They should start giving Peter Jackson enough money to make a movie out of this.

[Astrok]

The cinematic trailer i saw makes me want to see more.Why not make a movie thats based on planetside.?


BTW well done trailer.

[The Kush]

/fail

[Astrok]

/fail

if u can make it better u should...but hey i know something.... u cant.

:rofl:

[MrKWalmsley]

Well it's true. There's not much of a good story you can get about a struggle and loss and the horrors of war when the universe it is set in has re-spawning for everyone built into the lore itself. I mean with other games like Halo spawning is just a game mechanic which is supposed to be separate from the actual setting, but in Planetside re-spawning has been built into the very story of it.

Unless of course you are just looking for a Transformeresque movie all about 'splosions, in which case Peter Jackson has more credibility than to make such crap. Go speak to someone like Michael Bay, or George Lucas, I'm sure they're willing to make a film just to show off special effects.

[Astrok]

Well it's true. There's not much of a good story you can get about a struggle and loss and the horrors of war when the universe it is set in has re-spawning for everyone. Unless of course you are just looking for a Transformeresque movie all about 'splosions, in which case Peter Jackson has more credibility than to make such crap.

just a nice movie with a nice story...wouldnt be to hard to make a nice story out of this.

Their hasnt to be a ending just a war movie for like 1:30 hour (not longer).Like u watch the movie from 3 perspectives. The tr one,nc one,vanu one without anyone thats good or bad.

[MrKWalmsley]

just a nice movie with a nice story...wouldnt be to hard to make a nice story out of this.

Their hasnt to be a ending just a war movie for like 1:30 hour (not longer).Like u watch the movie from 3 perspectives. The tr one,nc one,vanu one without anyone thats good or bad.

1:30, shown from the perspective of 3 totally different factions is not enough to make a good story. If you want the story to just be like "we've got to go take this amp station, here we go" and they fight their way to the amp station, respawning as they go until one or none take the station, then that's still not worthy of Peter Jackson. It would still just be another Transformeresque 'splosion fest, without enough time to feel any emotional connection to any of the characters, and therefore the viewer does not care about the outcome.

I wouldn't call that a movie with a nice story, I'd call that a glorified trailer.

[Harasus]

Meh, movies inspired by games have a tendency to suck. I would prefer if they did not even try, to be honest.

[Accuser]

Well it's true. There's not much of a good story you can get about a struggle and loss and the horrors of war when the universe it is set in has re-spawning for everyone built into the lore itself. I mean with other games like Halo spawning is just a game mechanic which is supposed to be separate from the actual setting, but in Planetside re-spawning has been built into the very story of it.

I was thinking the same thing... but that doesn't have to be how the movie goes. Imagine this:
Act 1: Auraxis, factions, eternal warfare, respawning, main characters are introduced.
Act 2: Neutral scientists (who have rejected respawning as cheapening life) see constant pain and suffering of war, decide to sabotage ALL respawning with a computer virus or something. Thereby forcing humans to fear death and make peace.
Act 3: Each faction learns of the virus and clamors over each other in one epic final battle to take the virus to use as a weapon against the other factions.

Possible Conclusions:
1. Virus is destroyed. Neutral scientists lament the nature of man. Roll credits.

2. Virus is activated and all respawning stops. Everything goes quiet... until the soldiers realize how much is at stake and fight harder than ever and real deaths ensue. Scientists lament the nature of man. Roll credits.

3. Virus is activated and the factions make peace. The Vanu show up to wipe them all out, since the respawn tech they left behind was a test to see if humanity would squander the gift of immortality. Aliens lament the nature of man. Roll credits.


I'm no screenwriter, but imo that sh*t sounds like something I'd pay to see.

[BlueSkies]

You guys mention respawning as if it removed the horror of war...

Frankly, I think its a bit terrifying. Here are these soldiers, committed to a never ending war, and not even death can save them from it. They will die, and return to the fight. Watch their friends blown to pieces, and return to the fight.

Yeah.. doesn't sound terrible at all...

[Harasus]

Well, eventually you get blown up so hard that nothing can respawn you. Hopefully, yeah?

[KnifeGun]

Fuck a movie!

This is better suited for an HBO series similar to the format of Game of Thrones!

[MrKWalmsley]

You guys mention respawning as if it removed the horror of war...

Frankly, I think its a bit terrifying. Here are these soldiers, committed to a never ending war, and not even death can save them from it. They will die, and return to the fight. Watch their friends blown to pieces, and return to the fight.

Yeah.. doesn't sound terrible at all...

The main horror of war which I was referring to is the loss of those around you, and the fear deep inside of them for the loss of their own life. What do you think is more horrific, watching your friend get blown to pieces over and over again knowing full well that you'll see them later on anyway, or watching your friend get blown to pieces once, and knowing you will never see them again?

I know I do not have combat experience but I would wager you would become de-sensitized after a while. It just becomes a physical video-game, your friends just becomes a player. That horror eventually gets boiled down to just being visual since you know conceptually your going to be sat at a table joking with them in an hour. And visuals are pretty easy to become de-sensitized to when it has no conceptual horror to back it up.

[Firearms]

The main difficulty would be making a film that appeals to everybody but the Planetside community. It would have to do that, otherwise you're making it for the PS community, in which case you have to make sure that the same terrority is split three ways, the body count is the same on all three side. Equal screen time for 3 sets of max's...blah blah blah.
One elemnt wrong and the community goes in to melt down....the new CGI trailer is good though. NC were awsome in it. TR, not so much :D

[MrKWalmsley]

The main difficulty would be making a film that appeals to everybody but the Planetside community. It would have to do that, otherwise you're making it for the PS community, in which case you have to make sure that the same terrority is split three ways, the body count is the same on all three side. Equal screen time for 3 sets of max's...blah blah blah.
One elemnt wrong and the community goes in to melt down....the new CGI trailer is good though. NC were awsome in it. TR, not so much :D

Exactly, and as much as I love the NC, I wish they weren't practically "the faction" when it comes to the advertisements. It really is increasing the chances of lone-wolf Halo-like players joining NC rather than any other faction.

[Otleaz]

You guys mention respawning as if it removed the horror of war...

Frankly, I think its a bit terrifying. Here are these soldiers, committed to a never ending war, and not even death can save them from it. They will die, and return to the fight. Watch their friends blown to pieces, and return to the fight.

Yeah.. doesn't sound terrible at all...

That isn't how it would work. I can guarantee you that if getting a paper cut was lethal, it would be just as terrifying as getting blown to pieces. On the other hand, if getting blown up was as trivial as getting a papercut, it wouldn't be terrifying at all.

If I were to make a wild assumption, I would say that the people involved would start warming up to the other sides, treating it like a game with rivals that they enjoy seeing on the field.

[Ndy]

Would be awesome indeed! One can always hope :)

[roguy]

That isn't how it would work. I can guarantee you that if getting a paper cut was lethal, it would be just as terrifying as getting blown to pieces. On the other hand, if getting blown up was as trivial as getting a papercut, it wouldn't be terrifying at all.

If I were to make a wild assumption, I would say that the people involved would start warming up to the other sides, treating it like a game with rivals that they enjoy seeing on the field.

IMO it wouldn't quite happen that way, because:

1) I'd imagine dying is pretty damn painful.
2) Some deaths are wayyyyy scarier than others like getting shot in the head vs getting thrown into the vaccuum of space or catching a plague.
3) Human instincts. Take "waterplanking" for example, you won't really die from it, nor be permanently damaged by it but people crap their pants because it simulates the act of drowning.

The Battlestar Gallactica reboot addressed respawning pretty well. The cylons started developping a fear of death (as it became more painful to endure) or started going around the bend (Scar was consumed by reckless hate and anger, sixes commiting suicide, threes taking some perverse pleasure from dying as it brings them supposedly closer to god). So there's definately room there to make "smart" sci-fi instead of Michael Bay/Roland Emmerich bullshit.

[snaffe]

This is how the movie would go:

1. Terran MALE soldier finds this really attractive NC hottie on the battlefield. Turns out it's his long lost sister after snogging.
2. Both end up fighting a VS army with mysterious powers and no incest happens! Just almost.

Shoot that's Star Wars innit.

Ooooor NC soldier finds mysterious alien tech that needs to be melted down in a volcano........

[MrKWalmsley]

IMO it wouldn't quite happen that way, because:

1) I'd imagine dying is pretty damn painful.
2) Some deaths are wayyyyy scarier than others like getting shot in the head vs getting thrown into the vaccuum of space or catching a plague.
3) Human instincts. Take "waterplanking" for example, you won't really die from it, nor be permanently damaged by it but people crap their pants because it simulates the act of drowning.

The Battlestar Gallactica reboot addressed respawning pretty well. The cylons started developping a fear of death (as it became more painful to endure) or started going around the bend (Scar was consumed by reckless hate and anger, sixes commiting suicide, threes taking some perverse pleasure from dying as it brings them supposedly closer to god). So there's definately room there to make "smart" sci-fi instead of Michael Bay/Roland Emmerich bullshit.

First of all, dying is not always damn painful, in fact in a warzone with pin-point accuracy and serious damage, most of the deaths (at least in this setting) would be very quick, if not instant. And if they are slowly dying painfully, the fact that you can respawn makes suicide a vice. One bullet to the head and the pain is gone, and your back in a new fresh body. If you cannot commit suicide because lets say, your arms have been blown off, usually in that situation you would fall unconscious anyway. I think I would expect my allies to shoot me in the head if I was in that situation and I would extend the favour, it would be the most merciful thing to do for your friend, but on a tactical level it does not slow the fight down or put your fellow soldiers at risk.

Secondly, dying in a vacuum or catching the plague has nothing to do with ground based warfare. Neither does waterboarding, since most of the deaths in this kind of war would be instant. Also, instincts can be played down by knowledge. Are you afraid of the dark? Probably not, or at least not to the degree where it actually effects you in any way or is noticeable, and yet it is instinctual to fear the dark. Fear is an instinct which can easily be overcome, particularly with military training and combat experience. Your only point is how scary these things are to us right now, you don't seem to take into account the main point of this argument: the fact that you are exposed to this over and over again.

And yeah, Battlestar Gallactica did do that, however that was over a large timescale, he is talking about an hour and a half of film. The kind of leap that would require would be similar to the unbelievable leap from Anakin killing Mace Windu (and regretting it straight away) to mass murdering children a couple of minutes without regret.

Sorry if this is too long.

[Shogun]

make 3 movies!

one for each faction. and let them collide so that some situations will occur in each movie seen from the other points of view.

but give it to peter jackson and NOT TO UWE BOLL!

[Canaris]

as a director Peter Jackson has lost all credability since LOTR, it's pure shite. If you want a real director to make a planetside movie, then go straight to the top of the food chain and get Christopher Nolan

[Figment]

as a director Peter Jackson has lost all credability since LOTR, it's pure shite. If you want a real director to make a planetside movie, then go straight to the top of the food chain and get Christopher Nolan

*rough voice* I'm Batman. *decloaks*

[Shogun]

the movie for the vanu side should be made by quentin tarrantino ;-)

[MasterMind]

Instead of a movie, how about a reboot of a show like Red vs Blue?

Oh my, the fun we could have!

[Firearms]

make 3 movies!

one for each faction. and let them collide so that some situations will occur in each movie seen from the other points of view.

but give it to peter jackson and NOT TO UWE BOLL!

Best idea so far.

Nominate:-

NC - Higby himself
TR - Chris Ward
VS - Kimberly Kane

[roguy]

First of all, dying is not always damn painful, in fact in a warzone with pin-point accuracy and serious damage, most of the deaths (at least in this setting) would be very quick, if not instant.

Every war ever fought has had more wounded than dead so a don't see how one could assume that in the future it would be any different, especially considering how many weapons developped in the 20th (and today...) that are designed to maim rather than kill in order to demoralize and stress your oponents logistics.

That's not even factoring in "foul play" such as torture, humiliation, executions, attacking civilian objectives etc. Wich would be sure to keep the tensions and hatred going.


And if they are slowly dying painfully, the fact that you can respawn makes suicide a vice. One bullet to the head and the pain is gone, and your back in a new fresh body.


That's assuming that respawning is cheap as chips or that your enemy doesn't try to take out your respawning facilites or "respawn juice" (or whatever) factories. Or maybe even political implications like threatening under performing troops to NOT resurrect them if they fail or to set an example (much like machine gunners ordered to take out their own soldiers if they retreated in WW1).


Secondly, dying in a vacuum or catching the plague has nothing to do with ground based warfare. Neither does waterboarding, since most of the deaths in this kind of war would be instant.


Ok how about Mustard gas? The whole reason why the use of gas weaponry escalated in WW1 was because both sides were becoming desperate to end and seemingly endless war. For example, I've felt the effects of tear gas once.... I'm 100% sure i wouldn't have died from it but it's damn scary.


And yeah, Battlestar Gallactica did do that, however that was over a large timescale, he is talking about an hour and a half of film. The kind of leap that would require would be similar to the unbelievable leap from Anakin killing Mace Windu (and regretting it straight away) to mass murdering children a couple of minutes without regret.


There's plenty of war movies that have done the boy-goes-to-war-and-is-never-the-same in 1 hour 30 minutes. "All quiet on the western front" is a great example.

[Otleaz]

For the few people who saw my rant about the community a couple weeks back followed by a declaration to avoid involving myself in any future discussions, the above post is a shining example of what I was talking about.

[MrKWalmsley]

Every war ever fought has had more wounded than dead so a don't see how one could assume that in the future it would be any different, especially considering how many weapons developped in the 20th (and today...) that are designed to maim rather than kill in order to demoralize and stress your oponents logistics.
We can discount the wounded-dead ration of every war up until very recent modern history on the count that weapons were ineffective, and inaccurate, leading to wounds rather than kills. Also, can you name me one weapon which is used regularly today by a first world country, which is soully designed to maim rather than kill?

That's not even factoring in "foul play" such as torture, humiliation, executions, attacking civilian objectives etc. Wich would be sure to keep the tensions and hatred going.


Torture is only possible with capture, and capture is mostly made possible by surrender. Surrender requires those surrendering to be fearful for their lives, which means that capture in itself cannot be used to justify fear, as fear itself is necessary to justify capture. Although it is possible to capture someone who hasn't surrendered, it would be VERY rare indeed, and not a constant fear worth mentioning. If I'm defending a hopeless position, and I know I can respawn (or at least I think I do) I'm going to fight to the death, or at the very least shoot myself to avoid capture. And before you say "well what if re-spawning has been disabled?", well in that scenario, it would practically be the end of the war, and so is irrelevant to the day-to-day struggle of a soldeir in PS2.


That's assuming that respawning is cheap as chips or that your enemy doesn't try to take out your respawning facilites or "respawn juice" (or whatever) factories. Or maybe even political implications like threatening under performing troops to NOT resurrect them if they fail or to set an example (much like machine gunners ordered to take out their own soldiers if they retreated in WW1).

In the lore of the game, re-spawning is cheap as chips, otherwise they would be far rarer than being placed in practically every single building on Auraxis (including such simple things as towers). Also not many soldiers would be fearing what is not likely (like the spawn chamber being taken out) because it is likely that they would know about it's loss (which would require ALL spawning tubes to be captured) if it happened, so there would be no reason to actively fear it. Just like modern soldiers today don't drive back to base fearing that the base has been taken over and enemies lay in ambush.

Also threatening to effectively kill soldiers is basically a court marshal execution. They have been deemed to be un-ethical now, I don't see why ethics would fall back to the dark ages in the future.


Ok how about Mustard gas? The whole reason why the use of gas weaponry escalated in WW1 was because both sides were becoming desperate to end and seemingly endless war. For example, I've felt the effects of tear gas once.... I'm 100% sure i wouldn't have died from it but it's damn scary.

Once again, if it is not lethal, experience can overcome a fear! Simple! As for lethal gases like mustard gas, the majority of characters seem to be using gas masks permanently, so I don't think that is much of a threat to them. If either side was to deploy a weapon to end the war I'm pretty sure it would be a nuclear device, nothing as clumsy and unreliable as mustard gas.


There's plenty of war movies that have done the boy-goes-to-war-and-is-never-the-same in 1 hour 30 minutes. "All quiet on the western front" is a great example.

Yes that's true, but when the horror itself is based around how many times you spawn (which was clearly what I was referring to in this comment) it requires a large amount of deaths by the main character to see a visible change. War itself can change someone because it can be experienced constantly, wereas re-spawning is a singular event which needs to be repeated in order to work as a transformation. I'd say the main character would have to die at least 20 times in the film for such a transformation to be believable. Once again that comment was only responding to the horror coming from repeated resurrection within such a short time-frame, not war itself.

[DSxGIIR]

The guy that directed Avatar would be awesome, not the lame cartoon movie...

[roguy]

We can discount the wounded-dead ration of every war up until very recent modern history on the count that weapons were ineffective, and inaccurate, leading to wounds rather than kills.

Ok so what do you consider ineffective and innaccurate? Because that fact hasn't changed in either Irak, Afghanistan or Syria so the point still stands. Another fact is that the more "effective" a weapon becomes the more "effective" it's counter becomes so it stays pretty much the same in the larger picture. Bullets lead to making kevlar vests, machine guns lead to tanks etc.


Also, can you name me one weapon which is used regularly today by a first world country, which is soully designed to maim rather than kill?

Sure : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-personnel_mine



Torture is only possible with capture, and capture is mostly made possible by surrender. Surrender requires those surrendering to be fearful for their lives, which means that capture in itself cannot be used to justify fear, as fear itself is necessary to justify capture. Although it is possible to capture someone who hasn't surrendered, it would be VERY rare indeed, and not a constant fear worth mentioning.

So you don't think that with capturing being the only way to properly "take out" a soldier from the war, you wouldn't assume that the factions wouldn't develop a means to make it easier? Or wouldn't adapt to the fact that any soldier they try to gather intel from will immediately attempt to off himself?


Also threatening to effectively kill soldiers is basically a court marshal execution. They have been deemed to be un-ethical now, I don't see why ethics would fall back to the dark ages in the future.


You mean unethical stuff like dictatorships (TR), terrorism (NC) or eugenics (VS)?? Hell, cloning is banned in all 4 corners of the world and that's not even close to rebirthing.


Once again, if it is not lethal, experience can overcome a fear! Simple! As for lethal gases like mustard gas, the majority of characters seem to be using gas masks permanently, so I don't think that is much of a threat to them. If either side was to deploy a weapon to end the war I'm pretty sure it would be a nuclear device, nothing as clumsy and unreliable as mustard gas.


Fine then. Take radioactive poisoning, biological weapons and nerve gas. I'm just pointing out that in EVERY war things start out pretty tame and honorable in comparison to what happens towards the later stages. Be it WW1 , WW2, Vietnam etc.


Yes that's true, but when the horror itself is based around how many times you spawn (which was clearly what I was referring to in this comment) it requires a large amount of deaths by the main character to see a visible change. War itself can change someone because it can be experienced constantly, wereas re-spawning is a singular event which needs to be repeated in order to work as a transformation. I'd say the main character would have to die at least 20 times in the film for such a transformation to be believable. Once again that comment was only responding to the horror coming from repeated resurrection within such a short time-frame, not war itself.

I respect your opinion but I'll disagree on the basis that not all traumatic experiences are related to death, then there are preconceptions, instincts... Even the best spec ops soldiers can have some severe mental scarring after a few months of active duty.

[Attackmack]

as a director Peter Jackson has lost all credability since LOTR, it's pure shite. If you want a real director to make a planetside movie, then go straight to the top of the food chain and get Christopher Nolan

Came in here just to write what you already wrote :)

But yeah, where they to make a movie out of Planetside it should fall on either Nolan/zimmer OR Darren Aronofsky.
The latter might not be into the whole epic grandscale type of movies but he would make it gritty and grim in a thoughful and depressing way.
Much in par with the latest PS2 trailer!

[Duckforceone]

hmmm time to get some friends to build a few ps2 armors, and writing some short scripts...

might be quite fun to make a short fan film of this...

but i would never make a full length movie, without having the rights to earn money on it... :D

[MrKWalmsley]

Ok so what do you consider ineffective and innaccurate? Because that fact hasn't changed in either Irak, Afghanistan or Syria so the point still stands. Another fact is that the more "effective" a weapon becomes the more "effective" it's counter becomes so it stays pretty much the same in the larger picture. Bullets lead to making kevlar vests, machine guns lead to tanks etc.

First of all we should discount all those injuries caused by insurgents since they are not exactly a professional military bound by at least some combat code (bearing in mind that most of their tactics revolves around IED's which make up a large proportion of injuries compared to deaths). Now we can discount things like carpet bombing, and other AEO weapons not present in PS2. Then whatever you are left with injury wise needs to be stacked up against the comparison, which I think might support your claim. But even if it does, the fact is, the fear of injury would be quelled by the knowledge that you can kill yourself, or like I said, have a friend do it for you! So this whole piece of the argument is totally irrelevant until you can prove that they would fear injury to the same extent as modern soldiers!


Sure : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-personnel_mine


Ah, I thought they were banned. Seems like my knowledge of military details only really expands to my own countries military. My apologies.




So you don't think that with capturing being the only way to properly "take out" a soldier from the war, you wouldn't assume that the factions wouldn't develop a means to make it easier? Or wouldn't adapt to the fact that any soldier they try to gather intel from will immediately attempt to off himself?

In the Planetside 2 universe, they haven't. This is a classic war, you seem to be basing many of your arguments pertaining to Planetside 2 on concepts which are not even in Planetside 2. Whether or not they "could" develop such a device, it does not exist in Planetside 2 yet, and so there would be no reason for people to fear such a thing, therefore, there will be a lack of fear of capture due to it's low likelihood.


You mean unethical stuff like dictatorships (TR), terrorism (NC) or eugenics (VS)?? Hell, cloning is banned in all 4 corners of the world and that's not even close to rebirthing.

Ok, TR is a dictatorship, NC are not terrorists since they engage in open warfare and do not attack civilian targets. The VS as far as I have seen, are not forcing eugenics on others, if it can even be called that since it is on an individual basis, also what you seem to think is "eugenics" is not entirely bad, take for instance the eradication of genes which cause serious illness? Not by killing people with those illnesses but by modifying willing mothers so that their offspring can avoid such illnesses! It's only bad when taken to Nazi extremes, which is not what I see from the VS.


Fine then. Take radioactive poisoning, biological weapons and nerve gas. I'm just pointing out that in EVERY war things start out pretty tame and honorable in comparison to what happens towards the later stages. Be it WW1 , WW2, Vietnam etc.

Biological weapons and nerve gas are (once again) useless on a battlefield where most of the forces have gas masks and protective suits on constantly. They would not be constant threats in such a setting. As for radiation poison, if you are referring to nuclear fallout, then once again I'd stress that these weapons would be deployed to fully end the war, so there shouldn't be any fear for it at the forefront of their minds. Once again, you are basing your arguments on something which is not used in the Planetside 2 universe, which is ridiculous, and does absolutely nothing for your argument. Stick to the things that ARE in PS2 when referring to the threats posed to those IN PS2.


I respect your opinion but I'll disagree on the basis that not all traumatic experiences are related to death, then there are preconceptions, instincts... Even the best spec ops soldiers can have some severe mental scarring after a few months of active duty.
ONCE AGAIN! I did clarify twice in the comment you are replying to, that my original comment was not directed towards the horrors of warfare in general (which would include close scrapes with death!) but instead referred to the horror of resurrection in regard to as it was portrayed in BSG. ONCE AGAIN, I did not say that it wouldn't cause any scarring, just that it would require it to happen a large amount in the 1:30 film in order for it to have the believable effects that BSG portrayed over several days worth of film. Try to understand that, please!

[Timithos]

Meh, movies inspired by games have a tendency to suck. I would prefer if they did not even try, to be honest.

What about Doom!? - A vast, sprawling, underground, Mars complex filmed in.... JUST 7 ROOMs!!!

I'd prefer they not try unless we hit 10 million subscribers.

[Geist]

IMO it wouldn't quite happen that way, because:

1) I'd imagine dying is pretty damn painful.
2) Some deaths are wayyyyy scarier than others like getting shot in the head vs getting thrown into the vaccuum of space or catching a plague.
3) Human instincts. Take "waterplanking" for example, you won't really die from it, nor be permanently damaged by it but people crap their pants because it simulates the act of drowning.

The Battlestar Gallactica reboot addressed respawning pretty well. The cylons started developping a fear of death (as it became more painful to endure) or started going around the bend (Scar was consumed by reckless hate and anger, sixes commiting suicide, threes taking some perverse pleasure from dying as it brings them supposedly closer to god). So there's definately room there to make "smart" sci-fi instead of Michael Bay/Roland Emmerich bullshit.

Exactly people seem to forget that just because you can revive after death you are perfectly fine with it. The trauma of coming back after a horrific death must be ridiculous, I have no doubt the insane asylums on Auraxis are full and everyone who's participated in the war for any length of time has a few problems with their state of mind.

A movie that dealt with the psychological aspect of a truly never ending war would be pretty interesting to me honestly.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[roguy]

First of all we should discount all those injuries caused by insurgents since they are not exactly a professional military bound by at least some combat code (bearing in mind that most of their tactics revolves around IED's which make up a large proportion of injuries compared to deaths).


That's semantics, the Brits dug tunnels in WW1 to plant what is essentially massive IEDs under german trenches. The germans, late WW2 planted IEDs all over the place and attached wires accross roads to chop peoples' heads off. There are loads of very modern examples of that. The line between insurgent and proffessional is real hazy in that context.


But even if it does, the fact is, the fear of injury would be quelled by the knowledge that you can kill yourself, or like I said, have a friend do it for you! So this whole piece of the argument is totally irrelevant until you can prove that they would fear injury to the same extent as modern soldiers!


Fair point and maybe it might not make sense that they'd do but if you pay close attention to the CGI trailer you see an NC medic patching up a wounded in the chest HA, then a TR tank commander screams as a grenade get's thrown into his tank.


Ah, I thought they were banned. Seems like my knowledge of military details only really expands to my own countries military. My apologies.

No problem :), although I'll still say that if 2 countries hated each others' guts enough the Geneva convention wouldn't count for squat. Especially in "a war that isn't about who's right, but about who is left". See, from that quote, I'm going on the basis that this is a war of extermination so I don't understand why you'd think ethics would get in the way.


In the Planetside 2 universe, they haven't. This is a classic war, you seem to be basing many of your arguments pertaining to Planetside 2 on concepts which are not even in Planetside 2. Whether or not they "could" develop such a device, it does not exist in Planetside 2 yet, and so there would be no reason for people to fear such a thing, therefore, there will be a lack of fear of capture due to it's low likelihood.

Ok, yes it isn't in the game, we'll agree on that. Logically speaking though, it's a bit of a plot hole, considering that the technology is somewhat available now and it'd make sense assuming you have absolutely no other way to permanently take out an enemy soldier. Just like aircraft in the game can only go 300kph... Does that make sense? Should that low speed be accurately depicted in an (unlikely) movie? I'd say no, but it's ok for gameplay reasons i guess.


Ok, TR is a dictatorship, NC are not terrorists since they engage in open warfare and do not attack civilian targets. The VS as far as I have seen, are not forcing eugenics on others (...)


We could argue this but the truth is that, the faction's backstories are ambiguous to non-existant. There's room to think they're all good or all evil but they are really far removed from a modern mostly peace loving social-democracies of today. Again, this is my opinion but I find it hard to imagine the NC staying honorable if they are trying to break free of a multi-century old dictatorship with an industry/culture backed up by the whole planet earth.


Biological weapons and nerve gas are (once again) useless on a battlefield where most of the forces have gas masks and protective suits on constantly. They would not be constant threats in such a setting. (...) Once again, you are basing your arguments on something which is not used in the Planetside 2 universe, which is ridiculous, and does absolutely nothing for your argument. Stick to the things that ARE in PS2 when referring to the threats posed to those IN PS2.


Lore-wise there are civilians on Auraxis, but they arn't present in the game; wich is again for gameplay reasons, so are they in or out of PS2? So, one, bio weapons and nerve gas could potentially be "useful" and two do you think that the factions would avoid terrorising/attacking civies?

ONCE AGAIN, I did not say that it wouldn't cause any scarring, just that it would require it to happen a large amount in the 1:30 film in order for it to have the believable effects that BSG portrayed over several days worth of film. Try to understand that, please!

Fine, consider the two caprica 6 models that i referenced in my post then.

The one who tries to take out Pegasus and get's tortured and the one who just turns up and shoots a human because she got drowned once on New Caprica... Those didn't take up alot of air time. And they certainly didn't need to go through death more than once before going bananas, in a credible way ofc.

And besides, never underestimate the power of the montage! :D

South Park Montage song (lyrics) - YouTube

[Yasuo]

What if rebirth was incredibly painful? you could see the soldier go into "shock" after the first rebirth, go numb midway into the film then crazy/desperate/ect for the last part of the movie.

[Envenom]

If they made that movie, I would watch it. Loved the trailer. I forsee a 2.5 hour space epic. Jackson, make it happen.

[sumo]

a terrible idea that will hopefully NEVER be reality...

[PoisonTaco]

Actually I'd prefer something produced by Peter Jackson and directed by Neil Blomkamp. Blonkamp's style with his Halo 3 shorts and in District 9 are very well done and I think it would be well suited for something like Planetside.

But let's be real here. Planetside doesn't really have that much of a compelling story. It's all there to give some kind of background as to why we're all fighting each other. The real stories in Planetside 2 will be made by players and outfits. That's something you can't really put on the big screen.

[Raymac]

Meh, movies inspired by games have a tendency to suck. I would prefer if they did not even try, to be honest.

This is the sad truth. Let's face it. A Planetside movie would likely be staring James Van Der Beek and Lindsey Lohan. Video game movies never turn out well.

Also, I find it amusing how roguy and MrKWalmsey are having their own off topic conversation about the details of a war with no death.

[roguy]

Also, I find it amusing how roguy and MrKWalmsey are having their own off topic conversation about the details of a war with no death.

Hey c'mon, why not? Taking crazy impossible ideas and thinking of the consequences is what sci fi is all about! :D

[Baneblade]

There are really only three possible stories that could be made into a movie based on PlanetSide.

How we got to Auraxis, How the 3 factions and their perpetual war came about, and what happens to everyone when the Vanu (the real ones, not the bronies in camo) return to their artificial planet.

It could be a trilogy.

[Geist]

Actually I'd prefer something produced by Peter Jackson and directed by Neil Blomkamp. Blonkamp's style with his Halo 3 shorts and in District 9 are very well done and I think it would be well suited for something like Planetside.

But let's be real here. Planetside doesn't really have that much of a compelling story. It's all there to give some kind of background as to why we're all fighting each other. The real stories in Planetside 2 will be made by players and outfits. That's something you can't really put on the big screen.

I think it has the potential to be a great story though, if only SOE would put some work into it. Imagine the dramatic tone of a truly endless war where every death is horrific and remembered completely when rebirthed.

That's the kind of grim dark insanity I would enjoy. :p

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[DarkSkyes]

It honestly looks like Pandora from Avatar hehe, It reminded me of the movie so bad. Not sure how a movie would go though, I mean who wins? The battle scenes would be epic though.

[Arcsilver]

imo, if they could, they should just scrap the whole respawning from the story. Whenever i see someone get shot in that trailer and die, im like, "woah, that was badass!" but then i realize, well, whatever, he'll be back.

[TheBladeRoden]

Well they theoretically could discover the secret breaking into/capture the strongholds, then the other guys would be like "oh no! If they capture our last spawn tubes, it'll be like permadeath!" Then a mysterious figure comes in like "no you cannot capture the last spawn. The balance must be preserved. The forever war must continue on." Then all the soldiers start getting meta aware and it turns into a whole Lost-like grander conspiracy. And I dunno. Stupid expired tokens.

[Ivam Akorahil]

You guys mention respawning as if it removed the horror of war...

Frankly, I think its a bit terrifying. Here are these soldiers, committed to a never ending war, and not even death can save them from it. They will die, and return to the fight. Watch their friends blown to pieces, and return to the fight.

Yeah.. doesn't sound terrible at all...

ive been a soldier and tbh, the thought of beeing able to "respawn" and also have my friends "respawn" makes any horror of war completely bareable. you dont even have to face been crippled, give yourself a bullet and respawn nice and healthy.