this is disconcerting...

[brighthand]

If you have read my previous thread about 'modern shooters' you will know where I am coming from and why I would be slightly troubled by the following excerpt taken from an interview with Games Industry International:


"The Call of Duty players want to play a game where the weapons feel good, where the combat feels snappy, it feels twitchy, it feels exciting, and it feels legitimate. The weapon that I'm firing feels like a weapon. It doesn't feel like some floaty Nerf gun or something. I feel the impact, I hear the sound of the impact. I see the animation from it. We're building our game to follow that also. It would be way easier if we were just making guys running around with lasers and not worrying about that mechanic, but we're spending a ton of time on the weapons. We're spending so much time iterating that gun feeling that I think we will be able to capture those people who are used to playing a triple-A FPS. Because they're not playing a compromised FPS experience when they play PlanetSide 2."

full link here: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-05-24-sony-onlines-planetside-2-can-it-grab-the-call-of-duty-audience


note: while the rest of the interview gives me a positive outlook, I still cringe a lttle bit at the mention of COD having any influence over PS2's gameplay and a desire to make it 'more accessible'. I have heard that too many times before, and it leads to perdition. Thoughts?

original thoughts on the matter here: http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=45638

EDIT: I am NOT making a connection between gunhandling and meta game; I KNOW that there is no correlation between them. I was referring to COD's influence in general on other shooters, which can manifest itself in several different facets of the game which INCLUDES gun handling resulting in zippy fast spray and praying.

I am also clarifying my point about PS2's handling and stating that I don't expect it to be like ps1, as that would be bad. I am merely saying that several other games lost their charm owing to devs dumbing down their game to appeal to the COD crowd (be it in gun mechanics, or meta game, or whatever), and the excerpt I found intimated a possible step in that direction- which is cause for concern.

[RSphil]

If the weapons feel good then I'm happy. I also don't like weapons that have no effect on the player. I like them to feel real. As if
You are holding the weapon you fired. From that little bit that is what they are doing. As for the rest of the game. It looks awesome so far. Haven't seen anything I don't like. ( bar the pro7 crap lol)
Can't wait to get in and give it a try to see how everything feels and works.

[brighthand]

4 months ago. Impressive

I've only discovered planetside 2 less than a month ago, so despite reading endless amounts of pages of information, I apparantely haven't covered everything. My hype for this game drives me to search for more.

[darkfiretwofive]

I doubt that people will play Planetside 2 to jump off a roof do a 360 spin then get a head shot on someone not using a scope, people will download and play it because they want a game that focuses on teamwork and tactics. And even if they do download it for COD like gameplay, they well soon realise that it just isn't that sort of game.

[GLaDOS]

What? He's talking about the way guns feel. I don't think that's going to lead to any "dumbing down" of the game.

[Littleman]

What? He's talking about the way guns feel. I don't think that's going to lead to any "dumbing down" of the game.

You have to understand: some people hear "CoD" or "Battlefield" and it wasn't preceded by "not like" they instantly start writing PS2 off as another horrible clone.

I won't miss these people.

[BlueSkies]

What? He's talking about the way guns feel. I don't think that's going to lead to any "dumbing down" of the game.

dude, weapon animations ruin team work, strategy, meta game, and kittens!

[NoDachi]

I fail to see how this quote can worry you.

All he is talking about how he wants the guns to feel. Which is good. We want the guns to feel good.

And they do.

[Sephirex]

I think the CoD comparison is he's just talking about modern FPS players in general and that's an easy one to refer to.

His actual points about gun weight and feeling are very valid.

If you've been playing PS1 recently, you'll notice the guns feel like you're shooting toys.

[Salad Snake]

If the weapons feel good then I'm happy. I also don't like weapons that have no effect on the player. I like them to feel real. As if
You are holding the weapon you fired. From that little bit that is what they are doing. As for the rest of the game. It looks awesome so far. Haven't seen anything I don't like. ( bar the pro7 crap lol)
Can't wait to get in and give it a try to see how everything feels and works.

This. Making weapons feel more authentic (which is a valid trait even in things like lasers) is an important plus in a modern shooter, an really contributes to immersion. One of the reasons I could never get into CS, one of the "FPS greats" was that none of the guns were really exciting to shoot save the AWP and deagle (as cheap as they were). In fact, now that I think about it that's really a problem with all of Valve's shooters, as good as they are in other areas.....

[RJTravis]

Hes saying that PS2 guns will feel like guns from triple-A FPS games & yes CoD is one.

CoD guns are great the guns are not the problem its the small maps & players that ruin CoD its not the guns for sure.

If the guns react & feel like CoD/BF3 then PS2 did it right.

I my self hate CoD & Bf3 was a let down but both of them have great guns & to tell you the truth if PS2 guns don't feel like CoD/MoH/BF3/CSGF the game wouldn't do very well.

I have allot of hype for PS2 & I also know they are going to be making the farm work for other bigger games.

[GhettoPrince]

would you rather just hold down the trigger while pressing a and d a lot to glitch the server? Cause that's 90% of what planetside 1 had to offer for infantry combat.

[WiteBeam]

Guys. It's not going to be the same game as PS. SOE is pitching this game to console gamers. It's going to feel like CoD with red, blue and purple factions.
Even after watching hours of beta footage, people are still going to act surprised at what they see next week when they finally play it.

And producing a "twitch" style console game will bring in more money than a rehashed, arcade, ADADAD game that maybe 1000 people were playing up until last month.

[Drakkonan]

The part that disappointed me was that he mentioned CoD instead of Battlefield. Battlefield's guns feel a lot better than CoD's, but that's primarily due to recoil.

[brighthand]

I think the CoD comparison is he's just talking about modern FPS players in general and that's an easy one to refer to.

His actual points about gun weight and feeling are very valid.

If you've been playing PS1 recently, you'll notice the guns feel like you're shooting toys.

I agree with the need to make the guns feel good, but COD is not the best example of that. They don't have as much heft to them as other shooters; they are just snappy and light (ideal for 360qu1cksk0p3z). Battlefield 3's guns have heft, umph, and some recoil to them, so I would hope the guns feel more like that.

And to the other guy who keeps his salt dispenser tucked away in a dark cupboard somewhere: If you read my post on 'trendy modern shooters' (link in original post), you would see that I have a valid concern.

I must admit, that PS2 may not go that route though -In fact, with all the good stuff I have been reading and watching these past months, I am wondering how the heck could these guys mess this up. Planetside 2 just looks SO solid on all fronts.

EDIT: whoever said that I wanted it to feel like ps1? I just didn't want it to be an 'easy peasy,' I R quicksope god, spray-you-because-no-recoil-allows-me-to, noob fest of a game. BF3 is a prime example of gunhandling done right- too bad the meta game does not compare to its predecessors.

[Sephirex]

The part that disappointed me was that he mentioned CoD instead of Battlefield. Battlefield's guns feel a lot better than CoD's, but that's primarily due to recoil.

I personally think he just picked the most well recognized name.

[SturmovikDrakon]

Guys. It's not going to be the same game as PS. SOE is pitching this game to console gamers. It's going to feel like CoD with red, blue and purple factions.
Even after watching hours of beta footage, people are still going to act surprised at what they see next week when they finally play it.

And producing a "twitch" style console game will bring in more money than a rehashed, arcade, ADADAD game that maybe 1000 people were playing up until last month.

What

Besides that, his points are valid. I recently became obsessed with the way guns feel in games'

One of the things I wish SOE adds to heavy mounted MGs and base wall turrets is a screen shake everytime you fire to simulate how powerful the weapons actually are
If you've fired an HMG on top of a buggy in BF3 I think you'll understand where I'm getting at

[WiteBeam]

What

What's don't you understand? SOE would trade every PS vet they had for twice as many new gamers. The dev team is great, active and hands on with the community. But in the end, it's all about the money.

[NoDachi]

Guys. It's not going to be the same game as PS. SOE is pitching this game to console gamers. It's going to feel like CoD with red, blue and purple factions.
Even after watching hours of beta footage, people are still going to act surprised at what they see next week when they finally play it.

And producing a "twitch" style console game will bring in more money than a rehashed, arcade, ADADAD game that maybe 1000 people were playing up until last month.

What a stupid thing to say.

Damn NDA.

What's don't you understand? SOE would trade every PS vet they had for twice as many new gamers. The dev team is great, active and hands on with the community. But in the end, it's all about the money.

All games are all about the money.

That's why they're made, they're made to sell. Not to ingratiate themselves with a closed circle of forum dwelling neckbears. This is obvious.

[GLaDOS]

Guys. It's not going to be the same game as PS. SOE is pitching this game to console gamers. It's going to feel like CoD with red, blue and purple factions.
Even after watching hours of beta footage, people are still going to act surprised at what they see next week when they finally play it.

And producing a "twitch" style console game will bring in more money than a rehashed, arcade, ADADAD game that maybe 1000 people were playing up until last month.

What? You can see into the future? What must I do for you to teach me your ways?

[SturmovikDrakon]

What's don't you understand? SOE would trade every PS vet they had for twice as many new gamers. The dev team is great, active and hands on with the community. But in the end, it's all about the money.

They're pitching to console gamers on a PC exclusive?

Most PC gamers I've talked to are not fond of CoD in any way

[WiteBeam]

What a stupid thing to say.

Damn NDA.



All games are all about the money.

That's why they're made, they're made to sell. Not to ingratiate themselves with a closed circle of forum dwelling neckbears. This is obvious.

What does anything I said have to do with the NDA?

What? You can see into the future? What must I do for you to teach me your ways?

Cert prophet.

[SturmovikDrakon]

What does anything I said have to do with the NDA?

Because he can't prove how wrong you are about the gameplay

[brighthand]

You have to understand: some people hear "CoD" or "Battlefield" and it wasn't preceded by "not like" they instantly start writing PS2 off as another horrible clone.

I won't miss these people.

I didn't say that ps2 would be a COD clone, but rather that COD and its simplification would have a bad influence on the game's core gameplay/mechanics. I would have to be braindead to see all the gameplay and read up on the info, and then think that PS2 could possibly be 'another COD clone.' I would however encourage you to think of the possibility that certain integral features of the series can be 'simplified' or dillouted in an attempt to appeal to a wider audience. i.e. less tactical options when managing logistics (this doesn't seem to be the case, but I am using it as an example).

At any rate, as long as I don't find myself zipping over to one spot, spraying some guy to death, then zipping over to another to do the same thing, with a stiff camera and uber quick handling, like a horny humming bird that just ate a pile of pixie dust.

[NoDachi]

What does anything I said have to do with the NDA?

Because it's stopping people 'prove' what you're saying is rubbish. So instead we have to suffer tedious circle arguments from whiners.

[Littleman]

I didn't say that ps2 would be a COD clone, but rather that COD and its simplification would have a bad influence on the game's core gameplay/mechanics. I would have to be braindead to see all the gameplay and read up on the info, and then think that PS2 could possibly be 'another COD clone.' I would however encourage you to think of the possibility that certain integral features of the series can be 'simplified' or dillouted in an attempt to appeal to a wider audience. i.e. less tactical options when managing logistics (this doesn't seem to be the case, but I am using it as an example).

It's a poor example, since all CoD really has going for it IS the gun play. Even BF doesn't offer a lot of comparisons outside of how killing implements work. And really, the meta game, the part that actually brings the complication and strategic depth to Planetside, isn't going to be affected much by how the weaponry performs, whether they work like weapons in CoD, BF, Quake, or Unreal. No, weapon performance effects the tactical level, and for what's it's worth, in Planetside 1 that always boiled down to ADADAD with the cross-hairs over the target, or some other, less standard approach, like a boomer, nade spam, the reaver, etc.

But regarding weapons handling, there is no "dumbing down" or simplifying. If anything, weapons handling across the genre has over all gotten more complicated, but regardless of that, it's really just a matter taste. I happen to like CoD's fire arms. However, they could do with a little less accuracy while ADS for the sake of customization to have another attribute to work with in PS2.

[brighthand]

It's a poor example, since all CoD really has going for it IS the gun play. Even BF doesn't offer a lot of comparisons outside of how killing implements work. And really, the meta game, the part that actually brings the complication and strategic depth to Planetside, isn't going to be affected much by how the weaponry performs, whether they work like weapons in CoD, BF, Quake, or Unreal. No, weapon performance effects the tactical level, and for what's it's worth, in Planetside 1 that always boiled down to ADADAD with the cross-hairs over the target, or some other, less standard approach, like a boomer, nade spam, the reaver, etc.

But regarding weapons handling, there is no "dumbing down" or simplifying. If anything, weapons handling across the genre has over all gotten more complicated, but regardless of that, it's really just a matter taste. I happen to like CoD's fire arms. However, they could do with a little less accuracy while ADS for the sake of customization to have another attribute to work with in PS2.

Ok. I did not make it clear that I am NOT making a connection between gunhandling and meta game; I KNOW that there is no correlation between them. I was referring to COD's influence in general on other shooters, which can manifest itself in several different facets of the game which INCLUDES gun handling resulting in zippy fast spray and praying.

I am also clarifying my point about PS2's handling and stating that I don't expect it to be like ps1, as that would be bad. I am merely saying that several other games lost their charm owing to devs dumbing down their game to appeal to the COD crowd (be it in gun mechanics, or meta game, or whatever), and the excerpt I found intimated a possible step in that direction- which is cause for concern.

BUT, as I have read and seen much more, I am inclined to think that perhaps I have nothing to fear, and the game will be the last bastion of true PC FPSing that we have all been waiting for.

...The beta will reveal all...

EDIT: and no, COD's gunplay IMO is highly unappealing. The pace is too fast, the person who sees you first will get the kill, no recoil on the guns- animations are not bad but they are sped up, and the soldier's movements are stiff. It just didn't feel all that visceral and immersive. The last COD I played was MW2.

[opticalshadow]

Guys. It's not going to be the same game as PS. SOE is pitching this game to console gamers. It's going to feel like CoD with red, blue and purple factions.
Even after watching hours of beta footage, people are still going to act surprised at what they see next week when they finally play it.

And producing a "twitch" style console game will bring in more money than a rehashed, arcade, ADADAD game that maybe 1000 people were playing up until last month.

i see a few comprimises ill miss like hacking and the inventory system.

but you have to remember, ps1 wasnt teh game they wanted to make, its teh best they could do with the tech they had.

we were already playing a comprimise, and it did well, lets give some time and see how this goes.

[camycamera]

although CoD is not the best example (it is the worst example, actually), i see where they are going. they basically want the guns to feel weighty and such like others had said before, but i just hope that they don't dumb down the game so it appeals to the CoD crowd.

[Bittermen]

If you have read my previous thread about 'modern shooters' you will know where I am coming from and why I would be slightly troubled by the following excerpt taken from an interview with Games Industry International:


"The Call of Duty players want to play a game where the weapons feel good, where the combat feels snappy, it feels twitchy, it feels exciting, and it feels legitimate. The weapon that I'm firing feels like a weapon. It doesn't feel like some floaty Nerf gun or something. I feel the impact, I hear the sound of the impact. I see the animation from it. We're building our game to follow that also. It would be way easier if we were just making guys running around with lasers and not worrying about that mechanic, but we're spending a ton of time on the weapons. We're spending so much time iterating that gun feeling that I think we will be able to capture those people who are used to playing a triple-A FPS. Because they're not playing a compromised FPS experience when they play PlanetSide 2."

full link here: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-05-24-sony-onlines-planetside-2-can-it-grab-the-call-of-duty-audience


note: while the rest of the interview gives me a positive outlook, I still cringe a lttle bit at the mention of COD having any influence over PS2's gameplay and a desire to make it 'more accessible'. I have heard that too many times before, and it leads to perdition. Thoughts?

original thoughts on the matter here: http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=45638


Umm how is this disconcerting in anyway? CoD is not a bad game. It's just been milked to death and it's player base consists of 12 year old homophobs.

[GreatMazinkaise]

One of the things I wish SOE adds to heavy mounted MGs and base wall turrets is a screen shake everytime you fire to simulate how powerful the weapons actually are
If you've fired an HMG on top of a buggy in BF3 I think you'll understand where I'm getting at

This is exactly the kind of shit that *SHOULD NOT* feature in any shooter unless it's optional. Battlefield buggies shake like a Parkinson's patient in a hardware store paint mixer and it's fucking nauseating...

A common rage-inducing complaint with PS2 right now is that there's heavy screen blur while ADSing the LMGs making it near impossible to hit anything with them.

[SturmovikDrakon]

This is exactly the kind of shit that *SHOULD NOT* feature in any shooter unless it's optional. Battlefield buggies shake like a Parkinson's patient in a hardware store paint mixer and it's fucking nauseating...

Important part is they felt powerful and you could still aim fine

At the moment, things like engineer MGs feel extremely bland

Battlefield 3 Beta Caspian Border Buggy Driving Around Gameplay! - YouTube

the first minute of the video. is this not what a mounted HMG supposed to feel like?

[GreatMazinkaise]

Important part is they felt powerful and you could still aim fine

At the moment, things like engineer MGs feel extremely bland

Maybe they fixed it after Bad Company 2... (you did say BF3 after all), but riding in those things was a mess and it may well have been the buggy shaking and not the gun. The Marauder bounced around a bit, but not like that.

[Flaropri]

A common rage-inducing complaint with PS2 right now is that there's heavy screen blur while ADSing the LMGs making it near impossible to hit anything with them.

Well, supposedly SOE are doing their best to have a lot of visual options and settings, hopefully that will include disabling/reducing blur (indeed that's pretty common in FPS games). I'm pretty sure they've mostly been using high-end systems and settings for demos and Higby's streams, and of course it depends on how they optimize things with the Tech Test ending.

[Revanmug]

Maybe they fixed it after Bad Company 2... (you did say BF3 after all), but riding in those things was a mess and it may well have been the buggy shaking and not the gun. The Marauder bounced around a bit, but not like that.

nope, the .50 cal on all buggies are still terrible. That vid might make you think he is firing a very powerful gun but in reality, it got 0 precision and it's a dead trap against any infantry (and everything else...) worth it's salt for the simple reason that... he can easily kill you before you land the 3-4 hit markers needed.

[GreatMazinkaise]

nope, the .50 cal on all buggies are still terrible. That vid might make you think he is firing a very powerful gun but in reality, it got 0 precision and it's a dead trap against any infantry (and everything else...) worth it's salt for the simple reason that... he can easily kill you before you land the 3-4 hit markers needed.

Yeah, that looks terrible. Fuck screen shake; I know the relative power of the weapon by looking at its bloody spreadsheet and what it does to the people he's shooting at.

[Tehroth]

If the combat and gun mechanics feel like BF3 then I will be fine. As long as they keep other features from ps1 in and don't dumb the game down. Combat mechanics the one of the most important parts of an fps and getting that down right is solid.

[Arcsilver]

Honestly why does everyone look down upon someone when they compare it to COD? What is with the hate to CoDs audience....its like you guys think cod is a major failure...its not.... if you honestly think cod is a failure then you're delusional, you may not like it but its such a well known successful franchise.

[Shylan]

Yeah, that looks terrible. Fuck screen shake; I know the relative power of the weapon by looking at its bloody spreadsheet and what it does to the people he's shooting at.
The amount of screen shake from that gun is just fine. It gives the impression of heavy recoil from a mounted weapon while standing up. Of course you're not going to get the same visual stability as if you were lying prone with it or something.

Have a look at how much the recoil of an M249 light machine gun shakes its gunner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZmJ9iYWx5o#t=0m14s) when fired from a standing position, even when braced against it. And the M249 fires only .223 caliber rounds; not even .50 caliber.

[Lantis]

Honestly why does everyone look down upon someone when they compare it to COD? What is with the hate to CoDs audience....its like you guys think cod is a major failure...its not.... if you honestly think cod is a failure then you're delusional, you may not like it but its such a well known successful franchise.

I would believe most people's dislike of that sort of comparison would stem from not wanting Planetside 2, a game quite a few of us have been hoping would one day exist for around 9 years now, to devolve into the ridiculous run and gun playstyle of CoD. Any comparison between the two would make most people wary of the level of similarity they're going for.

Many of us would also prefer that the level of immaturity inherent to the CoD community would stay as far away from Planetside 2 as possible.

I don't think anyone's disputed the success of the franchise. However much of that success comes from exploiting that immature community by releasing 'sequels' that are essentially just the previous game repackaged while incrementing the number.

[Snipefrag]

Why do people have hissy fits when someone mentions CoD or battlefield, if we took for first 4 words off of that quote would you have come in here and made such a pointless thread?:

"players want to play a game where the weapons feel good, where the combat feels snappy, it feels twitchy, it feels exciting, and it feels legitimate. The weapon that I'm firing feels like a weapon. It doesn't feel like some floaty Nerf gun or something. I feel the impact, I hear the sound of the impact. I see the animation from it. We're building our game to follow that also. It would be way easier if we were just making guys running around with lasers and not worrying about that mechanic, but we're spending a ton of time on the weapons. We're spending so much time iterating that gun feeling that I think we will be able to capture those people who are used to playing a triple-A FPS. Because they're not playing a compromised FPS experience when they play PlanetSide 2."

[ringring]

Because it's stopping people 'prove' what you're saying is rubbish. So instead we have to suffer tedious circle arguments from whiners.
It doesn't do anything of the kind. What makes you think he isn't in the tech test?

[Memeotis]

... ... ... Really? I used to think that killstreak rewards was the worst thing that CoD introduced into the genre, but now it's becoming obvious that in fact it's only in second place. So many people nowadays seem to have mindlessly hopped onto the CoD hate-train, for no other reason that so many other people say they hate it. Form your own fucking thoughts.

Just because a game is bad does not mean that EVERYTHING about said game is bad. Brink was a bad game, but it had some amazing elements. I think Battlefield 3 is a bad game, but I certainly recognize that it, too, has some brilliant things going on. Have you ever taken a second and asked yourself: If there is so much hate for Call of Duty, how come it's so successful? When Call of Duty first came out, it had no such thing as killstreaks, but it was still one of the most successful titles (and at that time a really good game), why? The feel of the guns and the amazing sound. Call of Duty 2 is one of my favorite games of all time, because the whole experience felt unbelievably smooth, and because one-click-to-activate killstreaks didn't exist yet, everything that happened in that game was skill vs. skill. It was an even playing field where good players didn't become progressively better with UAV, chopper gunner, air-strikes, etc.

If PS2 manages to get anywhere close to how shooting feels in CoD, it will be a good thing.

[Slide Surveyor]

Umm how is this disconcerting in anyway? CoD is not a bad game. It's just been milked to death and it's player base consists of 12 year old homophobs.If its been milked to death and its playerbase consists of 12 year old homophobs, then i'd say CoD is a bad game.

[RageMasterUK]

If it was a bad game it wouldn't have been milked to death.

-RageMasterUK

[Katanauk]

Why is it people instantly hate on things that reference COD? Yeah it's mainstream. And loads of people play it. Your hatred for COD makes you so indie! Pft.

I don't play it, myself, I just don't enjoy it like I used to and I have a (for me) better alternative in BF3, but its successful for a reason and there are elements to it I can appreciate, one of the being the weaponry! (except black ops, when I played that every weapon made the same sound . . . weird.)

If Planetside is drawing the successes from other projects I applaud them. I trust them to maintain their own innovation and individuality whilst picking the best parts from other genres to make Planetside as good as it can be.

I felt it necessary to bold that text to prevent people from flaming me claiming what I said means PS2 will be another generic shooter.

On a slightly different note, but still relevant to the thread, I strongly prefer Battlefield 3 weaponry, if they were gonna base it on another game I wish it had been BF3 not COD.

[brighthand]

Why do people have hissy fits when someone mentions CoD or battlefield, if we took for first 4 words off of that quote would you have come in here and made such a pointless thread?:

yes. The word 'twitchy' would still raise an eyebrow...the people's eyebrow (;o

As for the people defending COD...if after all this time, you can't see why COD has been cancerous to the FPS and the gaming industry, well, I leave you to revel in your opinions.

Down with mediocrity!

... ... ... Really? I used to think that killstreak rewards was the worst thing that CoD introduced into the genre, but now it's becoming obvious that in fact it's only in second place. So many people nowadays seem to have mindlessly hopped onto the CoD hate-train, for no other reason that so many other people say they hate it. Form your own fucking thoughts.

Just because a game is bad does not mean that EVERYTHING about said game is bad. Brink was a bad game, but it had some amazing elements. I think Battlefield 3 is a bad game, but I certainly recognize that it, too, has some brilliant things going on. Have you ever taken a second and asked yourself: If there is so much hate for Call of Duty, how come it's so successful? When Call of Duty first came out, it had no such thing as killstreaks, but it was still one of the most successful titles (and at that time a really good game), why? The feel of the guns and the amazing sound. Call of Duty 2 is one of my favorite games of all time, because the whole experience felt unbelievably smooth, and because one-click-to-activate killstreaks didn't exist yet, everything that happened in that game was skill vs. skill. It was an even playing field where good players didn't become progressively better with UAV, chopper gunner, air-strikes, etc.

If PS2 manages to get anywhere close to how shooting feels in CoD, it will be a good thing.

I typically don't jump on any trains. I've always been more of an independent thinker type. I evaluate things based on their merits and my own preferences- and have found COD, to be LACKING on many fronts. Many others, especially in the PC community, do the same, and we can all agree, that COD's influence overall, is a bad thing. Battlefield 3's gun handling would be PRETTY sweet. COD's would not - because of previously stated reasons that you seem to be ignoring in an attempt to make a blanket statement that anyone who hates COD, does so blindly without actually having legitimate reasons.

[NoDachi]

It doesn't do anything of the kind. What makes you think he isn't in the tech test?

Because what if there is not a single thread with this complaint in the entire tech test forums?

I don't know. Try reading between the lines.

[SturmovikDrakon]

nope, the .50 cal on all buggies are still terrible. That vid might make you think he is firing a very powerful gun but in reality, it got 0 precision and it's a dead trap against any infantry (and everything else...) worth it's salt for the simple reason that... he can easily kill you before you land the 3-4 hit markers needed.

Yeah, that looks terrible. Fuck screen shake; I know the relative power of the weapon by looking at its bloody spreadsheet and what it does to the people he's shooting at.

The amount of screen shake from that gun is just fine. It gives the impression of heavy recoil from a mounted weapon while standing up. Of course you're not going to get the same visual stability as if you were lying prone with it or something.

Have a look at how much the recoil of an M249 light machine gun shakes its gunner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZmJ9iYWx5o#t=0m14s) when fired from a standing position, even when braced against it. And the M249 fires only .223 caliber rounds; not even .50 caliber.

If you can't properly aim with a buggy MHG then that's just sad. Learn to adapt

This doesn't just apply to buggy HMGs, but the ones on the tanks as well. Did you ever have problem firing from the passenger position in BF3?

I'll repeat, the screen-shake gives you an impression of power and simulates the heavy recoil

Currently, the HMGs in Planetside feel like plastic guns because they don't give you back any feedback, especially the Engineer placed MG due to its pathetic little sound

[Marinealver]

lol even though COD has no where near the real weapons physics. It looks like real weapons atleast with what is in the movies. But where in COD do you take 500 yard shots with an M16? Nope most fights except for snipre rifles are done at the pistol range of 25 yards. Even with the sniper rifles that is done at 300 yard most which is AK47 range.

Operation flashpoint a tactical shooter said it clearly an enemy that is a footbal field away (100 yards) is dangerously close. However you really can't get a good look at what you are shooting at from that far so that is why the videogame industry (and movie producers) often bring the range down to ball and musket range. So it looks like you can see your oponant in the face. Not to say the close quaters engagements do not happen. They happen all the time, that is why germany made the submachine gun. However there is a very long effective range out in open fields and forests when it comes to rifles.

[brighthand]

Because what if there is not a single thread with this complaint in the entire tech test forums?

I don't know. Try reading between the lines.

actually, I am not in the tech test. If there is not a single thread about this then I must be the only one looking closely at the gunplay? Everyone else just trusts SEO wholeheartedly? At any rate, perhaps we should end this thread, as it was only meant to voice a concern, not start a flamewar.

[Sunrock]

If you have read my previous thread about 'modern shooters' you will know where I am coming from and why I would be slightly troubled by the following excerpt taken from an interview with Games Industry International:


"The Call of Duty players want to play a game where the weapons feel good, where the combat feels snappy, it feels twitchy, it feels exciting, and it feels legitimate. The weapon that I'm firing feels like a weapon. It doesn't feel like some floaty Nerf gun or something. I feel the impact, I hear the sound of the impact. I see the animation from it. We're building our game to follow that also. It would be way easier if we were just making guys running around with lasers and not worrying about that mechanic, but we're spending a ton of time on the weapons. We're spending so much time iterating that gun feeling that I think we will be able to capture those people who are used to playing a triple-A FPS. Because they're not playing a compromised FPS experience when they play PlanetSide 2."

full link here: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-05-24-sony-onlines-planetside-2-can-it-grab-the-call-of-duty-audience


note: while the rest of the interview gives me a positive outlook, I still cringe a lttle bit at the mention of COD having any influence over PS2's gameplay and a desire to make it 'more accessible'. I have heard that too many times before, and it leads to perdition. Thoughts?

original thoughts on the matter here: http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=45638

Well as I understand it he just use COD as an example when talking about the physics, animation and sound of the weapons. I don't think he was talking about the game play in COD so I would not worry too mush.

[Pyreal]

Don't worry fellas, Jimmy is on the job!

[ArmedZealot]

actually, I am not in the tech test. If there is not a single thread about this then I must be the only one looking closely at the gunplay? Everyone else just trusts SEO wholeheartedly? At any rate, perhaps we should end this thread, as it was only meant to voice a concern, not start a flamewar.

We didn't start the flame war. Peeps were hatin' on it before we posted comments.

[NoDachi]

actually, I am not in the tech test. If there is not a single thread about this then I must be the only one looking closely at the gunplay? Everyone else just trusts SEO wholeheartedly? At any rate, perhaps we should end this thread, as it was only meant to voice a concern, not start a flamewar.

No, its just that those of in the Tech Test know how completely unfounded your 'close look' actually is.

[Maniox]

The mentality has started to change actually, gamers look down on mindless CoD fans, and to noones suprise their sales has dropped

[Program]

Everything he described about those guns aren't in Call of Duty. :)

[vVRedOctoberVv]

This thread is much ado about nothing. As has already been pointed out, this is just a reference to how they're trying to make guns "feel". I don't like CoD, but it's a shooter with decent gun animations. Certainly a helluva lot better than PlanetSide 1's were. That is the point.

[DiabloTigerSix]

Too much attention is being paid to Call of Duty. CoD has never had benchmark weapon feel or gun mechanics. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that CoD's recoil model has always been stupid - no progressive changes, just random mess.
The part that disappointed me was that he mentioned CoD instead of Battlefield. Battlefield's guns feel a lot better than CoD's, but that's primarily due to recoil.
Both suck. BF3 recoil model doesn't make any sense. Alan Kertz, the guy behind it has absolutely no clue how to make proper rewarding/punishing weapon/recoil mechanics, let alone any Battlefield features.

[Malckeor]

'Sup everyone. First post. :D


Getting the weapons to feel good isn't something to be worried about; it doesn't matter whether or not the devs took inspiration from Call of Duty in this regard. If the weapons feel good, then that's one more positive quality in what will be an awesome game, and I'll be a happy man.

If you're worried about Call of Duty's community coming into Planetside 2, though, think of it this way: The only Call of Duty game that is active on the PC is Call of Duty 4, which is actually an awesome game with a cool bunch of players for the most part. If any Call of Duty player(s) will be playing Planetside 2, they'll likely be coming over from COD4.

The console players for COD are the ones to worry about, but they're most likely not going to hop from console to PC to play such a completely different game like Planetside 2. If there's one thing that's true about Call of Duty players, it's that they HATE change. Planetside 2 won't have hitscan and is not going to have a huge focus on K/D like COD does. We've got nothing to worry about. :)

[Sirro]

I have fond memories of Planetside, what I don't have fond memories is the way the guns handled. It always felt(feels, I reactivated for the weekend) kind of messy, you pick up a weapon and it's hard to get a good idea of how to handle things. CoD and Battlefield do a good job of giving you feedback in my opinion.

The problem I believe is the damage resistance because of regular ammo versus armor piercing. The developers had to have a balance in them and the result is your gun can feel like a pee-shooter. I also believe what they labelled as short-medium-long range wasn't very good.

Last night I was using the Pulsarand of course it's been a very long time since I last used it, however when I was engaging people it just felt confused and muddled, and I think the blend of range and armor resist actually is what made it feel sloppy.

When I end up having to stop and think of how I am engaging instead of doing it innately, then something is a miss with the mechanics. I am not pro but I've been playing FPS's since Doom and the reason why that game and many like it (Quake, CS, etc) today are still played it's because you pick up and play it.

This probably sounds confusing but I am sure many understand that "feel" you get from a FPS and to me there was always disconnect with PS. Not that I didn't eventually pick up on things over time but I preferred using MAX or vehicles because they always felt much more matured and fluid.

[Revanmug]

If you can't properly aim with a buggy MHG then that's just sad. Learn to adapt

This doesn't just apply to buggy HMGs, but the ones on the tanks as well. Did you ever have problem firing from the passenger position in BF3?

I'll repeat, the screen-shake gives you an impression of power and simulates the heavy recoil

Currently, the HMGs in Planetside feel like plastic guns because they don't give you back any feedback, especially the Engineer placed MG due to its pathetic little sound

The one in tanks and "troop carrier" have the advantage of being completly protected removing the possibility of killing the gunner (except if the humvee is damage) which was the point that you completly miss like your dear .50 . You are already dead by a more effective weapon carried by a MOBILE infantry by the time you would need to kill me. It is completly ineffective against aircraft and doesn't kill infantry faster. What remain are other buggies or humvee which can be dealt with infantry or heavier vehicule

How about following your own advice and learn to play with people that actually know to aim with their AR or sniper? Nah actually, most people are engineer so it will be a smaw to the face. Fake power ain't going to save you against really powerful weapon.

[Snipefrag]

yes. The word 'twitchy' would still raise an eyebrow...the people's eyebrow (;o

Just watch the videos, or wait till you play it. Its not Unreal Tournament twitchy, its just not slow and sluggish gun play like PS1 was, and for that I'm very grateful.

[SturmovikDrakon]

The one in tanks and "troop carrier" have the advantage of being completly protected removing the possibility of killing the gunner (except if the humvee is damage) which was the point that you completly miss like your dear .50 . You are already dead by a more effective weapon carried by a MOBILE infantry by the time you would need to kill me. It is completly ineffective against aircraft and doesn't kill infantry faster. What remain are other buggies or humvee which can be dealt with infantry or heavier vehicule

How about following your own advice and learn to play with people that actually know to aim with their AR or sniper? Nah actually, most people are engineer so it will be a smaw to the face. Fake power ain't going to save you against really powerful weapon.

Unlike you, I can adapt. I've never had a problem taking out infantry while being "exposed", you have to be smart when using them and not just park yourself in the middle of a field.

The .50 cal has the advantage of being extremely accurate over long range. Even with the screen shake, it's not overdone to the point where you can't aim

So you don't want exposed MGs to have any sort of simulation of recoil, fine

What of tank MGs/wall turrets?

All I want is for the guns and weapons in this game to feel good, and I can't find a single aspect in BF3 that doesn't feel good

[Revanmug]

Unlike you, I can adapt. I've never had a problem taking out infantry while being "exposed", you have to be smart when using them and not just park yourself in the middle of a field.

Adapt?! if you want to use something several time inferior to anything else while always being expose, have fun. That's not changin how inferior it is and amusing to watch just before they die. And if you are really parking yourself somewhere to play with your toy, there is nothing I can add except that an immobile target is a dead target.

The .50 cal has the advantage of being extremely accurate over long range. Even with the screen shake, it's not overdone to the point where you can't aim

Sniping with the buggies, I heard it all... Continue tagging some random guy so he might regen 20 sec later. Add some "shoot back here" sign next to you.

So you don't want exposed MGs to have any sort of simulation of recoil, fine

What of tank MGs/wall turrets?

Screen shaking and recoil ain't the same thing... And considering that a 0.50 ain't ain't any deadly than an AR in BF3, I'm not sure why it require all that fake shit.

If over the top screen shacking is the effect PS2 use to give impression of power, I will feel sad for the sound and the effect of the gun itself. And mostly the sound since it is the first I check on most guns.

[SturmovikDrakon]

Adapt?! if you want to use something several time inferior to anything else while always being expose, have fun. That's not changin how inferior it is and amusing to watch just before they die. And if you are really parking yourself somewhere to play with your toy, there is nothing I can add except that an immobile target is a dead target.



Sniping with the buggies, I heard it all... Continue tagging some random guy so he might regen 20 sec later. Add some "shoot back here" sign next to you.



Screen shaking and recoil ain't the same thing... And considering that a 0.50 ain't ain't any deadly than an AR in BF3, I'm not sure why it require all that fake shit.

If over the top screen shacking is the effect PS2 use to give impression of power, I will feel sad for the sound and the effect of the gun itself. And mostly the sound since it is the first I check on most guns.

I'll get back to you when I'm not on my phone with a more detailed example/explanation

[berzerkerking]

BF3 had superior gun quality COD guns were so overpowered that the first time I played I had 39 kills with a pistol
If they copy COD were gonna have a bad time

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Quit worrying, folks. You'll get in to play in a few more days. Be patient, and see what they're doing, before going all bonkers about it :)

[Serotriptomine]

No one said anything about copying any game.
For all we know they could have had shitty gun-play because one or two elements were off. They dusted off BF3 and CoD and said to themselves, why don't we use "this" mechanic or something like it to make our guns have a little more umph.

How it digs into their shoulder, how the gun should shake, if it should do this, that, the other. They never once said. "Yo, I liked the AK-47 in CoD so i'm going to make the Cycler act like it, no one will ever know!"

Grow up. The games don't suck, hundreds of millions of players over the years. between both games. They're doing something right.

Does that mean I want cookie-cutter guns? **** no.

What that does mean, is that I want innovation with a familiar feel so the end result isn't SOE failing to deliver the game we all want to be the same, and different.

[brighthand]

'Sup everyone. First post. :D


Getting the weapons to feel good isn't something to be worried about; it doesn't matter whether or not the devs took inspiration from Call of Duty in this regard. If the weapons feel good, then that's one more positive quality in what will be an awesome game, and I'll be a happy man.

If you're worried about Call of Duty's community coming into Planetside 2, though, think of it this way: The only Call of Duty game that is active on the PC is Call of Duty 4, which is actually an awesome game with a cool bunch of players for the most part. If any Call of Duty player(s) will be playing Planetside 2, they'll likely be coming over from COD4.

The console players for COD are the ones to worry about, but they're most likely not going to hop from console to PC to play such a completely different game like Planetside 2. If there's one thing that's true about Call of Duty players, it's that they HATE change. Planetside 2 won't have hitscan and is not going to have a huge focus on K/D like COD does. We've got nothing to worry about. :)

This, and all of the other reassuring comments, sounds good to me! -even though you guys are in the same boat as me, not knowing much until the beta hits. But still....this.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

This thread is much ado about nothing. As has already been pointed out, this is just a reference to how they're trying to make guns "feel". I don't like CoD, but it's a shooter with decent gun animations. Certainly a helluva lot better than PlanetSide 1's were. That is the point.

Yeah, info went waaaaay over OP's head.

[Shylan]

I don't know about anyone else here, but CoD's shooting mechanics both look and feel artificial to me. They feel too fast and light, due to the speed and crispness of the animations. Everything moves too quickly and too precisely to feel natural or satisfying. It's all too twitchy. The weapons may have appropriate recoil, but speed and precision of the ADS animation and the transition between having the weapon down while sprinting to having it up to shoot are just too fast and precise, ruining any feel of weight or heft that the recoil gave the impression of. You can't handle a 3-7 pound weapon without experiencing some inertial or centripetal pull when hefting it around like that. No one can handle a gun and move it in a perfectly straight line or a perfect spline curve; there's always some amount of additional motion on the other axes'.

I hope there's time taken to add smaller animations to make the gun play feel more realistic and weighty, and less artificial than CoD and some other triple-A shooters out there.

[TheDAWinz]

This thread is disconcerting.

[TtD]

As has been argued pretty much already, CoD isn't an automatic marker of bad game design (and will people please seperate modern CoD from the classic CoD ffs, since CoD4 the game has been a completely different, and worse, experience). If anything, wanting to learn from CoD in terms of the heft and 'feel' of weapons is a smart idea, through both classic and modern series the designers have struck a solid balance between sound quality, responsiveness, and the glass smooth nature of the animations. It's probably one of the few areas where CoD has been consistantly superior to the Battlefield series (especially in BC2 and 3 there have been jarring between animation and sound on some guns that have made them very unresponsive and glitchy (an-94 in 3 especially in release iteration), largely due to BF pushing sound quality so hard.

Where there would be a red flag, is if PS2 emulated modern CoD's hit dynamics (lack of recoil, limited inaccuracy while moving at pace, very low ttk) but as of now there is no evidence of this. As is, your making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I don't know about anyone else here, but CoD's shooting mechanics both look and feel artificial to me. They feel too fast and light, due to the speed and crispness of the animations. Everything moves too quickly and too precisely to feel natural or satisfying. It's all too twitchy. The weapons may have appropriate recoil, but speed and precision of the ADS animation and the transition between having the weapon down while sprinting to having it up to shoot are just too fast and precise, ruining any feel of weight or heft that the recoil gave the impression of. You can't handle a 3-7 pound weapon without experiencing some inertial or centripetal pull when hefting it around like that. No one can handle a gun and move it in a perfectly straight line or a perfect spline curve; there's always some amount of additional motion on the other axes'.

I hope there's time taken to add smaller animations to make the gun play feel more realistic and weighty, and less artificial than CoD and some other triple-A shooters out there.

Again, you're confusing 'feel' with game mechanics. The glass smooth animation is a positive, you want that comfortable response and it's the one redeeming factor of recent CoDs. It only becomes a gamebreaking issue for many due to the game design, the excess precision, rapid ADS time, lack of pull are all more recent additions to the franchise that have been intentionally added. I agree with you that they're really offputting, and those design choices are a big reason I stopped playing CoD myself, but they're not inherently linked to the 'feel' of the weapons.

[Shylan]

I agree with you that they're really offputting, and those design choices are a big reason I stopped playing CoD myself, but they're not inherently linked to the 'feel' of the weapons.
I do consider the handling animations to be part of a weapon's 'feel', because that's about the only way I can think of to judge the feel of a weapon in a video game when you're not firing it and experiencing recoil, bullet spread, or bullet drop. In a game, you have no physical way to judge size or weight of a weapon other than the animations the character performs when you perform certain actions with the weapon. The only other clues present would be the sound design for that weapon and the actions associated with it.

Honestly interested: Where do you draw the distinction between a weapon's feel and its mechanics? To me, they're very closely related, if not inseparable.

[lawnmower]

Hes saying that PS2 guns will feel like guns from triple-A FPS games & yes CoD is one.

CoD guns are great the guns are not the problem its the small maps & players that ruin CoD its not the guns for sure.

If the guns react & feel like CoD/BF3 then PS2 did it right.
no they dont feel good

I my self hate CoD & Bf3 was a let down but both of them have great guns & to tell you the truth if PS2 guns don't feel like CoD/MoH/BF3/CSGF the game wouldn't do very well.
yes because those are the only games thats ever done well

If it was a bad game it wouldn't have been milked to death.

-RageMasterUK
if cigarettes were bad for you they wouldnt have been milked to death

This thread is much ado about nothing. As has already been pointed out, this is just a reference to how they're trying to make guns "feel". I don't like CoD, but it's a shooter with decent gun animations. Certainly a helluva lot better than PlanetSide 1's were. That is the point.
the point is that they want to make gun animations better? and what has that to do with the quality of gameplay and how good guns feel?

[Flaropri]

no they dont feel good

That's your opinion. Others feel differently. (I personally have no opinion having not played CoD).

if cigarettes were bad for you they wouldnt have been milked to death

Wrong argument. Would have been: "If cigarettes didn't taste* good they wouldn't have been milked to death." Whether something is healthy or not isn't part of the argument, but rather whether it is enjoyable. For the discussion on the health of video games, I recommend the "Gore Pack" thread.

the point is that they want to make gun animations better? and what has that to do with the quality of gameplay and how good guns feel?

Animations play a role in gameplay (switching weapon animations, reloading animations, etc.) and effect people's impression of them as well. Honestly what I got from the quote was that they wanted to have better quality gunplay closer to that of an actual FPS. Whether that's something you want or not, I think you should try the game and see for yourself.

A lot of the problems with CoD (as they are described to me by others) are rooted in balance and structure of the maps/game modes. I haven't heard many complaints about how weapons feel, only that x weapon is overpowered or whatever, and that's something that can definitely be avoided or corrected.


*(Is "taste" the right word for this? Smokers, let me know, I'm curious.)

[TtD]

I do consider the handling animations to be part of a weapon's 'feel', because that's about the only way I can think of to judge the feel of a weapon in a video game when you're not firing it and experiencing recoil, bullet spread, or bullet drop. In a game, you have no physical way to judge size or weight of a weapon other than the animations the character performs when you perform certain actions with the weapon. The only other clues present would be the sound design for that weapon and the actions associated with it.

Honestly interested: Where do you draw the distinction between a weapon's feel and its mechanics? To me, they're very closely related, if not inseparable.

I classify feel as anything purely cosmetic, sound quality, firing animation, recoil motion blur (note: not recoil itself), muzzle flash, accuracy of representation (how competently what you see reflects what the netcode is actually delivering). Basically anything that contributes to the experience of shooting in a game, but isn't an intentionally introduced mechanic to affect balance.

Under mechanics, you have the gun balancing (recoil/accuracy bloom/ttk), avatar movement, ADS time, scope design, etc...

Mechanics determine what you experience, 'feel' are the implemented affects that determine how that experience is received by the player. A good 'feel' game can cover some level of bad mechanics by being a fun experience to play, a mechanically sound game however can be disappointing if they mess up the 'feel' of the experience. If you want a good example of 'feel' in effect, look at the success of Treyarch iterations of CoD vs IW versions. They are never as successful, as while using near identical mechanics, Treyarch games have never properly pulled off the 'feel' effects. Most noticeably, they have a far worse record of linking the user experience to what the netcode is doing, guns feel far more clunky and unresponsive in the Treyarch versions (WaW and Black Ops are big offenders), and this turns off the playerbase.

For the record, i'll say PS1 was a brutal game both in terms of the mechanics, and the 'feel', they were so limited at the time by tech that they delivered a truly horrible firing experience. It survived on the meta game, rather than doing the avatar stuff well.

[Piper]

I always feel like I'm actually holding a mouse that's connected to a computer that is generating a disembodied (why don't FPS's actually model the entire body these days by the way?) hand/arm that's holding a polygon representation of a futuristic weapon.

But then I have no imagination. :p

Gameplay>>All. /ducks

[Astrok]

no they dont feel good


yes because those are the only games thats ever done well


if cigarettes were bad for you they wouldnt have been milked to death


the point is that they want to make gun animations better? and what has that to do with the quality of gameplay and how good guns feel?

u can say whatever u like.Me myself doesnt like cod either ..battlefield is ok but thats my oppinion but to tell u the truth if they both where pieces of crap then why the hell they selling milions of copys every year?.

U can say i dont like the gameplay but u cant say it sucks.I dont like macdonalds but if u look at those restaurants they always filled with people.

[wasdie]

Like it or not, CoD is the gold standard of shooter today in terms of feel. It took them many years to get that feel just right too.

From what I can tell, Planetside 2 follows some of the basic look and feel of the shooting of CoD, but the distances in between targets, and the tracking of bullets (not hitscan) really changes everything. I think it will be fine.

[Xyntech]

This thread is disconcerting.

Yes, but is it ridiculous (mods)?

[Astrok]

Yes, but is it ridiculous (mods)?

its a thread that has nothing in it really lol.

people complaining about how the guns will be without even playing yet is kinda concerning yes.

[Fligsnurt]

The part that disappointed me was that he mentioned CoD instead of Battlefield. Battlefield's guns feel a lot better than CoD's, but that's primarily due to recoil.

I agree, CoD weapons don't have much recoil and half the time they don't have much deviation. More then a few are just point and click laser beams. BF3 did have better weapon handling and I enjoyed it, honestly I hope that if they are trying to have their gun play more modernized that they aren't using CoD as their example to go by.

[Beem]

The stupidity of this thread is astounding. If you found a reason to not like the gun play in easily the best set of gun play games ever to be released you can see yourself out. The rest of the gameplay in these games doesn't matter because that's not what was being copied.

[NePaS]

(why don't FPS's actually model the entire body these days by the way?)



If they do that,it is not an FPS anymore,it becomes a TPS(Third Person Shooter)

[FastAndFree]

If they do that,it is not an FPS anymore,it becomes a TPS(Third Person Shooter)

He meant like Mirror's Edge or milsims, where you can see your body/legs if you look down


Also I don't understand this thread. The op quotes claims to make gun handling feel more "real", which is great because firing any of the weapons in PS1 felt very "unsatisfying" and... ethereal?

[Piper]

If they do that,it is not an FPS anymore,it becomes a TPS(Third Person Shooter)

No I don't mean over the shoulder, I mean model the entire body but put the camera at eye level (no peripheral vision of course to help :() and then if you have a key to toggle head movement you can see your body. Also when rag-dolling through the air with an explosion etc. :D

Actually...didn't the original ArmA game do that? :eek:

[Shylan]

I classify feel as anything purely cosmetic, sound quality, firing animation, recoil motion blur (note: not recoil itself), muzzle flash, accuracy of representation (how competently what you see reflects what the netcode is actually delivering). Basically anything that contributes to the experience of shooting in a game, but isn't an intentionally introduced mechanic to affect balance.

Under mechanics, you have the gun balancing (recoil/accuracy bloom/ttk), avatar movement, ADS time, scope design, etc...

Mechanics determine what you experience, 'feel' are the implemented affects that determine how that experience is received by the player. A good 'feel' game can cover some level of bad mechanics by being a fun experience to play, a mechanically sound game however can be disappointing if they mess up the 'feel' of the experience. If you want a good example of 'feel' in effect, look at the success of Treyarch iterations of CoD vs IW versions. They are never as successful, as while using near identical mechanics, Treyarch games have never properly pulled off the 'feel' effects. Most noticeably, they have a far worse record of linking the user experience to what the netcode is doing, guns feel far more clunky and unresponsive in the Treyarch versions (WaW and Black Ops are big offenders), and this turns off the playerbase.
I never really thought about it that way, but now that I do, it does make quite a bit of sense to me.

Actually...didn't the original ArmA game do that? :eek:
Yep, it did. All of Bohemia Interactive's Arma games, and their professional simulators, have a true first-person view. Same with Valve's Left 4 Dead series. They've all been praised for including that feature, too.

[TtD]

I never really thought about it that way, but now that I do, it does make quite a bit of sense to me.

It's actually the main problem with a lot of modern FPS. Whereas your CS, CoD2, SOF2, Quake, etc... only really had netcode, and basic things like locational sound to worry about, the modern FPS feels the need to have the best sound quality (BF series especially), best motion effects, biggest explosions, etc... and as a result the key things a lot of obsessive FPS gamers worry about most have been degraded. If you want to tar the CoD series for anything, blame them for the degradation of netcode quality in almost all recent FPS games in attempt to add more 'experience', since CoD4 the reliability has got worse and worse compared to the older games (punkbuster is partly to blame for this but it's one of multiple things clogging up the netcode that have been added in recent years). Used to be that a playable ping range was anywhere from about 0-180, and you'd get no real issues other than the time delays. If you look at the more recent games, Black Ops starts to fall apart over a 60 ping, BF3 at about 80, that's a huge dropoff in performance and playability, and just kills cross-Atlantic, pan-european, etc... clans.

When veterans moan about the curse of CoD, it's not just the kiddies, it's the style over substance as well. When the OP worries about the 'feel' of CoD leaking in, he's not exactly wrong to be cautious, but he's worrying for the wrong reasons. Mechanics are easy to change over time, 'feel' is a lot more permanent and harder to tweak.

[Shylan]

Mechanics are easy to change over time, 'feel' is a lot more permanent and harder to tweak.
Yeah, going by your separation of mechanics and feel, it's CoD's weapon mechanics that put me off. The feel is alright, I guess, but it's nothing to write home about, in my opinion.

[TtD]

Yeah, going by your separation of mechanics and feel, it's CoD's weapon mechanics that put me off. The feel is alright, I guess, but it's nothing to write home about, in my opinion.

It's certainly got worse over the years, as i've said, they've added in a tonne of really pointless eye candy in recent iterations that have badly damaged what they had in place circa CoD2. Locational sound has been awful since CoD4 as they ramped up the fidelity to try and match what BF was doing, the extra graphics pushes on the same modified engine has led to greater netcode instability, and PunkBuster's (and other anti-cheats used) ever increasing spread has hit the netcode as well. You throw in some of their own anti-cheat coding (the blackops anti-rapid fire macro programming was an absolute carcrash and caused incessant gun jams for a lot of clean people) and the resultant drop off in server sizes that have come with these changes and you get a far bleaker place for the franchise. It's still ahead of the BF guys for the most part series-wise despite BF's superior mechanics, but looking back at the past, CoD2 was likely one of the best 'feel' games of the past decade and they've only gone backwards since.

You throw in the consolisation of the mechanics and you get to the sad state you have today.

PS2 will live and die by it's netcode and it's meta game in all likelyhood, much as PS1 survived on it's meta game. If they get the mechanics and 'feel' solid though, it's where this game has the possibility of greatness.

[Shylan]

If they get the mechanics and 'feel' solid though, it's where this game has the possibility of greatness.
And I certainly hope they do. It seems like they have so far, though, from the demo videos. Of course, I won't get to find out for myself for another 3 weeks or so, most likely. I'm a bet key holder, and couldn't be bothered to spend the $33.00 to buy Planetside 1 and a 1-month subscription, just to get into the beta today.

[TheDAWinz]

Yes, but is it ridiculous (mods)?

Stop dude i literally chocked on my coffee laughing. That thread makes me so lol! :mad::mad::mad: Rediculous mods!!!

[Toppopia]

No I don't mean over the shoulder, I mean model the entire body but put the camera at eye level (no peripheral vision of course to help :() and then if you have a key to toggle head movement you can see your body. Also when rag-dolling through the air with an explosion etc. :D

Actually...didn't the original ArmA game do that? :eek:

I have wondered why games don;t just make everyone in 3rd person, then move your view point to your eyes, like Mount and Blade, when you change to first or 3rd person view, the game still looks the same and reacts the same, its just a different view point, where as games decide "Oh, lets make a first person look great, but when you watch someone else do something, lets make it suck"

Like COD Black Ops, reloading a revolver, first person looks fine, then watch someone do it, they pull out an imaginary magazine and reload it like that instead the proper way. And the list goes on...

[Shylan]

I have wondered why games don;t just make everyone in 3rd person, then move your view point to your eyes
Because it requires the dev team to create an entirely different camera system, and in a lot of cases an entirely different set of animations, and often different models, too. And all of that costs time, money and effort.

[Toppopia]

Because it requires the dev team to create an entirely different camera system, and in a lot of cases an entirely different set of animations, and often different models, too. And all of that costs time, money and effort.

Actually, you would only be creating 1 set of animations, because normally they make animations in first person, then they make them in 3rd person, so if they left the 1st person out and did it all in 3rd person, it sounds like less work from what i can think of. But i could be wrong.

Edit: And if a independent developer of barely a few people can do it, i don't see how a massive company couldn't do it easier and less money/time.

This is from playing Mount and Blade and Mount and Blade Warband, so unless they don't do what i think they did, then i am wrong about everything :(

[selmu]

I really dont want a combat like CoD. Run and gun like a retard, getting kills running without recoil, with perfect accuracy.

If you shot once in real life you know its impossible run and shot(in the target) at the same time. I prefer something with spot, crunch aim shot kill. Not something like press shift when you spot someone press the fire button and the aim at same time, get the kill run again like cod.

[Salad Snake]

*(Is "taste" the right word for this? Smokers, let me know, I'm curious.)

It's really more "feel". Smoking makes me "feel" alert, yet not tense but actually more calm at the same time. It's a good feeling, health degeneration notwithstanding. Iirc that whole "wakes you up but keeps you loose" feeling lead to tobacco becoming a habit of ancient Mayan warriors before battle. Random fact.

I really dont want a combat like CoD. Run and gun like a retard, getting kills running without recoil, with perfect accuracy.

If you shot once in real life you know its impossible run and shot(in the target) at the same time. I prefer something with spot, crunch aim shot kill. Not something like press shift when you spot someone press the fire button and the aim at same time, get the kill run again like cod.

That's more the realm of weapon balance, which will certainly not be ANYTHING like CoD. What we're talking about is the feel of the guns, the sounds, animations, and visuals produced by the weapons themselves. Not so much the performance.