to admit I have camped in the past.

There are, however, people who will do nothing but cornercamp for an entire match (mostly in CoD), and these people piss me off. Because they kill me. And I don't like that.

Truce. Sorry for my part.

I understand what you mean. I always hated rocket spammers/suiciders, but once I got fed up with them, I just shifted to targeting them specifically and they ceased to be so effective. As you said, once someone starts doing something repetitiously, it is possible (sometimes easy) to compensate.

Was that really neccessary? Do we need to stoop into ad hominem territory every time we meet someone who disagrees with us?
I might have employed a harsh tone, but theres just no call for that. Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed. You usually construct such compelling arguments.

Text edited to be more user friendly now :) No hard feelings.

STUFF


In their defense, it's harder from a base level to achieve the complexity of a PC game... cause they don't have 100+ keys in front of them. Basically, though, you're right that to some extent they could expand that. A much larger number of people who play consoles tend to fit the more "casual" spectrum, though, from my observations. Whereas PC tends to be... more finicky.

It's a community thing, I think, more than anything else. Not that consolers are incapable/unwilling to delve into more complex things, but the community doesn't cater to it as much? I dunno. And there is money in catering to the community.

[brighthand]

In their defense, it's harder from a base level to achieve the complexity of a PC game... cause they don't have 100+ keys in front of them. Basically, though, you're right that to some extent they could expand that. A much larger number of people who play consoles tend to fit the more "casual" spectrum, though, from my observations. Whereas PC tends to be... more finicky.

It's a community thing, I think, more than anything else. Not that consolers are incapable/unwilling to delve into more complex things, but the community doesn't cater to it as much? I dunno. And there is money in catering to the community.

agreed

[TheDAWinz]

Was that really neccessary? Do we need to stoop into ad hominem territory every time we meet someone who disagrees with us?
I might have employed a harsh tone, but theres just no call for that. Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed. You usually construct such compelling arguments.

360 degree vision saaaays...... You are wrong, lol!

P.C. Master Race.

That being said, Games like BF3 and COD have their own little niche, but during the last 10 years there have been so many successful advancements in the market that i see nothing wrong with ps2 taking some of the quality features to implement in the game.

[grimPI]

... Why are you going on about this?

[vVRedOctoberVv]

That being said, Games like BF3 and COD have their own little niche

Agreed, I've played them. I just dislike that 98% of shooters out there are all clones of each other! There's been like 17 CoDs, now or something :P Not to mention all the one offs that never make it big.

I do think there have been some interesting innovations over the years though, and they should include the best of these.

... Why are you going on about this?

Nothing better to do.

[TheDAWinz]

Agreed, I've played them. I just dislike that 98% of shooters out there are all clones of each other! There's been like 17 CoDs, now or something :P Not to mention all the one offs that never make it big.

I do think there have been some interesting innovations over the years though, and they should include the best of these.



Nothing better to do.

I just stick with ARMA 2, BF3 (occasional), Skyrim, Minecraft, NBA 2k12, and GTA 4 every now and then. and Total war, i love total war.

[lawnmower]

Yes. It's a WAR game. The idea is to kill WITHOUT getting killed. Sniping requires as much or more skill as rushing a doorway. You speak as one of the individuals I described who is incapable of dealing with a stationary target...

I'm sorry, with your statement there, you just lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Eisenkreutzer -5 Internet Reputations
buddy you earlier put modern console shooter games in the same category as UT.
also sniping has a lower skill ceiling than close combat gunplay

[vVRedOctoberVv]

buddy you earlier put modern console shooter games in the same category as UT.
also sniping has a lower skill ceiling than close combat gunplay

I put UT under the category of "twitch based" gameplay. Which is it is, as were the other two games in it.

I disagree about sniping having a lower skill ceiling. It requires a completely different skill set. I do agree that most games do it improperly, which is where a lot of the dissatisfaction comes from, I would imagine.

[EisenKreutzer]

Truce. Sorry for my part.

I understand what you mean. I always hated rocket spammers/suiciders, but once I got fed up with them, I just shifted to targeting them specifically and they ceased to be so effective. As you said, once someone starts doing something repetitiously, it is possible (sometimes easy) to compensate.



Text edited to be more user friendly now :) No hard feelings.

No worries. And thats precisely on point with the rocket spammer thing.

[lawnmower]

I put UT under the category of "twitch based" gameplay. Which is it is, as were the other two games in it.

I disagree about sniping having a lower skill ceiling. It requires a completely different skill set. I do agree that most games do it improperly, which is where a lot of the dissatisfaction comes from, I would imagine.
whats twitchbased, because im pretty sure they arent in the same category anywhere

[EisenKreutzer]

whats twitchbased, because im pretty sure they arent in the same category anywhere

He means that success in the two games largely depend on how fast your mouse reflexes are, as opposed to how good you move, how well you know the maps or your tactics for example.

[VaderShake]

8 pages deep.....if this thread is not proof we have seen all we need to see and talked about all we need to talk about and it's time for the beta I don't know what is...:lol:

[vVRedOctoberVv]

UT is one of the games that flagshipped the modern concept of deathmatching. That's why I included it. It was "the first". Not THE first, but one of the first really famous ones :P

[OnexBigxHebrew]

+2 My friend :thumbsup:

No no, my good man. +3! :D

[vVRedOctoberVv]

8 pages deep.....if this thread is not proof we have seen all we need to see and it's time for the beta I don't know what is...:lol:

:D We're more hard up than virgins in a whore house.

[TheDAWinz]

:D We're more hard up than virgins in a whore house.

Hehehehe that thread earlier made me lol hard.

[ArmedZealot]

8 pages deep.....if this thread is not proof we have seen all we need to see and talked about all we need to talk about and it's time for the beta I don't know what is...:lol:

no shit.

A full thread with nothing but angst directed.....where?

No one in this thread knows what they are nagging about but they sure as hell want to nag.

[Sighpolice]

I agree with OP to an extent, however I don't think you (or others) realise just what made planetside what it was.. The scale of it all.

It's not a 32 v 32 battle, and it's not team swapping or round based or anything.. it's a crazy persistent world. In the current FPS market you have small scale battles and they have to flavour it up with something like kill streaks, aim assist, low spawn times. When you only have 16 players to fight against it's gets pretty boring pretty quick.

Whereas in planetside 2 you'll be fighting over a base for hours, you'll be fighting 500+ players and I guarantee you'll forget all about how "dumbed down" the game is. You won't even think about it, you'll be thinking about where you're going next, does this base need defending, you're new cert points, what's your squad doing, what's the EMPIRE doing (500+ team mates), watching the chat channels to see if people are reporting masses of aircraft and therefore you'll go jump into an AA Max suit. Shit like that is all that goes through you're head.

You will be so immersed and so amazed by the game, the liberators flying over your head clearing the rooftop so the galaxy's can come in afterwards and drop in troops to a clear roof, breaching the control panel etc.A tiny thing like a killstreak award isn't going to bother you in the slightest.

Hell, planetside 1 is never remembered for it's weaponry, or it's hit box reg, or it's shiny graphics. None of those things mattered because you're rolling along in a sunderer with you're two best mates blowing the shit out of some barney scum having the time of you're life.

[lawnmower]

He means that success in the two games largely depend on how fast your mouse reflexes are, as opposed to how good you move, how well you know the maps or your tactics for example.
reflexes arent very important at all there. ESPECIALLY not compared to cs

[Doxy]

As right as OP may be, he said it himself, he is a Minority.
COD kids are a majority, thus they dictate the rules.
And no company in their right mind, will pick minority die hard fans over majority cash profits.

[diLLa]

He means that success in the two games largely depend on how fast your mouse reflexes are, as opposed to how good you move, how well you know the maps or your tactics for example.

Funny.

I can say I'm fairly skilled at twitch shooters, including CoD. And even though my reflexes are probably above average, most of my successes come from movement and good decision making.

On competitive level every team-based game has tactics and teamplay. You shouldn't judge a game solely on public game experience.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Funny.

I can say I'm fairly skilled at twitch shooters, including CoD. And even though my reflexes are probably above average, most of my successes come from movement and good decision making.

On competitive level every team-based game has tactics and teamplay. You shouldn't judge a game solely on public game experience.

Yes.... if you isolate yourself from the general populace, a lot of things become possible. However, isolating yourself from the general populace is only semi-possible in PlanetSide, via outfits. Public game experience, being 95% of what people experience, is naturally what they are going to base their experiences off of. Experience. I wanted to say it one more time.

[Sledgecrushr]

Indeed, lmfao.

And to Mr. Realism talking about historical death to injury ratio as they relate to TTK, you have entirely missed the meaning of that statistic. It doesn't take less time now to mow someone down with a machine gun lmfao, medical science had just evolved. People in the civil war era literally died of infection from breaking a limb, or having a small laceration. Let's not pretend that antibiotics are a useful tool in discussing TTK in a video game.

In the end, it's stupid to use that as an example, and twice as stupid to cite realism in a shooter discussion about a game with purple guys using dubstep guns.

And for the record, bf3 normal (non-hardcore) has a very high TTK for a shooter set in the present, especially compared to CoD.

Youre absolutely right about medicine being a big factor in todays high survivability rate in combat. I just want you to eat your words about body armor not being effective.

[ArmedZealot]

As right as OP may be, he said it himself, he is a Minority.
COD kids are a majority, thus they dictate the rules.
And no company in their right mind, will pick minority die hard fans over majority cash profits.

This is debatable. Companies as large as CCP and as small as shrapnel games target their games to a more niche audience of die hard fans. CCP has grown a large loyal fanbase that understands it's game and builds a thriving community around those mechanics.

However for PS2 to be successful at launch, the game has unique reasons for requiring a large player base. In other words, PS2 requires a large base for its core game play rather than just turning a profit. PS1 isn't a fun game at low pops, and PS2 has this same trait.

[Papscal]

A wall of text that actually had something intelligent to say with factual content. Good read OP.

[JSweigart]

I can agree with the spirit of the OP.. I dont think it was meant to be Elitist.

I would suggest separate servers for "Tactical" gameplay and "Zergers"

When I was beta testing PSide1, and for some time after release, people actually used tactics instead of just running blindly into the fray. Unfortunately, I dont think they're going to be able to avoid the "Zerg" crowd.. There is just simply too many of them.

Play any CoD game and take a listen to the players talking. This is what Im afraid of for PSide2.. Hence the suggestion of different "playstyle" servers. It will probably never happen, but... Oh well... Just another suggestion to be ignored :D

-J

[Kalbuth]

Planetside was not a tactical shooter, nor will PS2 be.

Planetside was a strategic game however, and PS2 has not lost those elements.

This



Something to note about modern-style FPS, is their tendency for hollywood rather than gameplay.

I'm playing a mix of BF and T:A lately, and the differences between both are huge, but tactically speaking, the so called most "realist" one is probably not the winner.

BF-style of games... I don't know how to really describe it... they prevent you from playing.
You are denied the possibility to shoot your opponent by tons of artificial effects thrown at you for all the wrong reasons : huge light bloom, overdone dark areas, ever present smoke, screen shaking at every occasion, ennemy having a weapon unlock which blinds you, bullet passing by which makes vision so blurry they should simply force the screen dark instead. Tons, literraly, tons of effects so that you cannot do what a FPS is made for : aiming and shooting at your ennemy.
All this combined with a fast pace to force you to throw yourself into said effects.
They may be very proud of their engine effects and how so realistic they are (LOL), and thus absolutely want you to see them, but for me, they simply destroy gameplay.

T:A in the other hand is very simplistic in the effects (even though they added some stupid ones for the ... I don't know why, in fact), and the difficulty does not come from going past said effects, but simply because the task before you is difficult :
are you able to build up enough speed for this grab, or to chase this flag taker?
Are you able to coordinate enough with your capper so that you clear the flag defense in the 3 seconds window needed for your capper to pass by, before you die?
Are you able to coordinate your attack on this standoff flag def so that your infiltrator can sneak in and Sonic Punch the flag and resecure? (nota : most of these are rather impossible in pub T:A gameplay, unfortunately, too difficult to achieve)

BF is difficult by obsfucation (sp?) (the task is easy, seeing it is not), T:A is difficult by gameplay (the task is clear, but difficult to achieve).


There are several modern-style effects which are simply stupid and not needed in any type of game (overdone light bloom and dark, suppression blur), some other may enhance things (blinding of some sort some smoke, etc, light screen shaking...), but they need to be used in slow paced games.
You simply can't have high speed gaming (which is clearly one of the gameplay element SOE wants in PS2, they explicitely stated that was one of the central changes they made compared to PS1) with effects stopping you from playing, this is stupid design.

I'd prefer to have PS2 to be rather high speed, no effect, than slower speed mixed with "tactical" effects.
From the different FPS I played (ranging from ArmA/OFP to T:A, QuakeWars and the likes), the way I see it, the pace will not dictate the amount of tactics used.
You see as much stupidity/lonewolfing in a T:A public game as in a ArmA Warfare, Berzerk or AAS public game. And in both, a tactical, synced and team-oriented group will be the most efficient anyway.

[Graywolves]

This looked like a fun thread. I'm sad I missed the party.

Most of us in the community (in my opinion) are also hoping that Planetside 2 will end the stagnation of the FPS genre in rewarding gun play.


One of the ways I view skill in games is the ability to perform to a consistent standard. If a player can consistently hit his opponent and make strong maneuvers then he should definitely be rewarded for that. In recent low TTK games - Having a strong consistent game play didn't matter much because the mechanics are gimmicky and reward spray-and-pray.



The instant gratification model may work for the console when they pump out new titles every year and push in some novelty to make it appealing. I don't think it would work in an MMO setting when you need thousands of players online 24/7.

[Reizod]

Right on the money Greywolves...

I'm afraid that once open beta starts and all of the new folks get in, that the devs will give a slight preference to what caters to the "easy gamers" rather than skilled ones.

[wasdie]

I think you want the infantry game to be more in line with a tactical shooter. Planetside is not a tactical shooter, it's an arcade shooter and has been since 2003. Basically it took a pretty involved meta game full of teamwork and strategy and played it out with a very basic arena shooter style of gameplay. Go in guns blazing. Nothing really tactical about that on the small scale.

The strategy came with logistics. How do you get to the fight? How can you sustain the fight? How can you support the fight? All of those elements are still in Planetside 2, even if they have been changed from Planetside. Once the actual fight began, it was nothing but a spam. Most big base fights were just grinds until one side lost the logistics or numbers to keep fighting.

Planetside is all about the larger scale, and Planetside 2 hasn't lost any of that.

If anything, I think Planetside 2 now has more tactics than Planetside 1 does. The lower TTK and the lay out of the map now favor position and small scale tactics over mob mentality and zerging.

Also this whole "skilled" vs. "unskilled" gamer argument I see here is 100% elitism and you sound like a bunch of stuck up jackasses. "Those players aren't good enough for me, the developers shouldn't bother with them." It's a pathetic mindset and a terrible arguing point.

[snaffe]

Kalbuth, totally agree and very well explained!

I only played BF3 briefly but still regularly play T:A.

Cannae wait fer ps2 like!

[feuerdog]

It's a balancing act to be sure....but I have confidence that the PS2 team knows what it will take to find that unique game that PS1 was and PS2 shall improve upon.


MMOFPS - The potential number of PS2 players in a game the immense scale that PS2 intends to populate means that in order for PS2 to be successful we need players; Lot's of players. Now i'm not saying the devs are dumbing down the game to make it more accessible to FPS-centric players, but they would be foolish to try and exclude them just to make the game seem more strategic or tactically deep.
It's a balancing act of having your cake and eating it too. The K:D, kill streak, twitch players should be perfectly at home in a game like PS2. There is plenty of room for them. But at the same time, the balance is a deeper meta-game, a cooperative need, and strategic objectives that support the non-twitch based players.
Again, it's a big world out there and I think the devs understand that PS2 has the potential, and more realistically the NEED, to support all styles of play in a game of this epic scale.

Stats and Acheivements - Stats are stats, they are numbers, they are nothing more than a reference for those who are interested in such things.
Simply having stats does not lead the player to play a certain way. But of course if a player chooses to react to his stats then it is so. It's a double edged sword as well, there are just as many players whose play is positively affected by the tracking of personal stats as there are players who focus too heavily on these stats and suffer a bigger picture view of what may be more important in a game like PS2,....teamwork for example.
The key here again is balance. Having access to stats that not only track the individual accomplishments, but also the cooperative, teamwork based support, and strategic goals of the game.
Acheivements and stats are merely references to compare for oneself and to others. If anything at all they provide only guidance on where to improve, not how to play.

Summary - Is PS2 turing into a modern day shooter,....no. But it will incorporate the popular aspects of modern shooters because that standard has been set and is expected to be met, and even exceeded.
Will PS2 sacrifice it's PS1 strategic meta-game feel,.....no. But it will refine and improve itself in depth, customization, and a new resource based strategic component, new territory based progression, and more diverse and complex tactical play.

I look at it this way,....PS2 will be no less strategically meta-game oriented than PS1 was. In fact I think it's already deeper in thios regard. What PS2 will be is far more tactically oriented, and in terms of sheer scale and scope, far more than PS1, or any other game for that matter, ever was.

Beta is only the beginning, and most of us aren't even there yet. Give it time to come together, and I think we will all be pleased with the result.

[Xyntech]

I think that the important thing here is balance. Not weapon balance or class balance, but the balance between what makes a game fun to jump in and start playing, versus what's engaging to keep playing a game for hours on end and years to come.

I tend to think things like higher TTK's are better, but there is a limit to everything. Not to go all straw man here, but if it took 5 minutes to kill an infantryman in an evenly matched 1 on 1 fight, I doubt anybody would disagree that it was absurd. Like with anything, longer TTK's are only better in moderation, and if the rest of the games mechanics are well thought out to support it, I really don't think TTK's need to be all that much longer to get the job done.

Finding sweet spots of balance in any aspect of a video game is really a spectacular thing to behold. It's amazing how a few decimal places here and there can turn a terrible experience into an amazing one.

Planetside 2 needs to find one of those sweet spots if it wants to be the next big thing. It's not going to come down to any simple concept like "somewhere between COD and the original Planetside" either. It will definitely fall somewhere in that vague area, but it's going to be a much more complex formula than that.

I'm not concerned about PS2's ability to attract a modern audience. It's graphics are good, it's gunplay is apparently a lot of fun, and there are plenty of little things to keep the short attention spanned people happy. So all that's really left is to make sure that the game has all the appropriate depth to cater to the long term players, while avoiding compromising the games casual surface appeal.

I just hope that a lot of players try to to think more in terms of small tweaks during beta. I sincerely doubt that we are going to need any vast overhauls to make the gameplay into something great. Just a few small adjustments in the appropriate places, and the game is going to shine.

Simply put, a lot of modern shooters are very sloppy in their implementation. With just a little thought put in by the fanbase and the dev team, I truly believe that PS2 can find a perfect balance between casual player appeasement and long term depth that is truly rewarding.

[feuerdog]

You are denied the possibility to shoot your opponent by tons of artificial effects thrown at you for all the wrong reasons : huge light bloom, overdone dark areas, ever present smoke, screen shaking at every occasion, ennemy having a weapon unlock which blinds you, bullet passing by which makes vision so blurry they should simply force the screen dark instead. Tons, literraly, tons of effects so that you cannot do what a FPS is made for : aiming and shooting at your ennemy.
All this combined with a fast pace to force you to throw yourself into said effects.
They may be very proud of their engine effects and how so realistic they are (LOL), and thus absolutely want you to see them, but for me, they simply destroy gameplay.


While agree that modern shooters do pump up the effects to rediculous levels to build the excitement, I can assure you that the immersion/simulation/realism aspects of these games is far better now because of these effects than it's ever been before.

Being blinded by the sun, stunned and shaken by explosives, blurred vision from fear, dust, smoke, etc. It's all very true in combat. Shooting games will never capture the horrors of real combat, so they use amped up special effects to simulate that immersion.

PS2 is about combat, why too shouldn't it explore these same immersive effects for it's tactical combat immersion? It should.

But it should also support all that the fast paced shooters are not, and that is a deeper, deliberate, strategically paced, territorially based resource control meta game.

Again,...it's about balance, and utilizing the best aspects of a variety of games.

[wasdie]

While agree that modern shooters do pump up the effects to rediculous levels to build the excitement, I can assure you that the immersion/simulation/realism aspects of these games is far better now because of these effects than it's ever been before.

Being blinded by the sun, stunned and shaken by explosives, blurred vision from fear, dust, smoke, etc. It's all very true in combat. Shooting games will never capture the horrors of real combat, so they use amped up special effects to simulate that immersion.

PS2 is about combat, why too shouldn't it explore these same immersive effects for it's tactical combat immersion? It should.

But it should also support all that the fast paced shooters are not, and that is a deeper, deliberate, strategically paced, territorially based resource control meta game.

Again,...it's about balance, and utilizing the best aspects of a variety of games.

Well there is the argument of immersion vs. competition. Most people who complain about modern shooters want something more like Quake, Unreal Tounry, or Counter Stirke, where it's not about immersion but rather about 100% competition.

That's not how Planetside is or ever was.

There is also the whole teambased vs. solo emphasis in these shooters. Again, most people who want this game to be more about pure competition want it to be more of a solo oriented game, where the most skilled player will come out on top. This means removing elements that could hamper that one skilled players abilities.

That's why the Tribes and Battlefield series has really stood out from Counterstrike, Quake, and Unreal Tounry. The focus on those games are the 1v1 or the 5v5 play while Tribes and Battlefield have been about the 32 vs 32 game where teamwork trumps individual skill. Planetside is modeled after the latter in that case as well. Even BF3 still carries the same philosophies and gameplay style that BF1942 started with, even though everything about it has been upgraded to modern times. A good player cannot win the game themselves and there are way more factor into the overall end result than just how good people are at killing the enemy.

Then of course there are the people who want every FPS to be very tactical and realistic. Extremely low TTKs and an emphasis on real world tactics. It's far more team oriented on the low-level as solo players don't stand a chance, but as I've seen from WWII Online, it doesn't work on the large scale at all. Logistics aren't just a bitch, it's just not fun.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Being blinded by the sun, stunned and shaken by explosives, blurred vision from fear, dust, smoke, etc. It's all very true in combat. Shooting games will never capture the horrors of real combat, so they use amped up special effects to simulate that immersion.

These elements are all rather traumatizing and unpleasant in real life. Why attempt to port them to a medium that is supposed to be fun? I have to turn the sound way down in BC2 just because the the explosion sounds and resulting player shellshock make me nauseous.

That's why the Tribes and Battlefield series has really stood out from Counterstrike, Quake, and Unreal Tounry. The focus on those games are the 1v1 or the 5v5 play while Tribes and Battlefield have been about the 32 vs 32 game where teamwork trumps individual skill.

In all fairness, the most recent Tribes incarnation can be won by a single good player, mostly because defense is a joke and past a certain point chasers can't keep up.

[feuerdog]

These elements are all rather traumatizing and unpleasant in real life. Why attempt to port them to a medium that is supposed to be fun? I have to turn the sound way down in BC2 just because the the explosion sounds and resulting player shellshock make me nauseous.


Traumatizing, yes, but realistic, and therefore immersive.
Immersion is a quality. So is fear, the fear of injury, loss, and death. These are aspects of combat that while realistically unpleasant are a part of the excitement of combat. That excitement is what these combat based games are all about.

Should we go ahead and make PS2 a black and white game so that colors don't bring out too much realism? No, I think not.

There is a limit on simulation realism vs. gaming fun, I agree, but I think the general population accepts that most special audio/visual effects of the current generation of games are the default standard.

[wasdie]

These elements are all rather traumatizing and unpleasant in real life. Why attempt to port them to a medium that is supposed to be fun? I have to turn the sound way down in BC2 just because the the explosion sounds and resulting player shellshock make me nauseous.



In all fairness, the most recent Tribes incarnation can be won by a single good player, mostly because defense is a joke and past a certain point chasers can't keep up.

Tribes really kind of abandoned it's roots in favor of the F2P model and the modern conventions of leveling and unlocks.

It's still a fun game, but it's nothing like Tribes 2.

[Kalbuth]

While agree that modern shooters do pump up the effects to rediculous levels to build the excitement, I can assure you that the immersion/simulation/realism aspects of these games is far better now because of these effects than it's ever been before.

Being blinded by the sun, stunned and shaken by explosives, blurred vision from fear, dust, smoke, etc. It's all very true in combat. Shooting games will never capture the horrors of real combat, so they use amped up special effects to simulate that immersion.

PS2 is about combat, why too shouldn't it explore these same immersive effects for it's tactical combat immersion? It should.

But it should also support all that the fast paced shooters are not, and that is a deeper, deliberate, strategically paced, territorially based resource control meta game.

Again,...it's about balance, and utilizing the best aspects of a variety of games.
After some years seeing all this at work, in the end, no, it is not more immersive at all.
It LOOKS more immersive the first time you stumble on it
It is definitely annoying after 50 hours
To me, it's definitely a Hollywood tendency rather than realism.
Immersion, everywhere I played, always came from context and the people I was playing with, be it on Falcon 4 flight, OFP pre-planned multiplayer campaigns, DayZ encounters with players, lately, to give a few examples. The effects were negligible in the immersion outcome. Tension and immersion come from context, something so-called realist modern shooters completely miss. They bring you a completely unrealistic context, overdone realistic effects, and think it's going to portray reality.

I completely agree in the strategic meta-game that PS can bring which is absent everywhere else, though :)

There is also the whole teambased vs. solo emphasis in these shooters. Again, most people who want this game to be more about pure competition want it to be more of a solo oriented game, where the most skilled player will come out on top. This means removing elements that could hamper that one skilled players abilities. Rather wrong assumption here. I've seen many groups playing twitch-based shooters being on teamplay levels way, way above what I've seen in more simulation/tactical games I've played.

As well, I don't really understand your "immersion vs competition". What is immersion for you?
Watching an interactive movie is not immersive to me, like I said, it can be stunning the first time you see it, after a while, I need something else to "be there", and I start seeing the game like a movie played in front of my eyes. Hollywood.
I'm immersed by the difficulty of the task, the setup we use as a group to fullfill it, and the tension of getting things done. It's perhaps a personnal thing, I don't know. But it's definitely something I can also feel in competitive games, so there is no "versus" here for me.

You seem to have some preconception about people liking more twitchy games :)

[feuerdog]

@ Wasdie

I think PS2 can be both a realistic, immersive FPS shooter AND a larger strategic game, thats all i'm saying.
Any game is competitive, it all depends on what you consider as the condtions of victory.

A FPS player may only consider kill/death.
A squad member may only consider teammates revived.
An outfit player may only consider base captures.
A faction member may only consider occupied territory.

Again, I say PS2 can be different things to different players.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

These elements are all rather traumatizing and unpleasant in real life. Why attempt to port them to a medium that is supposed to be fun? I have to turn the sound way down in BC2 just because the the explosion sounds and resulting player shellshock make me nauseous.

Because shooting another human being to death wouldn't be traumatic OR unpleasant, either. There goes the 'S' in 'FPS', by your logic.

Might be the worst and most sissy reasoning I've ever heard.

Your PS2?

http://rebloggingdonk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/care-bear-pictures.jpg

[Klockan]

One of the ways I view skill in games is the ability to perform to a consistent standard. If a player can consistently hit his opponent and make strong maneuvers then he should definitely be rewarded for that. In recent low TTK games - Having a strong consistent game play didn't matter much because the mechanics are gimmicky and reward spray-and-pray.
Counterstrike had way lower TTK than just about any modern shooter but is still one of the most skill based games there is. I'd bet the first time you play it you would go 1:10 or something like that. Also the ultra low TTK means that watching your back is mandatory witch promotes team play since none can look in all directions at once.

Look at this:
2003 Grand Final Final : Counter-Strike match: SK(Sweden) vs 3D(USA) R1 - YouTube
That is not noob friendly. High TTK is noob friendly since then you always know what killed you but here you just die instantly as soon as someone sees you unless you kill them first.

[feuerdog]

@ Kalbuth

So you understand that I agree with you on some level, I consider a movie like Heat far more realistic/immersive than say a movie like Transformers. It has to do with the portrayal of excitement/confusion/fog-of-war etc. A game like PS2 doesn't have the character development, storyline, and tension found in a great movie like Heat, so it relies on something more akin to what Transformers has, special effects. From what i've seen of PS2 so far, it finds a kind of middleground between the two.

Where I guess we'll have to disagree is on how much of these special effects is immersive/realistic.

I'll just say that i'd rather have these effects, even overamplified as they may possibly be, than not have them at all in a sterile FPS environment.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Because shooting another human being to death wouldn't be traumatic OR unpleasant, either. There goes the 'S' in 'FPS', by your logic.

Might be the worst and most sissy reasoning I've ever heard.

Your PS2?

http://rebloggingdonk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/care-bear-pictures.jpg

So masochism goes hand in hand with FPS games? Since when?

[feuerdog]

Kind of a change of subject, but....

Low TTK is noob friendly since then you always know what killed you but here you just die instantly as soon as someone sees you unless you kill them first.

By this logic low TTK is also noob friendly because you can get lucky by just pulling the trigger first,...and that doesn't require skill.

My point being that skill is skill regardless of TTK.

What makes PS2 different, and in my opinion better than games like CS, is that there are many kinds of skill involved in being successful, not just twitched based shooting.

So masochism goes hand in hand with FPS games? Since when?

It's about determining balance. Not everyone will be happy, of that there is no doubt.

Too much raw violence, gore, for immersion can be just as bad as too little or nothing at all for realism.

Again, it's all about the general perception of what is acceptable, and finding that balance point.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

So masochism goes hand in hand with FPS games? Since when?

*Sigh* Read again. Sarcasm. My point is that you're saying unpleasent and traumatic experiences shouldn't be replicated in a video game that's literally about blowing another guy's brains out. Stabbing a man to death, seeing a man explode over a mine, these are all traumatic and unpleasent IRL. However, they're in the game because they make you feel cool.

Point: You're saying to keep out IRL 'unpleasantries' in a game built around killing. Its just kind of stupid, lol.

I beg you to read again.

[GreatMazinkaise]

*Sigh* Read again. Sarcasm. My point is that you're saying unpleasent and traumatic experiences shouldn't be replicated in a video game that's literally about blowing another guy's brains out. Stabbing a man to death, seeing a man explode over a mine, these are all traumatic and unpleasent IRL. However, they're in the game because they make you feel cool.

Point: You're saying to keep out IRL 'unpleasantries' in a game built around killing. Its just kind of stupid, lol.

I beg you to read again.

That's the point though... killing people in game is fun and pleasant.

Effects should be the same way... I should be saying, "Wow, these effects feel awesome!" not "My ears are bleeding and that last explosion has been burned into the backs of my eyeballs!". You can replicate a traumatic experience for a toon without also inflicting it on the player.

[Graywolves]

Counter Strike's mechanics are reliable and reward a player who can perform consistently.

As I said in my post, recent modern shooters have gimmicky mechanics.

[ArmedZealot]

Counter Strike's mechanics are reliable and reward a player who can perform consistently.

As I said in my post, recent modern shooters have gimmicky mechanics.

I fail to see how a player is punished for performing consistently in BF3 or COD.

Or how modern FPS mechanics are unreliable.

[feuerdog]

However, they're in the game because they make you feel cool.


There is nothing "cool" about taking a life. But I will not stand idly by while my NC brothers and sisters fight for our freedom without me.

I would rather sacrifice the VS and TR scum out there in the most visceral simulated fashion considered safe and fun to do so than to have that unfortunate experience lessened by muted sound, tamed visuals, and an over protective sense of sensorship.

NC freedom comes at a cost, and for me that cost is justfied with glorious realistic, untempered, audio and visual effects of the modern video game age.:groovy:

Counter Strike's mechanics are reliable and reward a player who can perform consistently.

As I said in my post, recent modern shooters have gimmicky mechanics.

A mechanic is just that though,....a fixed function.

Failure to utilize the mechanic in it's intended role is not the mechanics fault,...it's your interpretation of how the outcome is different than expected.

Games like BF and COD have complex mechanics that try to reward exceptional and/or diverse play. What makes these game suck at times is that once you understand that complex function then it can be exploited, and the results of that are less desireable than the results the mechanics were trying to reward in the first place.

[Broadside]

I never get why people are so offended when game developers "cater to the masses". Why would they make a game that less people are going to buy? That's just business. On top of that, did you ever stop and think that maybe the developers like the new modern way to play FPS's?

Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean you are better/more right/have any idea what you are talking about.

[ThermalReaper]

I think what GreatMazinkaise(Nice name by the way) is trying to say is, Sure, blinding sun and lots of dust and shellshock effects happen to a soldier. Are they fun? No. So why put them in just for the sake of realism? ESPECIALLY when most of your game isn't realistic? Answer: Because some people are probably stupid enough to believe that because your game has bullet drop and travel times it's 100% realism.

Another example, say instead of pointing your sniper sights/scope upwards a certain degree, you would have to account for wind, humidity and adjust sights(see Arma 2:Extreme sniping). Is that fun? No. But it works(somewhat) for Arma because it's supposed to be a realistic shooter.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

I never get why people are so offended when game developers "cater to the masses". Why would they make a game that less people are going to buy? That's just business. On top of that, did you ever stop and think that maybe the developers like the new modern way to play FPS's?

Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean you are better/more right/have any idea what you are talking about.

Exactly. Higby seems legitimately excited when he describes PS2. He reminds me of a less vulgar cliffyB, lol.

People need to stop with the notion that all developers don't ever put their heart and soul into what they create just because it isn't the 2003 counterstrike world series. Do they make concessions? Sure. Does giving people what they want mean that they're slaves in a sweatshop, being whipped by overlord publishers? No.

This whole issue kind of seems like people came out of cryogenic freezing. Austin Powers came out wondering why everyone wasn't just shagging everyone, and a lot of players around here seem to wonder why whe still aren't iceskating around with a pinpoint reticul in a low-res 4x4 box.

[feuerdog]

I think what GreatMazinkaise(Nice name by the way) is trying to say is, Sure, blinding sun and lots of dust and shellshock effects happen to a soldier. Are they fun? No. So why put them in just for the sake of realism? ESPECIALLY when most of your game isn't realistic? Answer: Because some people are probably stupid enough to believe that because your game has bullet drop and travel times it's 100% realism.

Another example, say instead of pointing your sniper sights/scope upwards a certain degree, you would have to account for wind, humidity and adjust sights(see Arma 2:Extreme sniping). Is that fun? No. But it works(somewhat) for Arma because it's supposed to be a realistic shooter.

Dying in the game is traumatizing and unfun too. We should remove it.

I agree that effects without a purpose are not needed, but it can be argued that almost any realistic effect can and will be used for a tactical advantage.

Fighter pilots using the glare of sunlight in a dogfight.
Suppression fire used to restrict enemy movement.
Smoke to conceal friendly movement.
The psychological effect of seeing your friends head explode into a cloud of pink mist.

The issue is finding a balance between accessibility, realism, fun, detail, simulation, immersion, stats, no stats, and/or whatever other aspect of play makes the game. You can't please everyone, but you should at least expect the standard to remain similar to whats already out there.

[brighthand]

I never get why people are so offended when game developers "cater to the masses". Why would they make a game that less people are going to buy? That's just business. On top of that, did you ever stop and think that maybe the developers like the new modern way to play FPS's?

Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean you are better/more right/have any idea what you are talking about.

Let us say that you like icecream sundeas. You like the sprinkles and the fudge, and the random sugar cones and all of that Jazz. You appreciate all the intricacies of said ice cream sundea.

Now comes a regular ice cream cone; one scoop on a regular cone. It is cheaper, and comes out faster. more people buy it, and on a hot day like today, it is in high demand.

Do you hold it against those people for liking their quickie one-scoop icecream cone? -no. You happily go back to the stand and purchase another sundea and contently wait for its preparation, and eat to your delight; they like what they like and you like what you like, and you each have your own thing.

The day passes, and you wake up tomorrow, on another hot day, and find you are in the mood for another serving of that heavenly ice cream sundea and all of its toppings. You head to the usual place and wait your turn in a crowd of icecream lovers. When you finally get there, you find that the place no longer sells ice cream sundeas; It's a hot day and there are lots of people who want the cones, and its cheaper and faster to produce. -not to mention it just makes alot of business sense.

So you go elsewhere searching for a place that sells sundeas with the extra fudge and sprinkles on top, and three layers of complexed flavors and toppings. High and low you search, and...nothing.

-here is where your actual reasoning is inserted-

According to you, in this hypothetical situation where you hypothetically love your sundeas, you should just keep quiet and quit asking icecream makers to make icecream sundeas. Ice cream sundeas are a way of the past, and the new single-scoop icecream cones are what 100% of icecream lovers should now buy since the majority of people (only greater than 50%), like them. Furthermore, to yern for the icecream sundea and bemoan the lack of production of said sundeas by producers is elitist.

I'm afraid I cannot aggree with you there. If I am elitist just for wanting a game with less shallow mechanics and dynamics, then very well - as long as I get my game ;)

[wasdie]

I'm afraid I cannot aggree with you there. If I am elitist just for wanting a game with less shallow mechanics and dynamics, then very well - as long as I get my game ;)

Well the problem here is that people usually mistake outdated, archaic gameplay for complex and deep. More often than that, people make the assumption that gameplay found in one game can transfer over to another style of game just fine.

Even more, people often fail to see the depth that a certain gameplay element has. Instead they just see it doesn't work exactly how they want and thus they don't actually see the differences and the new complexities and depth. Of course a game like Quake 3 is going to have a whole different set of skills required to be good at it than BF3. They aren't remotely similar. From what I'm reading here, people are just comparing apples and oranges.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

Let us say that you like icecream sundeas. You like the sprinkles and the fudge, and the random sugar cones and all of that Jazz. You appreciate all the intricacies of said ice cream sundea.

Now comes a regular ice cream cone; one scoop on a regular cone. It is cheaper, and comes out faster. more people buy it, and on a hot day like today, it is in high demand.

Do you hold it against those people for liking their quickie one-scoop icecream cone? -no. You happily go back to the stand and purchase another sundea and contently wait for its preparation, and eat to your delight; they like what they like and you like what you like, and you each have your own thing.

The day passes, and you wake up tomorrow, on another hot day, and find you are in the mood for another serving of that heavenly ice cream sundea and all of its toppings. You head to the usual place and wait your turn in a crowd of icecream lovers. When you finally get there, you find that the place no longer sells ice cream sundeas; It's a hot day and there are lots of people who want the cones, and its cheaper and faster to produce. -not to mention it just makes alot of business sense.

So you go elsewhere searching for a place that sells sundeas with the extra fudge and sprinkles on top, and three layers of complexed flavors and toppings. High and low you search, and...nothing.

-here is where your actual reasoning is inserted-

According to you, in this hypothetical situation where you hypothetically love your sundeas, you should just keep quiet and quit asking icecream makers to make icecream sundeas. Ice cream sundeas are a way of the past, and the new single-scoop icecream cones are what 100% of icecream lovers should now buy since the majority of people (only greater than 50%), like them. Furthermore, to yern for the icecream sundea and bemoan the lack of production of said sundeas by producers is elitist.

I'm afraid I cannot aggree with you there. If I am elitist just for wanting a game with less shallow mechanics and dynamics, then very well - as long as I get my game ;)

All of this hypothetical assumes that the other, popular item IS of less quality and has less depth.

Maybe what it is is that you prefer the old ice cream sunday, and the new rage comes with graham cracker crumbs and marshmallows, but you feel that your old ice cream has a less muddied flavor and is more natural, so people shouldn't eat this bullshit s'more flavored icecream. Therefore, even though people seem to love it, you complain to the manager about people not liking what you like, even though you still have the option of buying it.

Maybe you shouldn't use hypotheticals that require the other side to assume what they want is of lesser quality.

Because I fucking LOVE marshmallows and graham cracker crumbs, buddy, and thankfully, they made the cut, in a manner of speaking. :)

http://www.sportsville.com/files/www.sportsville.com/Slam%20Dunk.jpg

[ThermalReaper]

Dying in the game is traumatizing and unfun too. We should remove it.

I agree that effects without a purpose are not needed, but it can be argued that almost any realistic effect can and will be used for a tactical advantage.


I never though about it like that. BUT, Dying is a consequence. Whether it'll be because you charged blindly for a kill or you were ambushed or another cause, it's a consequence.
Now adding something like sun glare, is not a consequence. It's a curse for someone who's unlucky enough to be on the sunshine side of the engagement.

[feuerdog]

I never though about it like that. BUT, Dying is a consequence. Whether it'll be because you charged blindly for a kill or you were ambushed or another cause, it's a consequence.
Now adding something like sun glare, is not a consequence. It's a curse for someone who's unlucky enough to be on the sunshine side of the engagement.

It's not a curse, it's a realistic effect that can be taken advantage of and/or guarded against, and understanding the nuances of the environment, of comabt, and those consequences, that is what makes the game deeper on a tactical level.

What are the consequences of standing next to an explosion?
What are the consequences of looking into the sun?
What are the consequences of .......?

I dont want to play 3D Axis and Allies,....I want to be enveloped in a rich and visceral immersive combat experience, where every effect whether unpleasant or enjoyable is a contributing factor in my demoralizing defeat or glorious victory.

[ThermalReaper]

It's not a curse, it's a realistic effect that can be taken advantage of and/or guarded against, and understanding the nuances of the environment, of comabt, and those consequences, that is what makes the game deeper on a tactical level.

What are the consequences of standing next to an explosion?
You go boom and die, I don't need red jam and a ringing sound to know this. Or you could just be knocked back with a good chunk of damage. How about that for a change?
What are the consequences of looking into the sun?
Why would you even be looking into the sun? And I'm not sure about this, but don't soldiers have some sort of UV filter or glare reduction goggles? And if they don't, it's the future. If you have a problem with the future, shut up.
What are the consequences of .......?

I dont want to play 3D Axis and Allies,....I want to be enveloped in a rich and visceral immersive combat experience, where every effect whether unpleasant or enjoyable is a contributing factor in my demoralizing defeat or glorious victory.

The biggest problem with this sun problem is that it's mostly dumb luck whether or not you end up to have the sun infront of you or behind you(I'm not even sure how it works in Battlefield 3) unless you can find someway to force every enemy to be blinded by the sun while you aren't.

[feuerdog]

@ ThermalReaper

Youre absolutely right, the sound of an explosion may be too traumatic for modern FPS players to handle, we should replace all explosive sound effects with the spoken word "Boom" so that nobody becomes stunned or nauseous.

Your understanding of the realistic effect of the suns light on vision is not a prerequisite of its potential tactical use.

PS: I don't have a problem with the future.

[ThermalReaper]

@ ThermalReaper

Youre absolutely right, the sound of an explosion may be too traumatic for modern FPS players to handle, we should replace all explosive sound effects with the spoken word "Boom" so that nobody becomes stunned or nauseous.

Your understanding of the realistic effect of the suns light on vision is not a prerequisite of its potential tactical use.

PS: I don't have a problem with the future.

You may be giving them too much credit I'll be honest. You got me there, but just because it's realistic doesn't mean it has to be in a game. Team fortress is a very good example of this. Also, more on the future point, you are more armored and you have shields. I have no problem with slight blurs and effects that make me feel somewhat close to death, but not at all like the terrible blur effect from...anything that touches you in Rainbow six:Vegas(EDIT: Battlefield's' sun glare falls into the latter catagory in my honest opinion)

[feuerdog]

Agreed.

I like special effects, immersion, and depth of play just as much as the next guy, but in all things there needs to be balance, and some level of moderation.

I don't need there to be fancy effects crammed into every aspect of game play, I just want there to be as many as possible that make sense for the purpose of depth and immersion, all of it tempered to whatever realism fits for the PS universe of future.

It's doesn't all HAVE to be in the game, but it would be nice if it was.

[brighthand]

All of this hypothetical assumes that the other, popular item IS of less quality and has less depth.

Maybe what it is is that you prefer the old ice cream sunday, and the new rage comes with graham cracker crumbs and marshmallows, but you feel that your old ice cream has a less muddied flavor and is more natural, so people shouldn't eat this bullshit s'more flavored icecream. Therefore, even though people seem to love it, you complain to the manager about people not liking what you like, even though you still have the option of buying it.

Maybe you shouldn't use hypotheticals that require the other side to assume what they want is of lesser quality.

Because I fucking LOVE marshmallows and graham cracker crumbs, buddy, and thankfully, they made the cut, in a manner of speaking. :)

http://www.sportsville.com/files/www.sportsville.com/Slam%20Dunk.jpg

My assumption that the popular thing is of lesser quality runs parallel with my referrence to COD, since it is the game that most modern shooters are based off of, and which actually IS of lesser quality from various standpoints (according to alot of people here who are trying to ESCAPE CODized games, hence why we are looking forward to Planetside 2).

As I wrote in the previous post, if other people like it, that is fine 'they have their thing and [I would have mine]" But that isn't the case, as their high demand for 'their thing' makes the producers furnish ONLY their thing and thus cause a stagnating Market.

As for the graham crumbles being the new rage: that is fine too, but COD for example hardly has any grham crumbles. I am not advocating older mechanisms over new ones, because some developements over the years ARE superior to older mechanics. The problem is that, while their have been advancements made in the genre, there has also been an unrelated development of new-gen player prefferences that don't include deeper gameplay and strategy/tactics.

This is why it is a complicated issue: Since you may think I am talking about more fluid animations, bullet drop, recoil, and the like, when I'm referring to the meta game: objectives, tactical pacing, planning, skill-based shooting, the emphasis on ones individual performance in a game that should be about objectives (depending on the game).

I know that what works for one game shouldn't automatically work for another, and some games SHOULDN't be about tactics and all of that tralala, but the original game in a certain series, whose foundations were built in deeper mechanics and tactical gameplay have lost their chocolate fudge and whipped cream- and Graham cracker crumbs- in order to be the stripped down single-scoop cone that the majority of the market seems to prefer.

Again, I'll refer to KZ2: That game had very difficult, but very satisfying learning curve and gunplay (although it isn't for many people), the pacing was just enough so that if you chose a direction to go in, you had to commit to it, as rerouting would cost you some positioning. The class balance was great, and the tactician could lay down spawn points according to his tactical creativity. There are alot of other features that I won't mention because this is already a wall of text.

Killzone 3: Most of the things that made killzone 2 great and unique were taken away- and on top of that, were not even replaced by anything better; as a matter of fact, somethings weren't replaced by anything at all! In KZ3 there was no spawn on squad leader, there was no server browser, decent clan system. Some things did get replaced however- with inferior solutions. Not inferior according to my opinion, but literally inferior solutions. example: instead of spawn grenades, there were fixed spawn positions that killed the dynamism and strategy in the map. In battlefield, fixed capture points were fine because the map sizes allowed for greater flexability, but in KZ3's narrow passages and clustered rooms, people could then memorize the map and know where each post was and simply camp it to farm kills; it didn't help that you could not spawn on squad leader to flank a position to get to an objective. On top of that, they inputed a god-class sniper that one-hit-kills you with a shot to your big toe and can cloak indefinitely- in maps as small as KZ maps, that is pure death for anyone who is not a sniper; all so that COD players can feel at home racking up kills- instead of playing the objective.

Killzone lost its features in an attempt to be COD and that is what I refer to in my posts. Just because something is newer doesn't mean it is better and has more features; I look at what it has in comparison to what it could have had, and what its predecessor had/has, and I see a devolution, not progress.

Here is hoping PS2 doesn't follow suit

[Flaropri]

The biggest problem with this sun problem is that it's mostly dumb luck whether or not you end up to have the sun infront of you or behind you(I'm not even sure how it works in Battlefield 3) unless you can find someway to force every enemy to be blinded by the sun while you aren't.

In PS2, the sun will travel across the skies at a set rate, so you CAN control where the sun is relative to your position, based on the angle of your attack. Defenders are relatively screwed though, but they have other benefits (like walls and turrets for example) and could still use it with a surprise rear attack for example.

Also, there could totally be virtual sunglasses as an armor Cert or at the very least polarized scopes (along with night vision scopes and such already present).


Realistically though, I think most people would turn down the bloom and/or brightness to make things more visible/better contrast. I rather doubt that any game maker would make the sun in their games able to effectively blind rather than at best mask a silhouette.


Onto the meat:
As I wrote in the previous post, if other people like it, that is fine 'they have their thing and [I would have mine]" But that isn't the case, as their high demand for 'their thing' makes the producers furnish ONLY their thing and thus cause a stagnating Market.

This assumes that a given vendor isn't able to adapt to demand in such a way as to still provide differences and a deeper, richer, product while incorporating what has been successful. I mean, that's often the case, but it isn't always the case. WoW was built on the standard (at the time) formula for MMORPGs, but innovated by applying more quests, being more casual friendly (no loss of levels on death for example) etc.

Iteration on success is also a large part of what brought us into the current era away from for example Quake (and Quake and Quake style-variants are still being made, so that flavor is still available). Further iteration is what will bring FPS into the next stage whatever that is (even if it ends up being somewhat a re-hash of previous styles).

[Malorn]

I agree with the OP.

I'm not sure whether PS2 is about maximizing the money-making gimmicks, but I do fear that in an attempt to "modernize" PlanetSide they will replicate them without giving careful thought as to why they are important and the role they play in the game dynamic.

The mentality of such-and-such game had this, such-and-such game was successful, therefore we must have this because players from that game expect it. It's absolutely the wrong way to go about it, and I don't think we've been given enough insight into their thinking to know whether this is the case. Though it's certainly a serious issue of which we are rightfully concerned.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

My assumption that the popular thing is of lesser quality runs parallel with my referrence to COD, since it is the game that most modern shooters are based off of, and which actually IS of lesser quality from various standpoints (according to alot of people here who are trying to ESCAPE CODized games, hence why we are looking forward to Planetside 2).

As I wrote in the previous post, if other people like it, that is fine 'they have their thing and [I would have mine]" But that isn't the case, as their high demand for 'their thing' makes the producers furnish ONLY their thing and thus cause a stagnating Market.

As for the graham crumbles being the new rage: that is fine too, but COD for example hardly has any grham crumbles. I am not advocating older mechanisms over new ones, because some developements over the years ARE superior to older mechanics. The problem is that, while their have been advancements made in the genre, there has also been an unrelated development of new-gen player prefferences that don't include deeper gameplay and strategy/tactics.

This is why it is a complicated issue: Since you may think I am talking about more fluid animations, bullet drop, recoil, and the like, when I'm referring to the meta game: objectives, tactical pacing, planning, skill-based shooting, the emphasis on ones individual performance in a game that should be about objectives (depending on the game).

I know that what works for one game shouldn't automatically work for another, and some games SHOULDN't be about tactics and all of that tralala, but the original game in a certain series, whose foundations were built in deeper mechanics and tactical gameplay have lost their chocolate fudge and whipped cream- and Graham cracker crumbs- in order to be the stripped down single-scoop cone that the majority of the market seems to prefer.

Again, I'll refer to KZ2: That game had very difficult, but very satisfying learning curve and gunplay (although it isn't for many people), the pacing was just enough so that if you chose a direction to go in, you had to commit to it, as rerouting would cost you some positioning. The class balance was great, and the tactician could lay down spawn points according to his tactical creativity. There are alot of other features that I won't mention because this is already a wall of text.

Killzone 3: Most of the things that made killzone 2 great and unique were taken away- and on top of that, were not even replaced by anything better; as a matter of fact, somethings weren't replaced by anything at all! In KZ3 there was no spawn on squad leader, there was no server browser, decent clan system. Some things did get replaced however- with inferior solutions. Not inferior according to my opinion, but literally inferior solutions. example: instead of spawn grenades, there were fixed spawn positions that killed the dynamism and strategy in the map. In battlefield, fixed capture points were fine because the map sizes allowed for greater flexability, but in KZ3's narrow passages and clustered rooms, people could then memorize the map and know where each post was and simply camp it to farm kills; it didn't help that you could not spawn on squad leader to flank a position to get to an objective. On top of that, they inputed a god-class sniper that one-hit-kills you with a shot to your big toe and can cloak indefinitely- in maps as small as KZ maps, that is pure death for anyone who is not a sniper; all so that COD players can feel at home racking up kills- instead of playing the objective.

Killzone lost its features in an attempt to be COD and that is what I refer to in my posts. Just because something is newer doesn't mean it is better and has more features; I look at what it has in comparison to what it could have had, and what its predecessor had/has, and I see a devolution, not progress.

Here is hoping PS2 doesn't follow suit

Now I just want ice cream, this discussion has gotten tasty. :D

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Killzone is an extreme example. I don't think anyone will argue that they severely altered the basic mechanics of that game, and mostly in an arbitrary fashion. To be honest, I rate KZ3 as LESS than CoD. At least the CoD games I've played if everybody was on one side of the map, the enemies automatically started spawning on the other, so camping was somewhat controlled. They didn't even do THAT!

It's all subjective, and preference.

But the base of the argument many around here make that so many consider "hardass" and "stuck up", is really just summed up like this:

Many of the features that make CoD, BF, Quake, Unreal, whatever popular, are integrated in MANY games, namely the dozens of versions of each other. The things that drew people to the original Planetside, or to Arma, or whatever THEIR flavor of shooter was, are much more limited in quantity. There aren't as many games like them in the first place. It's not a case of better/worse, it's just quantity.

The people who have been playing Planetside, liked the things that made it Planetside. They have been unable, for nine years now, to go "somewhere" else. They've been stuck with dated, crappy old graphics, and have been waiting patiently for a "modern" equivalent to take it's place, and yes, to incorporate some of the improvements in technology and gameplay since then.

The problem they have, is that if they want to play something along the style of CoD, BattleField, or whatever, those games already exist. They're very popular, and many of the people here play them, too. Nobody has a problem with someone making a fast paced MMO out of CoD or BF, or Doom, or whatever given game may be. But they worry that the uniqueness of what they liked HERE is being melded into "just like all these other games".

If there were multiple games in this genre, it probably wouldn't be such a bone of contention, because there would be some "choice" and people who like one playstyle could easily move someplace that suits them. As it is, they're all lumping in together because this is the ONLY game (basically) that exists that's even remotely like this, and people come into conflict because of their preferences and that there is not any viable alternative if they don't like it (this applies equally to both sides of any argument).

Hopefully, the MMOFPS genre will take off because of PlanetSide 2 being hugely, wildly successful! If it does, then other developers will follow suit, and pretty soon there will be a little variety and people can gravitate toward their preferences without all the rigamorole and fighting. In the meantime, people who played this and liked it before, tend to jealously guard it, because they have nowhere else to go for what they liked here.

To refer back to the sundae reference: It was the ONLY sundae shop in the country. Now you're just fucked if they change their menu. Down the road, maybe a few more sundae shops will open, then it won't matter so much :) In the meantime... I would like a sundae with nuts, whipped cream, and a cherry please, and god help whoever tries to cut in line! :) :)

[brighthand]

(funny and sensable things) :)

lol thank you for understanding, and sorry to have made you hungry :p

[Novice bot]

Love this thread.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a sniper lying in a corner, oneshotting people who have no way of defending themselves or even knowing he's there is a legitimate, non-cheese tactic?

If I recall correctly, the primary role of a sniper in war is to create chokepoints, areas where enemies have hard time, or be unable to advance. In my mind, what you just described is a choke point, run, and get shot. Its legimate, its not cheesy, the guy is doing his job. No matter how much people hate camping like that, he's doing his role for the battle.

[EisenKreutzer]

If I recall correctly, the primary role of a sniper in war is to create chokepoints, areas where enemies have hard time, or be unable to advance. In my mind, what you just described is a choke point, run, and get shot. Its legimate, its not cheesy, the guy is doing his job. No matter how much people hate camping like that, he's doing his role for the battle.

I really, really don't understand the mentality of people who drag real wars into multiplayer FPS's. It's completely alien to me.

[ThermalReaper]

I think the best way to make planetside 2(I'm not claiming this as my own idea by the way, many others have suggested it) more complex is to gradually add more complex mechanics every now and then as the game grows. It'll be enough doses for the current people who have not experianced such things and can easily accomodate instead of having a limited inventory system and free loadouts shoved in their face from the get go and quitting too quickly because they don't have a clue what to do.

[Flaropri]

I really, really don't understand the mentality of people who drag real wars into multiplayer FPS's. It's completely alien to me.

It's still their role in any game that has 'em. TF2 Snipers are all about controlling choke points (via murder at long range), even though the ranges are generally much shorter than they will be in PS2 or are in BF3 (I assume).

[vVRedOctoberVv]

I really, really don't understand the mentality of people who drag real wars into multiplayer FPS's. It's completely alien to me.

It's not a case of "dragging it into"... They go hand in hand.

By definition, a sniper is someone who from a place of concealment, usually alone, or in support of a group not in his immediate vicinity, aims precise, targeted fire onto the enemy, achieving through precision what others achieve through volume.

It is irrelevant whether an individual is playing a "sniper class", using a "sniper rifle" or using a "pistol". The role IS.

Real world tactics and concepts apply even in a game of chess. That we are using guns AT ALL in this game is an influence of "real wars". That we have grenades AT ALL in this game is an influence of "real wars". That we have tanks, or aircraft, or machine guns, or RPGs, or combat medics... These are all concepts that come DIRECTLY FROM "real wars".

[EisenKreutzer]

It's not a case of "dragging it into"... They go hand in hand.

By definition, a sniper is someone who from a place of concealment, usually alone, or in support of a group not in his immediate vicinity, aims precise, targeted fire onto the enemy, achieving through precision what others achieve through volume.

It is irrelevant whether an individual is playing a "sniper class", using a "sniper rifle" or using a "pistol". The role IS.

Real world tactics and concepts apply even in a game of chess. That we are using guns AT ALL in this game is an influence of "real wars". That we have grenades AT ALL in this game is an influence of "real wars". That we have tanks, or aircraft, or machine guns, or RPGs, or combat medics... These are all concepts that come DIRECTLY FROM "real wars".

But it's all in a game context. Everything, from balancing (ever heard of balancing issues in real wars?) to basic game mechanics like spawning, victory conditions and the basic rules of the games are just that: Games.

There is no Capture the Flag in real wars. There are no respawns, no points, no rules like we know them from games.

Everything that happens in a game happens within a game context. Sniper classes confer a different set of abilities to a player than a melee class or an anti-vehicle class, or a medic or engineer.
All these classes are balanced against each other to provide fairness and promote teamplay (in the case of Planetside 2 atleast).

You cannot begin arguing about what the role of a real life sniper is, because that only factors in to the equation at the most rudimentary level. It's not a question of "how does a sniper function in a real combat situation," but instead "how does sniper gameplay affect the game as a whole?"

That said, things like cornercamping and spawn camping are metagame issues that arise as players explore the rules of the game and figure out optimal tactics. Cornercamping is an "evolutionary dead end" in this context, a sort of appendix of gameplay. It cannot evolve, it cannot be rendered obsolete, and exists as a viable tactic in it's own little bubble of the games rules.

Some players choose to exploit this, others recognise that it is a cheese tactic that cheapens the experience, and as gentlemen silently agree to not stoop to that level.

[BattsTR]

I'm extremely pessimistic. Its my opinion that the game will be dumbed down. Zerging will be alot more important than any strategy, and attempts to use tactics seem to be hampered by the hex system. I got the feeling that this game will be alot of fun to play, but wont have much of that sense of community and achievement that the first game did. We shall see though, who really knows how it will play out.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@Eisenkreutzer

I agree with you, to a large extent. As I've said before, I'm generally against "artificial balancing", I believe "balance" takes care of itself, provided nothing excessive. I'm also not necessarily a huge fan of game modes, like CTF or whatever, but people need some sort of "objective" to fight over (besides kills) if you want them to visit particular areas of a map or achieve an "attack defend" feeling. Part of that is a consequence of the smallish size of most game worlds. The larger the world, the less necessary this sort of thing becomes, to an extent.

Regarding the "sniper classes" comment, yes they confer special abilities on a player in most games. I do not like that sort of thing, as I've said before, it is artificial balancing. At it's most basic level, people take on a role by nature of the way they play, not what button they clicked. How "snipers fit into the gameplay" is largely irrelevant. You cannot "eliminate" the class even if you wanted to, because it is a manner of behavior. Just like "rocket suicides". Whether he has a rocket or a machine gun, when he rushes you in a suicidal fashion, it is the same behavior.

Regarding corner campers, I don't see the difference between the both of you charging hell-bells down the hallway and rounding a corner at the same time, or him patiently standing just around the corner. If anything, the guy "patiently waiting" is easier prey, because he doesn't know PRECISELY when you'll jump around the corner. You do. If you assume there is someone around the corner (especially if you saw someone else die there a moment ago), that gives YOU the advantage, not him. Whether you choose to throw a grenade around the corner to flush him out, or just go around "slicing the pie", you are ready, he is not. Also, camping is boring, the likelihood of him losing focus and gawking off a second is higher than you, since you are active and he is... staring at the wall hoping somebody comes around.

I'm not arguing for or against it, just saying that it really doesn't matter. It's really only effective against people who are being particularly careless. If you are running around corners without thought, you are far more at risk of this kind of simplistic behavior than if you actively watch for it. Doesn't Sun-Tzu have a saying about initiative being the key to success in battle? A camper is voluntarily surrendering his initiative to the enemy.

I'm not meaning to argue old arguments. I'm just talking. To me, it's silly what sort of things people want to label "cheap" or "unfair" or "ungentlemanly"... and even sillier what people want to label "unfun". Unfun to who? To you, because you lost? Well, duh.

As long as people are hacking/cheating, I don't care what they do. As I've said in another thread "balance" means "not weighted in favor of one or another" and that "everyone has the same opportunity". When people hack/cheat, they are doing things that no one else can, unless they ALSO hack/cheat.

@BattTR

Let 'em zerg. I'll be waiting with the rest of TRG. We love zergers :)

Even in a "mob" game, say Starcraft, where all things equal the objective is to "outproduce" the other guy, there is room for "tactics". For example, many times I've seen people lasso up a large group of units and send them half way across the map. Over the course of travel, they become a strung out line. If they run into an opponent who took a moment to arrange (or who on contact begins arranging) his troops, they will fail, even if they greatly outnumber their enemy. Why?

If you have thirty marines, and I have ten, but my ten are in a horizontal line where all ten can fire at roughly any given area in this direction, and your thirty marines charge them in a bunch that starts firing as soon as they come in range (and stop, you know how they are) and the others bunch up behind them, and have to walk around the edges to get in range to fire... By the time the clump in the back starts sorting itself out, all the guys at the front are dead, the clump moves forward and process begins repeating. Now, your thirty may kill all ten of mine before it's over, but you will NOT have thirty anymore. And this in a stat based, "roll the dice" kind of environment.

And this an EXTREMELY simple example. No tactics here, really. Just positioning in a straight line in relation to expected enemy arrival. Take a more coordinated, thought out tactic and apply it to a "zerg rush". See what happens. Thoughtful people will ALWAYS tromp zerg. Period. No arguments.

[Gunnarr]

I read some stuff on body armor on wikipedia. Durin the american civil war death to injury ratio was nearly 1-1. In vietnam that had climbed to 2.5 injuries per death. In Afghanistan our modern american army has 7 injuries per death. So all I can conclude from that is modern gameplay does not realistically potray body armor and the ttk in modern games would be more similar to civil war casualities when everyone only had a dyed wool jacket to stop bullets.

There are some major differences in all of those wars.

Civil War was still fought in the 'Gentleman's manner' where everyone lined up. That worked well enough for Muskets as they were hugely inaccurate. When rifling became easier to aquire, along with the conical and more areodynamic mini ball round you see a higher death:wound ratio. Not to mention the fact that the bullets weren't moving as fast as modern day ones. So, they didn't get hot enough to kill germs when traveling, and would carry particles of clothing into the wound to cause infection which led to amputations and deaths.

In 'Nam you had the introduction of flack vests and K-Pod helmets. These were mostly for anti-shrapnel, and didn't do much to stop the standard 7.62mm that the AK-47 they were going against were firing. The Death:Wound ratio here is due to the fact that they were using modern guns that weren't likely to carry infection into the wound, and that it was a mostly a guerrilla war. Not many big engagements between two armies.

Modern day you're still seeing the same thing. As having been in the Army the current 'GI Issue' is a ceramic plate that will stop a 7.62mm. After the first round is stopped, the plate breaks, and degrades. With every round afterwards the plate further degrades and may or may not stop rounds coming in. Your Kevlar helmet, or ACH, is built for stopping shrapnel. It will not stop much of anything larger then a standard pistol round.

One also needs to add in the fact of advanced medicine. We have things like blood coagulators to stop major bleeding, stints that are easy to use in case of lung shot, training for every soldier so that they can get them or their buddies stable for medivac. The bullets and wounds tend to be much cleaner. Dying from a gun shot in modern day is more about bleeding out then instant death like the movies would have you believe. You die from shock, and then blood loss unless you're just plain unlucky.

[Klockan]

If we speak about sniper as a concept and not sniper as a class. A sniper is then what fps players usually call a "camper". FPS players don't like campers since they will kill these unwary FPS players before they have a time to react. Though usually the FPS player was killed not because the other guy was camping but because the FPS player were ignorant of his surroundings so that the camper got an easy target. Camping is a strategy that takes more skill to counter than to execute, but when you learn how to counter it then classical camping is underpowered as a strategy.


Some players choose to exploit this, others recognise that it is a cheese tactic that cheapens the experience, and as gentlemen silently agree to not stoop to that level.
Even the best Starcraft players use cheese now and then. Bad players shackle themselves with rules such as yours where they think that certain strategies are cheesy. Real players understands that every strategic move has its time and place and that there is no shame in resorting to cheesy tactics. If you can't counter cheesy things then you are a bad player or the game is unbalanced. Camping is in no way uncounterable so stop bitching about it.

Spawn camping isn't a part of this ofc, it should be patched out before long. Corner camping is a product of really bad game mechanics and doesn't exist in any real game and wont exist in PS2 either since there is no advantage given to the guy standing behind a corner.

I'm extremely pessimistic. Its my opinion that the game will be dumbed down. Zerging will be alot more important than any strategy, and attempts to use tactics seem to be hampered by the hex system. I got the feeling that this game will be alot of fun to play, but wont have much of that sense of community and achievement that the first game did. We shall see though, who really knows how it will play out.
How is the hex system worse than the old system? In the old system you couldn't even assault bases not adjacent to you except for starving them, now you can but with a penalty. How is this system more limiting? So when you want to take a large base you can either try to take it directly or you can first focus on taking a few more adjacent hexes to make it easier.

[EisenKreutzer]

@RedOctober: I'm really curious, do you think you could elaborate some on what you call "artificial balancing?"

Do you mean altering the stats of weapons (for example) post launch?


Even the best Starcraft players use cheese now and then. Bad players shackle themselves with rules such as yours where they think that certain strategies are cheesy. Real players understands that every strategic move has its time and place and that there is no shame in resorting to cheesy tactics. If you can't counter cheesy things then you are a bad player or the game is unbalanced. Camping is in no way uncounterable so stop bitching about it.


Did you just call me a bad player? Whats with the attitude? I have to say I do not appreciate your tone one bit.

I am not saying that all examples of sitting and waiting for an enemy player to move into your crosshair is a wrong thing to do. I am saying that a player who relies on cornercamping to the exclusion of all else are bad players, or atleast players who do not care about playing the game the way it is intended to be played.

I have camped in multiple shooters, and it is a viable tactic that serves a purpose, especially when defending a choke or capture point.

Am I bitching? Really?

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@RedOctober: I'm really curious, do you think you could elaborate some on what you call "artificial balancing?"

Do you mean altering the stats of weapons (for example) post launch?

By "artificial balancing" I mean stuff like this:

"forced weapon ranges" Map is <this far> I can see a guy in a window over ---> shooting at my guys. I aim, I fire, I see the tracers vanish in mid-air just before reaching him because my gun is labeled "not able to shoot that far", however I can pick up a slightly different, or "different class" weapon, NOW I can shoot that far, even though nothing has changed.

CoF is an example of "artificial balancing". No matter how carefully you aim, you can NEVER hit >here< except by random chance... because the computer says so. Your personal ABILITY to does not matter.

There are myriad other examples, too. Using these concepts, you can probably safely assume other concepts I would like or dislike. I hate doing something and thinking "if I did this for real, such and such would happen". Or thinking, "Oh, look! An invisible wall. I can't go around THIS side of the rock, because the computer says so".

I know it's a "game". And some games are more or less geared toward realism, I recognise that. But I generally dislike most RPGs, for example, because the control, the action, is taken OUT of you, the player's, hands, and placed in "the computer's" hands. Honestly, I'm pretty open, depending on the genre, but as soon as it goes 1st person, I start growing dissatisfied with "imposed restrictions" because my first thought is "This isn't abstract. This is ME. -I- can do this. -I- am sitting here, holding this in -my- hands, and the game won't -let- me do it, because... somebody decided it would be "unfun" to let me do what I clearly SHOULD be able to do"

Generally, I dislike "abstract play", I dislike "classes", and other "forced restrictions". The whole concept of a game is "using your imagination, pretend you're THIS and live in THIS world". When my imagination is able to come up with solutions or actions that the game is fully capable of, but are being taken away from me because "someone" decided I shouldn't be able to, that, to me, is irritating.


-edit


If stats need to be altered, by all means, alter. But I feel most "balancing" stuff is just nit picking and trying to please people who are just going to find something else to complain about.

[EisenKreutzer]

Generally, I dislike "abstract play", I dislike "classes", and other "forced restrictions". The whole concept of a game is "using your imagination, pretend you're THIS and live in THIS world". When my imagination is able to come up with solutions or actions that the game is fully capable of, but are being taken away from me because "someone" decided I shouldn't be able to, that, to me, is irritating.


Ah, now I get it.

I guess I think more in terms of game design. I appreciate the limits the developers put on their games, and work inside those limitations because to me, thats what the game is "about." I play games to experience that "thing" the designers set out to create.

So for me, classes, levels, invisible walls and other such restrictions are just somethign I accept because thats what the game "is."

Did that make sense?

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Ah, now I get it.

I guess I think more in terms of game design. I appreciate the limits the developers put on their games, and work inside those limitations because to me, thats what the game is "about." I play games to experience that "thing" the designers set out to create.

So for me, classes, levels, invisible walls and other such restrictions are just somethign I accept because thats what the game "is."

Did that make sense?

Yeah, I get ya. I "accept" it, I have no choice :) And you're right that is "part of the game". I just irk when I start running into situations -I-, scrawy white boy that I am, can overcome... But my fireball hurling, chaingun wielding, woman stealing He-Man cannot. :)

[Klockan]

Did you just call me a bad player?
Nope, I said that bad players shackles themselves with such rules, not that everyone making such rules are bad. The point is however that you become a better player once you stop deciding what is legitimate and what is not, most things are counterable in some way.
Whats with the attitude? I have to say I do not appreciate your tone one bit.
I post in roughly the same tone you use, nothing strange really.

I am not saying that all examples of sitting and waiting for an enemy player to move into your crosshair is a wrong thing to do. I am saying that a player who relies on cornercamping to the exclusion of all else are bad players, or atleast players who do not care about playing the game the way it is intended to be played.
What do you define as cornercamping? You said before that you didn't like CoD cornercamping, but there is no reason why cornercamping in that game should be called cheese.

I have camped in multiple shooters, and it is a viable tactic that serves a purpose, especially when defending a choke or capture point.
Camping is a way to catch your enemy off guard, nothing cheesy about that no matter the situation or how excessively it is used since players should just learn to expect campers.

Am I bitching? Really?
You were bitching earlier in this thread.
Have you read your own posts?
Here you compare camping/sniping to 6 pooling in Starcraft:
No, this is not war. This is a game. And in a game, there is such a thing as cheesy tactics.
If you don't believe me, try 6- or 7-pooling in Starcraft 2 and see how popular you become.

Also, dealing with a stationary target is easy. Dealing with a stationary who is cornercamping like a little bitch isn't.
Which is why I explained that only noobs and certain unimaginative players with bad attitude (Idra) look down on cheese in Starcraft, everyone got to cheese now and then or they are predictable and thus easier to beat which is Idra's biggest problem. Cheesing is a part of the metagame.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a sniper lying in a corner, oneshotting people who have no way of defending themselves or even knowing he's there is a legitimate, non-cheese tactic?
The only reason such tactics works is because you don't expect it, that is the deal with cheese. But as long as the enemy don't expect it then it is a legitimate tactic, turning your enemies ignorance against them is always legit. Even spawn camping is legit since the guys can just choose to spawn at another place or just overwhelm the spawn campers, spawn camping serves as a way to deny that spawnpoint for a while, you don't have to spawn there really.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

I've said it before, and I'll say this a thousand times.

Never, ever under any cirumstance will I disparage a player for abusing any sort of playstyle, 'cheesy', OP or otherwise. The fault goes on the Dev 100% of the time.

I used to play on a ton of MLG teams, and let me tell you, any good team absolutely knew that the 'oh, just a camping bitch' or 'what a chasing pussy' mentality is a losing mentality, whether your team plays that way or not.

I used to have my halo team lock down power weapon spawns in halo because power weapons are purposely OP in that game. But we won. A lot. I got a ton of hatemail saying 'omfg n00b all you do is use r0x'. I didn't need to reply. Why? I was a winner.

It is always the developer's responsibility to balance a mechanic that is overpowered. Period. And, for the record, cheesy isn't a term I support in anything competitive. Running the clock or intentional fouls/walks in sports are 'cheesy', but if a coach didn't do them when the time was right because he was self-righteous, he'd be fired.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

I've said it before, and I'll say this a thousand times.

Never, ever under any cirumstance will I disparage a player for abusing any sort of playstyle, 'cheesy', OP or otherwise. The fault goes on the Dev 100% of the time.

I used to play on a ton of MLG teams, and let me tell you, any good team absolutely knew that the 'oh, just a camping bitch' or 'what a chasing pussy' mentality is a losing mentality, whether your team plays that way or not.

I used to have my halo team lock down power weapon spawns in halo because power weapons are purposely OP in that game. But we won. A lot. I got a ton of hatemail saying 'omfg n00b all you do is use r0x'. I didn't need to reply. Why? I was a winner.

It is always the developer's responsibility to balance a mechanic that is overpowered. Period. And, for the record, cheesy isn't a term I support in anything competitive. Running the clock or intentional fouls/walks in sports are 'cheesy', but if a coach didn't do them when the time was right because he was self-righteous, he'd be fired.

One smart Hebrew... You just described the "competitive process" in a nutshell. Game or real world war, one principal applies to both: they are competitions. And generally speaking, you are limited only by your imagination. There is no such thing as "good" "bad" or "cheese" there is "the winner" and "the loser".

[OnexBigxHebrew]

One smart Hebrew... You just described the "competitive process" in a nutshell. Game or real world war, one principal applies to both: they are competitions. And generally speaking, you are limited only by your imagination. There is no such thing as "good" "bad" or "cheese" there is "the winner" and "the loser".

Yep! Actually I think its funny, the tagline from the teaser kind of applies here.

"War will not determine who is right, only who is left."

[Flaropri]

One smart Hebrew... You just described the "competitive process" in a nutshell. Game or real world war, one principal applies to both: they are competitions. And generally speaking, you are limited only by your imagination. There is no such thing as "good" "bad" or "cheese" there is "the winner" and "the loser".

Absolutely. However, games (unlike real life) can be patched, so things that are actually imbalanced (not just disliked as being quirky-but-strong or simple-but-strong) can be addressed, while the meta-game can learn to adjust to handle so-called "cheese."


Also, this could potentially apply (albeit hopefully to a very shallow degree):

http://extra-credits.net/episodes/perfect-imbalance/

[goneglockin]

squishing the word tactical in front of FPS has always been a tiny niche brand. It's not surprising that you all seem to be concentrated in one place here. I do find it amusing you lament the decline of something that never fully materialized as a real sub-genre.

The tactical shooter is more of a collection of a few odd ball titles that tactical gamers claim represent the tactical sub-genre by saying the word tactical a lot.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Absolutely. However, games (unlike real life) can be patched, so things that are actually imbalanced (not just disliked as being quirky-but-strong or simple-but-strong) can be addressed, while the meta-game can learn to adjust to handle so-called "cheese."


Also, this could potentially apply (albeit hopefully to a very shallow degree):

http://extra-credits.net/episodes/perfect-imbalance/

Yes! Often times, people confuse "different" with "unbalanced or broken".

squishing the word tactical in front of FPS has always been a tiny niche brand. It's not surprising that you all seem to be concentrated in one place here. I do find it amusing you lament the decline of something that never fully materialized as a real sub-genre.

The tactical shooter is more of a collection of a few odd ball titles that tactical gamers claim represent the tactical sub-genre by saying the word tactical a lot.

It is a niche, yes. So? Nothing wrong with that. Just because it's a niche doesn't mean it can't be catered to, as well just as legitimately as anything else.

[Pyreal]

I absolutely do not think that my opinion on how the game should play does not count because I am not a veteran of Planetside 1. I am a passionate fan of Planetside 2, and my opinion should be worth as much as anyone elses in the beta.

Not saying OP ment this, but I just thought I'd make it clear.

Other than that.. Theres something about OPs tone I don't like, a vague hint of elitism perhaps. But it's subtle.
Otherwise, i find myself nodding in agreement. I too, want Planetside 2 to be a rich and complex experience, not another cookie-cutter shooter of the gunmetal gray and dogshit brown school.

So good show, OP. Jolly good show.

I didn't notice any 'elitism' overtones, nor any presumptuousness, though I can't say the same of yours.

Oh yes, do pardon the interlude: I am in full accord with the originator of this topic. har har.

[Forsaken One]

I would love a fully updated, larger scale SWAT 4

Hell even large scale, updated Rainbow Six Vegas I would love. (vegas 2 sucked balls.)

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Ya know, I saw SWAT -AGES- ago, and always wanted to play, but never did. I think I ended up getting Rainbow Six at some point (the first one) :) Tactical turn based wasn't it?

[Dairian]

As being a planetside Vet I agree with you. I will spend money hands over fist on PS2 if it brings the feeling of something new but also keeps the tactical side of PS1. I believe they will even surpass its little brother. I have even just ordered and waiting on the parts to build a custom PC to play the new forgelight on full graphics. But if the game turns out to be more of a Battlefield copy I will not spend a cent. But from what I have seen I do not believe it will.

CASE CM|HAF X RC-942-KKN1
MB ASUS|SABERTOOTH Z77 1155
2 x VGA GIGABYTE|GV-N670OC-2GD GTX670 ran in SLI
PSU COOLER MASTER RS800-80GAD3-US
CPU INTEL|CORE I7 3770K 3.5G 8M
SSD 512G|CRUCIAL CT512M4SSD1 7MM
MEM 8Gx2|GSKILL F3-2133C9D-16GXH
DVD BRN ASUS | DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS%
MS WIN 7 HOME SP1 64BIT 1PK - OEM
WATER COOLER CORSAIR| CWCH100

Changed my order at the last minute.

[Forsaken One]

Ya know, I saw SWAT -AGES- ago, and always wanted to play, but never did. I think I ended up getting Rainbow Six at some point (the first one) :) Tactical turn based wasn't it?

SWAT 4 and SWAT 4 The Stetchkov Syndicate are still played a lot today even thro they are around 5+ years old. You can pretty much always find at least one full-almost full server at anytime, day or night 24/7 for most game modes. new players even still show up.
The games loading times however no matter what computer you have will make you want to kick puppys through. lol

If you still want to get the game you should, you can most likely get it cheap. Its not going to die anytime soon. lol

As for Rainbow six Vegas..... Well ubisoft had a hand in it... so the dedi servers, server browser, DRM, and other things just ended up making the game screwed up to the point where some people who'd want to play can't even etc. Ubisoft only cares about money, once you buy any ubisoft game they pretty much just give you the finger and so don't give a shit about multi player support at all for any of their games.

But SWAT 4 is powered by Gamespy. ALL HAIL GAMESPY. no matter the game gamespy makes making and useing servers, looking for servers, hosting and joining servers, etc easy and non painful. I wish all games would use it. its even 100% better then anything steams ever done.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

Ya know, I saw SWAT -AGES- ago, and always wanted to play, but never did. I think I ended up getting Rainbow Six at some point (the first one) :) Tactical turn based wasn't it?

I just Dos-Box'ed SWAT 1 (Police Quest: SWAT) a couple weeks ago because I remembered loving it - its video/cursor based, snail paced and SUPER unforgiving of mistakes lol.













...Still love it. :D

[brighthand]

This video indirectly sums up what I am trying to say.

Planetside 2 - How to Change Games Forever [SPOOF COMMERCIAL] - YouTube

A modern shooter moves forward in depth, gameplay, mechanics, and tactics (if it is that kind of game).

a 'Modern Shooter' on the other hand is a good game, dumbed down in many respects, in an attempt to look and feel like the most popular shooter today, COD.

[Biscuit]

This video indirectly somes up what I am trying to say.

Planetside 2 - How to Change Games Forever [SPOOF COMMERCIAL] - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSt8zUpNKKA)

A modern shooter moves forward in depth, gameplay, mechanics, and tactics (if it is that kind of game).

a 'Modern Shooter' on the other hand is a good game, dumbed down in many respects, in an attempt to look and feel like the most popular shooter today, COD.


Awesome

[Hamma]

Haha that video is sweet somehow I missed it.

[Disillusioned]

I've said it before, and I'll say this a thousand times.

Never, ever under any cirumstance will I disparage a player for abusing any sort of playstyle, 'cheesy', OP or otherwise. The fault goes on the Dev 100% of the time.

I used to play on a ton of MLG teams, and let me tell you, any good team absolutely knew that the 'oh, just a camping bitch' or 'what a chasing pussy' mentality is a losing mentality, whether your team plays that way or not.

I used to have my halo team lock down power weapon spawns in halo because power weapons are purposely OP in that game. But we won. A lot. I got a ton of hatemail saying 'omfg n00b all you do is use r0x'. I didn't need to reply. Why? I was a winner.

It is always the developer's responsibility to balance a mechanic that is overpowered. Period. And, for the record, cheesy isn't a term I support in anything competitive. Running the clock or intentional fouls/walks in sports are 'cheesy', but if a coach didn't do them when the time was right because he was self-righteous, he'd be fired.

This is the kind of thinking that has ruined the mindset of modern day gamers. Everyone is so concerned with their stats- k/d, w/l that they do whatever they can to "win" regardless of whether they are challenging themselves or actually having fun (god forbid).

If you're not getting paid for the outcome of a video game match, all your "MLG tactics" (lulz) and exploiting design flaws to "win" is actually kind of pathetic. Players with this mindset in PS1 spent a lot of time staring at terminals waiting for their scat max timer to go away, spamming stairways with thumpers and activating their pshield before every encounter. In other words, never trying to better themselves, rather, always searching for the upper hand to make sure as few fights as possible come down to skill versus skill. Not that skill is really applicable to modern day shooters or PS1 for that matter, but the small amount that exists is typically neutered by the win at all costs mindset. Just my 2 cents.

[Ratstomper]

This is the kind of thinking that has ruined the mindset of modern day gamers. Everyone is so concerned with their stats- k/d, w/l that they do whatever they can to "win" regardless of whether they are challenging themselves or actually having fun (god forbid).

If you're not getting paid for the outcome of a video game match, all your "MLG tactics" (lulz) and exploiting design flaws to "win" is actually kind of pathetic. Players with this mindset in PS1 spent a lot of time staring at terminals waiting for their scat max timer to go away, spamming stairways with thumpers and activating their pshield before every encounter. In other words, never trying to better themselves, rather, always searching for the upper hand to make sure as few fights as possible come down to skill versus skill. Not that skill is really applicable to modern day shooters or PS1 for that matter, but the small amount that exists is typically neutered by the win at all costs mindset. Just my 2 cents.

It's also a matter of intent of the game developers. This is their brainchild, it's their job to stomp out any potential misuses within the game when they pop up. Can you blame a player for using cheesy, unrealistic or exploitative tactics? Yes, absolutely you can. Ultimately it's up the devs to do something about it, but the players themselves should still be run out of town on a rail.

[BlueSkies]

This is the kind of thinking that has ruined the mindset of modern day gamers. Everyone is so concerned with their stats- k/d, w/l that they do whatever they can to "win" regardless of whether they are challenging themselves or actually having fun (god forbid).

If you're not getting paid for the outcome of a video game match, all your "MLG tactics" (lulz) and exploiting design flaws to "win" is actually kind of pathetic. Players with this mindset in PS1 spent a lot of time staring at terminals waiting for their scat max timer to go away, spamming stairways with thumpers and activating their pshield before every encounter. In other words, never trying to better themselves, rather, always searching for the upper hand to make sure as few fights as possible come down to skill versus skill. Not that skill is really applicable to modern day shooters or PS1 for that matter, but the small amount that exists is typically neutered by the win at all costs mindset. Just my 2 cents.

Its a video game, not a spiritual journey of personal growth. The goal is to win. If you aren't trying to win... what are you doing exactly?

Yes, its bloody annoying in PS1 when players charge down hallways/stairwells spamming thumpers and maelstroms... but I don't blame them for it. They aren't the ones that designed the damn things. Thankfully, those two weapons don't seem to exist in PS2.

[ArmedZealot]

Thankfully, those two weapons don't seem to exist in PS2.


yet...

[Disillusioned]

Its a video game, not a spiritual journey of personal growth. The goal is to win. If you aren't trying to win... what are you doing exactly?

Yes, its bloody annoying in PS1 when players charge down hallways/stairwells spamming thumpers and maelstroms... but I don't blame them for it. They aren't the ones that designed the damn things. Thankfully, those two weapons don't seem to exist in PS2.

The goal to win is not the problem, it's the goal to win at all costs. Highly regarded outfits- PcP, FC, TRx, Overlords, 1cmm, AC, DT and a few others I'm forgetting were able to "win", usually against 2x or more their numbers without relying on crutches/cheesedick tactics due to superior skill and smarts.

Conversely, outfits that relied heavily on uni-max, massive spam and blowing every gen as quickly as possible routinely needed 2x or more the numbers of their opponents. There were of course exceptions to this on both sides of the equation, but anyone who played PS1 in it's prime can tell you this was the way of things for the most part.

Unfortunately the majority of players failed to grasp this notion, and stuck with their "find the easiest solution to every encounter" mindset. In the end all this did was keep them from improving as players, and eventually turned the game into a mindless spam fest.

[Gortha]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU&feature=related

[Program]

Amen brother!
I feel 100% the same.
I prey this game wont be casualized.
I respect the veterans opinion(i am not a ps1 vet myself)and i think they should be the ones doing the balancing.
I came to this forum to vote against any sort of CODification and n00bification of the game,so we can FINALY have an FPS PC game that is NOT made for brain dead 14 years old kids.
Cheers!

Just what I was going to say! I, too, want a completely unique game experience!

[BlueSkies]

gen blowing aside (f#ck biolabs)

the max zergfits were at least amusing (well.. AT was anyway) since it usually failed horribly.

Also, you complained in your earlier post that people were too obsessed with their stats instead of challenging themselves or having fun. I'm fairly certain, especially during Drunk Ops, that those players were having fun. It might not be my cup of tea, but who cares. Thats the great thing about planetside, with such huge maps and populations, the game can have countless playstyles happily co-existing (aside from gen blowing).

[Gugabalog]

I find myself routinely and completely disagreeing with that kreut-something dude. The one with the german-y name.

I also agree that games that are the only one of their kind SHOULD be jealously defended by their fans because they have no other options.

[ArmedZealot]

I also agree that games that are the only one of their kind SHOULD be jealously defended by their fans because they have no other options.

My only problem with this is that those that do this consider any change to PS2 as a slight towards PS1.

Why isn't the AMS in the game?! PS1 had the AMS!
Why aren't their E/E animations?! PS1 had E/E animations?
Why does PS2 have ADS? PS1 didn't have ADS!
Why does PS2 have D+G tanks! PS1 didn't have D+G tanks!

Sooner or later we have to realize that PS1 really only has population over the past few months because of anticipation for PS2. If PS2 weren't being released PS1 likely would have been canned already.

[Gugabalog]

All answers are given from the perspective of a Non-Vet.

Why isn't the AMS in the game?! PS1 had the AMS!

The AMS was a strategic asset to help guide the Zerg

Why aren't their E/E animations?! PS1 had E/E animations?

E/E are important for immersion and allow the player to be killed in that last second if properly implemented.

Why does PS2 have ADS? PS1 didn't have ADS!

Ok, I agree this is stupid. ADS is a plus no mater what.

Why does PS2 have D+G tanks! PS1 didn't have D+G tanks!

I would prefer driver and gunner to be seperate.

[Slide Surveyor]

If you aren't trying to win... what are you doing exactly?
Then chances are you're teamkilling, spamming chat/VoIP, griefing, etc..

[OnexBigxHebrew]

Fun is subjective. What you may think is cheesy, "pathetic" or overly competitive, I think is a blast. What I may think is dated and boring, you think is the only way to enjoy a game. The entire fact that fun is subjective just makes this thread inflammatory and divides the community even further.

Bottom line, the game has modern features and old features, and will have players from all walks of gaming, from roleplaying guilds to mlg players to 11 year olds with their parents' credit cards. The more people here keep making threads about "ohhhhh, this mentality makes you a 'bittervet'" or "oh, only codfags or bf kids look at things like that" will prevent anyone from getting their opinions taken seriously and just turn this forum to shit.

We're all guilty in one way or another, but the fact here is that the game is mostly finished, so rather than throwing fits about having to play in the presence of new demographics, let's just celebrate the fact that so many from all around are taking an interest in this potentially groundbreaking game. :)

Fun is subjective - so lets all try to have it in our own way without generalizing and hating others for doing the same.

[Sledgecrushr]

I dont remember who said it but I like this saying , "If you aint cheating then you arent trying hard enough".

[Littleman]

Hrmmm.... I'd have to say... a tactic is only cheap if it ruins the game for every body. This was pretty much what dropping generators in PS1 amounted to. People can say they're here to win, but if there's absolutely no contest in winning, then it's not satisfying, and it certainly wasn't fun.

Coincidentally, I honestly think the lower TTK's and more open lay out of everything will somewhat stifle the "cheap" tactics of PS1: 3rd person at the top of the stairs is gone, grenade launcher spam is likely costly, reaver kill whoring will be even more dangerous/difficult, etc. I'm sure there may be NEW "cheap" tricks people will figure out, but hopefully with all the customization we have available, someone will find a way to beat those tactics.

[Deadeye]

Went back today and played an hour of BF3 and, when it decided to work (still getting connection issues 8 months after release) and ya know what? It does feel a tad short.

I think Planetside 1's ttk is way too long and favors heavy assault weapons way too much but I think the game could stand to be a tad longer than BF3.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

without relying on crutches

Lol, I guess that's why 90% of them all have audio camp, surge and targetting, use HA/AV/REXO and sit in reavers 90% of their time outdoors?

:rolleyes:

[opticalshadow]

Hrmmm.... I'd have to say... a tactic is only cheap if it ruins the game for every body. This was pretty much what dropping generators in PS1 amounted to. People can say they're here to win, but if there's absolutely no contest in winning, then it's not satisfying, and it certainly wasn't fun.
.

dropping the gens didn ruin everyones fun, it pushed a weaknes in the enemy, and won the base. people like me, who wanted victory for my empire understood this. if i want a kill farm id fight at a tower.

[Huntsab]

There are people dropping gens at every base. I played my TR alt and hooked up with BRTD and omg was the most boring time in game I have ever had. Waiting in empty bases is not fun you saddo's.

[SixShooter]

Fun is subjective. What you may think is cheesy, "pathetic" or overly competitive, I think is a blast. What I may think is dated and boring, you think is the only way to enjoy a game. The entire fact that fun is subjective just makes this thread inflammatory and divides the community even further.

Bottom line, the game has modern features and old features, and will have players from all walks of gaming, from roleplaying guilds to mlg players to 11 year olds with their parents' credit cards. The more people here keep making threads about "ohhhhh, this mentality makes you a 'bittervet'" or "oh, only codfags or bf kids look at things like that" will prevent anyone from getting their opinions taken seriously and just turn this forum to shit.

We're all guilty in one way or another, but the fact here is that the game is mostly finished, so rather than throwing fits about having to play in the presence of new demographics, let's just celebrate the fact that so many from all around are taking an interest in this potentially groundbreaking game. :)

Fun is subjective - so lets all try to have it in our own way without generalizing and hating others for doing the same.

Well said sir. :cheers:

[lawnmower]

a lot of players around here seem to wonder why whe still aren't iceskating around with a pinpoint reticul in a low-res 4x4 box.
dont act as if they are worse

Therefore, even though people seem to love it
i dont know what youre talking about, people seem to hate them

Well there is the argument of immersion vs. competition. Most people who complain about modern shooters want something more like Quake, Unreal Tounry, or Counter Stirke, where it's not about immersion but rather about 100% competition.
youve got it all wrong, they want something thats fun. something thats interresting, deep, with solid mechanics, and has a skill ceiling that starts bottoming out real fast

Counterstrike had way lower TTK than just about any modern shooter but is still one of the most skill based games there is. I'd bet the first time you play it you would go 1:10 or something like that.
thats because of other factors, lower ttk makes the skill difference between palyers smaller and lowers skill ceiling. i also doubt its one of the most skillful games there are

High TTK is noob friendly since then you always know what killed you
how is this even relevant to noobfriendliness?


On top of that, did you ever stop and think that maybe the developers like the new modern way to play FPS's?

why should we stop and think that? do we have any reason to?
yeah its kind of likely as theyre bad and that would help them compete, most probably think its hard to like even the best of games when youre getting crushed

It's not a case of "dragging it into"... They go hand in hand.

By definition, a sniper is someone who from a place of concealment, usually alone, or in support of a group not in his immediate vicinity, aims precise, targeted fire onto the enemy, achieving through precision what others achieve through volume.

It is irrelevant whether an individual is playing a "sniper class", using a "sniper rifle" or using a "pistol". The role IS.

Real world tactics and concepts apply even in a game of chess. That we are using guns AT ALL in this game is an influence of "real wars". That we have grenades AT ALL in this game is an influence of "real wars". That we have tanks, or aircraft, or machine guns, or RPGs, or combat medics... These are all concepts that come DIRECTLY FROM "real wars".
the role is whatever you make it to be. how real life works have zero relevance on how you should make your game

[Fligsnurt]

As right as OP may be, he said it himself, he is a Minority.
COD kids are a majority, thus they dictate the rules.
And no company in their right mind, will pick minority die hard fans over majority cash profits. You sir have not had much experience with CCP (EVE) and BiS (TakeOnH and ArmA). But those companies are kind of a diamond in the rough in view of all current developing companies.

On a seperate more on topic note.

Things in my opinion and from pure observation that have and are ruining modern gaming are certain trends modern gaming devs are adopting. (I will use BF3 a lot for examples because it was a game that let me down greatly for what it adopted.)

1) Prioritizing stats. With this people are pressured to think that KDR, KPM, WLR, are what determines a "good" player. The pilot who keeps the enemies air assets grounded and harasses the ground assets enough to keep them on their toes isn't considered a better player then the guy who flies around and does nothing but go for kills by only engaging easy targets. This also skews my next point.

2) Optional Team-Play. Most games reward players for kill streaks and all around kills more so then playing a support role for their team. Though it is to some of us more refreshing and fullfilling to play a dedicated support role most games don't support this behavior by rewarding this play style equally to the shoot anything that moves players. You see support who just run around gunning everything from the hip in BF3 more then them setting up and overwatching their squad. I love to support my squad in bf3 by providing cover for their advance and giving them ammo supplies after engaging the enemy or taking the CP. But you don't see it often, in most games LMG classes are nothing but glorified assault class with excessively large magazines. Same goes for medics, the "downed" timer in BF3 is so short so that players can get back into the action faster which makes it hard for medics to be effective in any other way except for suicide revives. Which just pisses players off to no extent.

3) Simplistic Gun-play. This is an arguable point based on preference but if you don't need to stop firing to reacquire your target (IE. target is never hard to keep inside your sights while firing full auto). Then your gun play is to simple. The rewarding experience from learning the kick / control of a weapon that you use is a better feeling then being able to pick up any random weapon and being decently good with it. This is more prevalent in CoD its not quite as bad in BF3 as their is a lot of control flavor between weapons but not enough to keep it from being annoying. Where CoD, most weapons (the most commonly used weapons in most games can be accused of this. IE the M16A3 in BF3) you can just aim and hold fire and you don't have to really try much to get the kill other then keep your crosshairs relative to the guy sprinting around.

4) Consolization of PC releases. This is a very heated topic but the only reason I list this is because most developers make their game for console then port it to pc with little or no optimization. Games like Borderlands and Just Cause 2 are extremely guilty of this, yes they are fun but Ill be damned if they aren't frustrating in the controls department. If you feel that a game is better off being played with a console controller hooked up to your pc then the mouse + keyboard combo it has failed in this department. Auto mouse smoothing, clunky movement controls, limited key binding options are all a curse that comes with this lazy / time cutting issue. Limiting control options on PC with the excuse that "its only fair that consoles and PCs are on the same playing field." is nothing but a BS excuse for the developers not wanting to put in the extra effort to work on a PC version. Yes its more complicated due to the mix and match hardware configs in the PC genre where consoles its the same stuff over and over. But its still lazy and its still a let down to those who would rather play on PC. This is also emphasized by a company that responds that if your having a problem its your hardware even though nothing they did was designed to work correctly for anything but your OS.

These are my observations and speculations. Comment freely and let me know if you disagree or agree. If you disagree with any point I would love to see your reasons as I love to have in depth discussions especially if I am missing something and / or I am completely wrong.

TL'DR? Please Don't bother responding if you aren't going to read my post in full it wont benefit this thread, yourself, or myself.

Thank you for your time.

Edit: Also TTK is a differential of two seperate "skill sets" faster TTK allows the twitch gamer to have the advantage. Higher TTK allows for players who have better control of weapons and overall better "tracking" skills to be on an advantage.

[Xenostalker]

Fun is subjective. What you may think is cheesy, "pathetic" or overly competitive, I think is a blast. What I may think is dated and boring, you think is the only way to enjoy a game. The entire fact that fun is subjective just makes this thread inflammatory and divides the community even further.

Bottom line, the game has modern features and old features, and will have players from all walks of gaming, from roleplaying guilds to mlg players to 11 year olds with their parents' credit cards. The more people here keep making threads about "ohhhhh, this mentality makes you a 'bittervet'" or "oh, only codfags or bf kids look at things like that" will prevent anyone from getting their opinions taken seriously and just turn this forum to shit.

We're all guilty in one way or another, but the fact here is that the game is mostly finished, so rather than throwing fits about having to play in the presence of new demographics, let's just celebrate the fact that so many from all around are taking an interest in this potentially groundbreaking game. :)

Fun is subjective - so lets all try to have it in our own way without generalizing and hating others for doing the same.

Yes.

[snaffe]

Fun is subjective. What you may think is cheesy, "pathetic" or overly competitive, I think is a blast. What I may think is dated and boring, you think is the only way to enjoy a game. The entire fact that fun is subjective just makes this thread inflammatory and divides the community even further.

Bottom line, the game has modern features and old features, and will have players from all walks of gaming, from roleplaying guilds to mlg players to 11 year olds with their parents' credit cards. The more people here keep making threads about "ohhhhh, this mentality makes you a 'bittervet'" or "oh, only codfags or bf kids look at things like that" will prevent anyone from getting their opinions taken seriously and just turn this forum to shit.

We're all guilty in one way or another, but the fact here is that the game is mostly finished, so rather than throwing fits about having to play in the presence of new demographics, let's just celebrate the fact that so many from all around are taking an interest in this potentially groundbreaking game. :)

Fun is subjective - so lets all try to have it in our own way without generalizing and hating others for doing the same.

Amen. I still want to shoot you in the face, mind. (unless you are sexy purple).

[psychosiszz]

Kill Zone 2 was never a good game.

[Piper]

how is this even relevant to noobfriendliness?


Because the higher the TTK the longer a player has to reflect on the manner of their demise. To play "what if". What if I had done X or countered with Y, would I have made it out the other side of the engagement.

Too short a TTK, wham-bam-thankyou-maam and the perception might be that whatever the new player might have tried nothing would have changed the situation, frustration creeps in and they are an ex-new player before they know it.

On topic of the OP, there is no reason why you can't multi-layer the complexity of a game like PS2, PS1 did it fine after all. For those that didn't want complex there was instant action (when it worked) and a big brainless cluster fudge of a zerg fight to go fragging in and nothing more.

For those that wanted complexity you could find it, and more importantly create it for yourself. For those of us (I include myself) who prefer the later it really does need to be an option in game for the longevity of it in terms of playerbase. I worry that there is little to no "global" game in PS2 from what I've seen so far.

In short, game design to only the lowest common denominator (like so much creative design post millennium) should be avoided!

[Stanis]

the role is whatever you make it to be. how real life works have zero relevance on how you should make your game

careful.
Or they'll have us integrated with facebook in no time..

"Stanis needs bullets! Help him build an armoury for +10 bullets and get yourself an amazing bandolera too".

[BlueSkies]

careful.
Or they'll have us integrated with facebook in no time..

"Stanis needs bullets! Help him build an armoury for +10 bullets and get yourself an amazing bandolera too".

... You can already earn station cash for PS2 on facebook :p

[brighthand]

Kill Zone 2 was never a good game.

I think Killzone 2 is one of the best shooters ever made for the following reasons:

-skillful, satisfying gunplay that demands practice and time before you can get good
-weighted feel and movement, which some people hate while others approbate ;)
-custom servers (other devs don't do that on consoles because it confuses some players- I am not kidding, that is why they don't have it in other console games)
-robust clan support
-class balance (assault class not withstanding because it is eliminated in custom servers)
-class abilities balance (example, the sniper required you to keep your sixaxis controller steady in order to land a shot, and his spotting and cloaking was limited.
-dynamic spawn system by way of spawn grenades, which sometimes leads to spawn camping when used by an inexperienced tactician, but turns the map into an ever-changing battlefield that causes people to think on their feet and change tactics on the fly.
-slower pace meant thikning out most of your steps, as each step back from your original direction meant a loss in position that may or may not have been worth the regression.
-gloomy, grim artstyle that at the time was very cool. -I still like those skies and street lights in Salamaun Market and Helghan Industries.
-Proxy chat: you can talk to your enemy if he is near to you; think of the possibilities after a kill or capture.
-mix modes in the same game, especially assassin, when one live player on a team is designated a target and he has to rely on his team to keep him alive for the duration of the round.
-Excellent map design: the the maps arent bf2 large, and didn't have to be: they were built for what the game is: an infantry tactical shooter.
-32 players; I know this is a drop in the bucket for PC shooters but vs. the consoles' standard 24 players, this amount is quite a luxery

There are negatives of kz2, as no game is perfect, but as you can see: the list of positives is extensive. So I am curious as to why you seem adamant that kz2, considered a gem by many ardent players, is not a good game?