Can PS2 afford to forge its own path?

[Piper]

Some pre-waffle first, sorry!

I remember an early tiny piece, complete with useless image, describing what PS1 was trying to be in PC gamer, quite a long time before it was launched. It alluded a little bit to its potential scale and I remember it said it would 100% require DSL to play (it didn't) which at the time was an odd thing to read. After that I kept one eye on it.

2003 was a slightly different gaming era really lets not forget. WoW hadn't appeared and online gaming was still pretty much far more nerdy than it is considered today, as is the Intraweb full stop. PS1 was, at the time, (and yes it is hyperbole, but accurate none the less) revolutionary. It was trying something new in lots of fundamental ways. It wasn't just another of the Quake/Unreal based engine games. WW2OL did come first, but it launched in a very bad shape. PS didn't really, it worked pretty well and arguably only got worse over time compared to launch.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is must PS2 cater to what has happened to the FPS market in the intervening nine years in order just to sate its potential (free) customer base? Or can it trail-blaze once again? Be different and expect players to grow to like its difference and respect it not sheep herding.

PS2 is aping a lot of features from other games from what we can see but TTK remains a good example to discuss with this? TTK is the quintessential nub of an FPS, get it right and everything else can fall into place. I, personally, never felt that PS1's TTK was "too slow" as is often remarked by "veterans". In many instances you could be dead before you could react, boomers, multiple opponents, Vanguard rounds, quadshot, all sorts. However, it was sufficient in many cases to allow fight/flight reactions when jumped unexpectedly and for a barney to ensue that perhaps the jumper had not expected from the jumpee.

I don't (having not played any of the other FPS's in the intervening nine years [so yes I'm talking out of my arse potentially] because you can't go back to 32/32) understand the desire to forever speed up gameplay. Can someone help me understand it please? :)


Woot, using brackets inside brackets. I suck. :p

[Katanauk]

Sometimes has something to do with a more real feeling, and keeping the attention of the audience.

For me, Planetside got it right.

But a lot of my friends complained "I hit him point blank with a shotgun twice and he casually jogs away?" or "I plowed [1lessMCGroundthanneeded] into him and he's fine? That's crazy!?" Apparently it doesn't feel real. Less immersion. (code for it's too difficult?)

I think, people just like to get kills. The average guy gets 30 kills and 30 deaths in an hour, he's happy. The average guy gets 10 kills and 5 deaths in an hour, he's bored.

I'd love for it to be like it was, I feel Battlefield 3 has it better than COD, in that it's more difficult to kill someone super fast from far away. But it still doesn't feel the way Planetside 1 did, you gotta work for the kill!

That, and I never understood why you'd want a game to feel more realistic, I like playing games, not going to to war . . .

[Littleman]

Your friends weren't dominated in return? That's odd. Usually newbs feel like they're putting absurd amounts of ammunition into someone (with any combo of medkits, P-shield, second wind) only for that same person to turn around and kick their ass with the appropriate weapon - the heavy assault weapon - then there murderer proceeds to heal and repair themselves.

I'm all for TTKs similar to what we see in Battlefield. To be more precise, I'm all for .5-.8 second TTK's. Inherent weapon inaccuracies (recoil, CoF) will artificially lengthen that TTK due to missed shots and/or burst firing.

P.S. MA TTK's in PS1 were over a second long, every shot connecting at full auto.

[Biohazard]

I have this feeling that the TTK was so slow in PS1 because when it was developed we did not have the networking strength to support much faster. Now games are pushing the envelope for TTK because the internet has matured to allow that speed of combat. PS2's TTK however feels intentional, rather than ADHD (COD).

[MCYRook]

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is must PS2 cater to what has happened to the FPS market in the intervening nine years in order just to sate its potential (free) customer base? Or can it trail-blaze once again?
Well one might argue that trailblazing didn't do PS1 much good. ;) It has been a niche game through all its existence. This time around, they are aiming to make it big, and naturally they need to appeal to the large crowd for that to happen.

That said, in an ideal world, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. PS2 can cater to the expectations of today's shooter players and still push the envelope. In fact, I fully expect a great many players, after having seen the light, to never wanting to return to meaningless 16v16 match-and-reset games. (On the other hand, after a few months, expect many to be all "uhm, there's no point to Planetside really, no endgame - I wanna play a game again where I can WIN!")

As for the specifics of TTK, I do lean to the slower side. Mainly because I believe that the combination of low TTK + many people = huge potential for frustration.
I thought PS1 TTK was quite fine in CQC with HA (or the Sweeper). MA fights, especially at a bit longer ranges where you almost just tickled their body armor, was indeed too tame IMO.
(Disclaimer: MA fights were probably a bit different pre-Rexo-buff, but I never played back then.)

[Marinealver]

TTK is allot faster so it sort of comes down instead of trying to outclass some one aka HA trumps MA to who can get the drop on someone.

TTK was slow on everything except HA. Now MA could outrange HA but not before they can close in and finish you off. Also Sniper even though it wasn't 1 shot 1 kill it was faster than MA at range. It is a fact HA could take on 3 MA with little to no problems.

Not to say there were some powerful instagib weapons such as can kill a Rexo in one shot. The NC Vanguard and TR Prowler tank shells, The VS Aroura (deli vair) tripple orb volley, Boomers (especailly when you double them up and emp them as a trap). Liberator cluster bombs, Wasp chain gun (if you can land all bullets), Flail long rang shots, Jackhammer tripple shot at close range. The New pistols on Magazine dump fire mode (at point blank). And of course the Orbital Strike.

Those is what most people will even considered OP because they didn't have a TTK. The TTK was 1 to 3 seconds so basicly upon impact aka the instant kill.

Otheres were power weapons that can easily kill a REXO in several seconds or a MAX in a couple of shots. VS and TR HA weapons, Bolt Driver, Reaver Rockets, MAX AI, weapons, Decimator (against MAXS) HE mines (clustered in a field). Knife with the melee booster on.

Those are the weapons which can resonibally strong enough to get you some kills. All other weapons the best you can hope for is to pick off a low health oponant or push to a stale mate to the point where they fall back to get repaired or healed.

Some othere weapons are good but not mention because they fill more of a single roll is the AA Max weapons and skyguard because they are the only Air defence but not much for getting kills, AV weapons and Mag railgun shots which can kill MAXs somewhat quick but not as fast as a deci. and the Thumper and radaitor which are area denial weapons wich would either kill a low hp person or get them damaged enough that they can be quickly finished off or they stop their advance and fall back. Mosquetoes are good because they are the fastest crusing aircraft in the game and infantry on foot rarely stands a chance against the long range chaingun.

Any other weapon that has not been mention in this post is basicly garbage.

[Piper]

Apparently it doesn't feel real. Less immersion. (code for it's too difficult?)

I think, people just like to get kills. The average guy gets 30 kills and 30 deaths in an hour, he's happy. The average guy gets 10 kills and 5 deaths in an hour, he's bored.

That, and I never understood why you'd want a game to feel more realistic, I like playing games, not going to to war . . .

Thanks for replies folks, think I was very bored earlier when I made this post. :p

As to realism or immersion, I agree with you. I don't understand that, no shooter I've played does realism. Gameplay>>>realism. Forever. Besides, futuristic shooter. Armour, shields, who cares.

Well one might argue that trailblazing didn't do PS1 much good. ;) It has been a niche game through all its existence. This time around, they are aiming to make it big, and naturally they need to appeal to the large crowd for that to happen.

That said, in an ideal world, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. PS2 can cater to the expectations of today's shooter players and still push the envelope. In fact, I fully expect a great many players, after having seen the light, to never wanting to return to meaningless 16v16 match-and-reset games. (On the other hand, after a few months, expect many to be all "uhm, there's no point to Planetside really, no endgame - I wanna play a game again where I can WIN!")

As for the specifics of TTK, I do lean to the slower side. Mainly because I believe that the combination of low TTK + many people = huge potential for frustration.
I thought PS1 TTK was quite fine in CQC with HA (or the Sweeper). MA fights, especially at a bit longer ranges where you almost just tickled their body armor, was indeed too tame IMO.
(Disclaimer: MA fights were probably a bit different pre-Rexo-buff, but I never played back then.)

Hey Rook. First up, many MERC's coming back for PS2? BH? Jolly? Rokka? Er....er.....and everyone else I've forgotten.

I think PS1 trailblazed just by being, what didn't do it much good arguably was its development post launch. They polished the gem into a turd.


TTK was slow on everything except HA.

Any other weapon that has not been mention in this post is basicly garbage.

Obviously "slow" is a matter of individual perception, but for me a few milliseconds here or there is...odd to quibble over.

I for two or three years used nothing but two Suppressors. I had to land every single round in the clip to drop people, but because of its CoF I enjoyed the challenge. To a modern FPS'er it would probably seem insane, but in PS1 it worked somehow.

I'd also disagree somewhat with your last statement, no weapon was garbage, all were situational. I enjoyed immensely using the Radiator. You could do all sorts with it, bottle up towers as people foot-zerged towards 'em, hold backdoors, assault Tech plant air terminal rooms, and most fun of all. Killing BFR pilots while still in them. All it took was some EMP nades, a Radiator and quite a lot of time. That it was a "slow" kill, who cares, it was just funny, as were the hate tell you'd get.

While I'm not advocating MMOrpG type TTK with excessive need for target calling, too fast and there is something lacking I feel, the chance as I said in the OP to react and turn what should have been a loosing engagement into a winning one.

Such a fine line. Ho-hum. Will have to see how modern shooter they've been I guess in beta. As ever!

[Klockan]

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is must PS2 cater to what has happened to the FPS market in the intervening nine years in order just to sate its potential (free) customer base? Or can it trail-blaze once again? Be different and expect players to grow to like its difference and respect it not sheep herding.
Just to point out a flaw in your reasoning, PS1 didn't do anything special with its gunplay, TTK or so. It was pretty much a generic game of its time done in a persistent large scale environment, with elaborate inventories and character levels. The problem with the old style though was that it was perfected to suit a unreal tournament style cramped deathmatch gameplay, not large open maps gameplay. As maps got larger and more open everyone started to migrate to lower TTK gameplay and today high TTK gameplay is pretty much dead in FPS's and that's for a reason.

[Pyreal]

When I played COD4 I always tried to play on HC servers because I disliked the higher TTK and the minimap.

In BF3 the HC mode still had the cheap minimap but vehicles were about worthless.

I would like a low TTK for infantry vs. infantry but a higher TTK for vehicle vs. vehicle.

[Piper]

Just to point out a flaw in your reasoning, PS1 didn't do anything special with its gunplay, TTK or so. It was pretty much a generic game of its time done in a persistent large scale environment, with elaborate inventories and character levels. The problem with the old style though was that it was perfected to suit a unreal tournament style cramped deathmatch gameplay, not large open maps gameplay. As maps got larger and more open everyone started to migrate to lower TTK gameplay and today high TTK gameplay is pretty much dead in FPS's and that's for a reason.

Hmm, wasn't PS1 the first game to put a CoF in it? Or am I remembering badly. Also at the time it had more variety per side in its weapons than anything else about?

Hang on though, with a larger map you spend more time potentially traversing it, getting to the action from a spawn point, wouldn't having a fast/low TTK then mean people spent even more time spawning/traveling and less time fighting?

So why would that have developed as the norm? Confused. :confused:

Seriously, played naff all shooter wise apart from er....er...one free crappy thing in the last five years away from all things PS1. Nothing interests me if its not of that scale and persistent. :(

[Klockan]

Hmm, wasn't PS1 the first game to put a CoF in it? Or am I remembering badly. Also at the time it had more variety per side in its weapons than anything else about?
CoF have been in games for ages, counterstrike was the first large multiplayer FPS with major CoF management but it existed before that as well. Halo 1 had CoF management as well even though you didn't see it on the cross hair, battlefield 1942 had it as well etc.
Hang on though, with a larger map you spend more time potentially traversing it, getting to the action from a spawn point, wouldn't having a fast/low TTK then mean people spent even more time spawning/traveling and less time fighting?

So why would that have developed as the norm? Confused. :confused:

Larger more open maps means that people will start seeing each other at longer distances and thus firefights will occur at longer distances. Since it is harder to hit stuff that are further away you lower TTK to stop firefights from dragging on forever. People being able to heal themselves in almost any modern FPS doesn't help the issue either. Halo is the only old multiplayer style franchise that still got a big following and it is an arena shooter.

[Piper]

CoF have been in games for ages, counterstrike was the first large multiplayer FPS with major CoF management but it existed before that as well. Halo 1 had CoF management as well even though you didn't see it on the cross hair, battlefield 1942 had it as well etc.

Ah, fairy-nuff. My bad. :p

Larger more open maps means that people will start seeing each other at longer distances and thus firefights will occur at longer distances. Since it is harder to hit stuff that are further away you lower TTK to stop firefights from dragging on forever. People being able to heal themselves in almost any modern FPS doesn't help the issue either. Halo is the only old multiplayer style franchise that still got a big following and it is an arena shooter.

Or it could be left alone as an encouragement for people to close distance and assault each other/objectives? :p Or bring the right weapon to the right kind of fight as in Ranged V Close?

Healing, hmm, well PS1 had ways and means of countering that. Had to put weapon away to do it, AoE spam/weapon systems for those in cover doing it etc etc. Excluding med packs, which were on the old cool down and not infinite.

[Littleman]

I think having a point to march to and capture will be incentive enough for players to close the distance. For what it's worth, rifles won't be firing laser thin streams of lead. If even ADS your accuracy is still only reliable for 50m, then TTK's are artificially lengthened as a result. A missed bullet isn't going to be doing any damage, and it still counts as time spent shooting at someone. If we're walking 8 rounds a second, that's .125 seconds per round fired. If someone takes 9 rounds to kill, that's 1 second flat (first round does not count towards time spent.) If the rifleman misses three rounds and fires three more for the kill, the TTK is now 1.375 seconds.

I don't think anyone can really say they don't feel any lag at 375ms, so yeah, it's a big difference in a firefight where time seems to slow down to a crawl. The average accuracy of a player will likely be anywhere from 30-50%, even at smaller ranges. This TTK also doesn't consider the fluctuation with burst firing in order to make every round count. One could spend .2-.5 seconds between bursts to maximize accuracy at say 50m and beyond.

It all really depends on how the weapons accuracy/CoF handles. The power of the bullets themselves should be deadly. Their ability to hit anything a cross between the player's own ability and the gun's statistical accuracy. SMGs could be just as powerful as the assault rifle as a result, but the assault rifle is the more reliable long range weapon. Conversely, SMG's might just allow one to carry extra mags over the AR as a balancing factor, if for example, the medic an pick to bring an SMG over an AR where as infils might just be shafted to sniper rifles and SMGs.

Also, there are a LOT of respawn locations if E3/streams are any indication. There really isn't much of a reason to find oneself far from a fire fight.

[MCYRook]

Hey Rook. First up, many MERC's coming back for PS2? BH? Jolly? Rokka? Er....er.....and everyone else I've forgotten.
Fuck yeah! All of these (well rokka needs to be dragged from out his hiding hole, but Korpi will take care of that), as well as Bloodhawk, KornDemon (likely with other names), Sharpy, Mastacheif, Damack&Dan - basically the whole bunch, along with a load of others you probably wouldn't remember from the old days.

I think PS1 trailblazed just by being, what didn't do it much good arguably was its development post launch. They polished the gem into a turd.
Ah, see, I don't really buy that one tbh. Was launch-PS1 really so fundamentally BETTER than later-PS1? What ground-breaking changes were there really, to "ruin the game"? Sure, everyone points their fingers at BFRs, and while I can imagine the lolBots completely screwed over anything field-battle-related, BFRs did get nerfed hard, and ever since I've played the game, they were a non-factor. So why didn't people come back then, if the game was so amazing otherwise?

IMO, BFRs were at best half the reason why people left in droves, the bigger thing was WoW. Apparently, that game was more alluring to much of the playerbase than PS1 was.

Truth is, the general online FPS populace was just way smaller back then. And PS1 was very demanding on the hardware, as well as on your internet connection (as you pointed out). In that regard, it was "ahead of its time". Gameplay-wise? Well sure, it was a friggin' MMOFPS, but other than that? Not really, I'd say.

MMOFPS is still a groundbreaking thing to this day tho. That alone will convey that "holy shit, I've never seen anything like this!" feeling to the newbs (oh how I envy them ;) ).

For it to be popular tho, it also needs to feel familiar to them. If people have something that they like, they'll readily enjoy other things which are similar - be it games, or music, or food. If it's kinda "radically different", then it takes effort to get into it, and may be more likely to trigger a "mehhh.... I don't think I'm into this" reaction.

Us ultra fans will be quick to point out that PS2 is more than just "BF3 with many more players", but to the general populace, it's a good thing if (at first glance at least) it comes across as just that.

[ringring]

I think I'd prefer a ttk closer to ps1, I like the thought of when I come under fire I have a chance to do something about it.

Probably the worst thing about ps1 gunplay was the whole 'fire a clip into someone and they didn't die' scenario and by that I mean network and hit detection issues.

[Syphus]

Was launch-PS1 really so fundamentally BETTER than later-PS1? What ground-breaking changes were there really, to "ruin the game"? Sure, everyone points their fingers at BFRs, and while I can imagine the lolBots completely screwed over anything field-battle-related, BFRs did get nerfed hard, and ever since I've played the game, they were a non-factor. So why didn't people come back then, if the game was so amazing otherwise?

Yes it was. I don't really think people played PS1 just because WoW didn't exist. At that time, if you wanted WoW style gameplay, you would play EQ, which was still a great game. I don't think there was any large drop off when SWG launched a few months after Planetside

There were some good changes and additions, such as the Liberator, but I still think by and large they had no idea what to do and were just as out of touch as they were in SWG. One of the first indications of this was at the end of Beta, there was lots of talk about splitting XP among squad members and the overwhelming feeling over the Playerbase was to not do that, and of course the devs were like, "No, we are not doing that, not at all." Launch day comes, and what do you think the first thing to happen was?

This just set precedent for things like BFRs and Caves and larger screw ups down the line.

[MrBloodworth]

If they have to remove locking doors to attract "modern FPS players", then no, its a race to the bottom.

[SwiftRanger]

We get a wrong image of the current game. TTK is one of the first things that will be tweaked if the real mass battles show up in beta. Plenty of features aren't implemented yet.

The game can and should forge its own path in order to achieve what other multiplayer shooters (PS1 included) didn't do: create multiple goals to keep on playing. Gaining Battle Rank, acquiring certs and fighting over the same bases for years on end can only get us so far. Variation is key and long-term goals should be meaningful/visualised in-game.

With the currently revealed feature set PS2 sounds like a bigger, shinier and more accessible PS1. I think we'll need more than that (and that we'll get more as well, if Smedley's comments are to be believed).