Planetside 2 a worthy sequel?

[Hunterzen]

List what worries you about Planetside 2 not having that unique awesome feeling Planetside 1 has. On a positive note list what gives you hope about Planetside 2. I know I should start this up by listing my own thoughts, but I only played Planetside one from release to aftershock, and I haven't done enough research on PS2 to really know what features will be missing that PS1 had. I would like to hear what people especially PS1 veterans have in mind.

[fod]

PS2 missing dedicated driver and gunner is a big downside of PS2 for me (its driver=gunner like bf3 now)

[camycamera]

i haven't played the first planetside, and i know they aren't (really) doing this, but i hope they dont dumb-down PS2 to just appeal to the casual gamer. that would suck, CoD players on our planetside....

[exLupo]

The game looks like it will play differently. Sure, it'll be in the FPS genre but with the vehicle, ttk and other changes in the pipe, the only PS1 it'll have is a mostly-similar lore and massive, mixed-arms battles. However, those brawls (and lore, for some) are what bring us here in the first place so, yea, I think it's a worthy successor.

[Zeruel]

PS2 missing dedicated driver and gunner is a big downside of PS2 for me (its driver=gunner like bf3 now)

Wasnt it this way for PS1 too? Just some vehicles were not of this kind, i think? (long time not played...) Also i seen a spotlight from tech where the driver wasnt able to shoot in a troop transporter...

[exLupo]

Lightnings were driver/gunner, Magriders had a fairly terrible driver gun, and the rest you had to park and swap seats to use any weapons.

[Typherian]

PS2 missing dedicated driver and gunner is a big downside of PS2 for me (its driver=gunner like bf3 now)

This, let the lightning be the tank you drive and gun

[Otleaz]

I'm gonna say the lack of logisitcs. If it's just a super fast frag fest then I feel it will be less appealing then something that requires strategy. I love fast TTK's but I hope it's not just complete and utter chaos from the moment you login to the moment you leave.

I agree with this. I can't help but feel there will be no room for strategy, only directing the flow of the zerg. It is hard to speculate on this subject without seeing what objectives there are though.

[Scotsh]

I agree with this. I can't help but feel there will be no room for strategy, only directing the flow of the zerg. It is hard to speculate on this subject without seeing what objectives there are though.

I really think and hope that the hex region system will enable both, zerging and specop-ing. I could imagine that the zergs will be directed toward the big goals (i.e. bases) whilst the capturing of crucial resource nodes wont be of much interest for the zergs and will be a primary target of spec-op-groups. Ideally the sum of those little captures will contribute a lot to the performance of the zerg.

[Toppopia]

One thing that will draw people in, is the feeling of getting 30+ outfit members and attacking a base and feeling like your superior strategy and co-ordination is what wins, and now just that you spammed the most people, or seeing a friendly outfit being beaten back so you come in with aircraft and save their sorry buts. But if this is just going to be COD but a bigger scale, that might drive people away. But i don't think Sony would kill the game by leaving strategy out of the equation.

[TheDecoy]

I'm gonna say the lack of logisitcs. If it's just a super fast frag fest then I feel it will be less appealing then something that requires strategy. I love fast TTK's but I hope it's not just complete and utter chaos from the moment you login to the moment you leave.

Probably will be utter chaos for the first month or two until outfits get organized and people figure out the game.

[MrBloodworth]

I'm gonna say the lack of logisitcs. If it's just a super fast frag fest then I feel it will be less appealing then something that requires strategy. I love fast TTK's but I hope it's not just complete and utter chaos from the moment you login to the moment you leave.

This concurs with my feelings as well. Other than large battles, im not seeing much Planetside.

All the bases seem to be arena style designs. With no doors to direct or change the flow. The "Breach and siege" game is gone. Coupled with lack of an SOI, no fronts to base assaults. The Continents themselves are little more than server selections with the advent of each empire having a home base on each. There will be no GLOBAL movement of fronts.

The most positive thing I can say, is the art is fantastic, and the shooting looks solid.

[Syphus]

This concurs with my feelings as well. Other than large battles, im not seeing much Planetside.

All the bases seem to be arena style designs. With no doors to direct or change the flow. The "Breach and siege" game is gone. Coupled with lack of an SOI, no fronts to base assaults. The Continents themselves are little more than server selections with the advent of each empire having a home base on each. There will be no GLOBAL movement of fronts.

The most positive thing I can say, is the art is fantastic, and the shooting looks solid.

I have no idea what your hard-on for Doors is about.

Every single base attack was the same thing in PS1. Go down one of a few paths to console, hack, wait, obnoxiously bring ANT. Go to next base, repeat. You could've replaced any base with a medieval castle and you wouldn't have noticed the difference.

This system makes taking basis a bit more active, while at the same time the terrain and base layouts will make taking bases different, as we saw with The Crown.

As an aside, from what we've seen of Biolabs, they look like they might be most similar to PS1 capturing.

[MrBloodworth]

I have no idea what your hard-on for Doors is about.

Its part of the "breach and siege" game-play, also Infiltration, and changes the flow of battle. Right now, we have arena style base layouts with no changing paths.

Its also 2012, they do not need to be "Star trek" doors. See Blacklight:Retribution for a great way to do lockable, hackable doors that avoid all the problems with the PS1 doors.

[Ghostwing]

I would say PS2 has the POTENTIAL to be a great sequel. We just won't know for sure until release (and even after that they might keep tweaking).

[Vertoxis]

considering this has been time and time again said to be a TRUE BETA TEST.. not a Marketing beta like many recent games have been doing...

There are many changes to come and bug fixes....

Wouldnt surprise me if stuff like Sphere of Influence so people cannot drop directly on bases and such will get placed in the game...

Remember ... play and do things like dropping on bases as much as possible.. because if it becomes a glaringly effective strategy ... to the point of no one using anything else.. trust me it will get changed.. thats what a beta is for

[brighthand]

considering this has been time and time again said to be a TRUE BETA TEST.. not a Marketing beta like many recent games have been doing...

There are many changes to come and bug fixes....

Wouldnt surprise me if stuff like Sphere of Influence so people cannot drop directly on bases and such will get placed in the game...

Remember ... play and do things like dropping on bases as much as possible.. because if it becomes a glaringly effective strategy ... to the point of no one using anything else.. trust me it will get changed.. thats what a beta is for

Are you referring to Gal drops, an iconic tactic of the first Planetside? If so, then preventing direct drops on base would probably degrade the game.

[MrBloodworth]

considering this has been time and time again said to be a TRUE BETA TEST.. not a Marketing beta like many recent games have been doing...

Never, in my 20 years of beta testing have major systems been revamped in beta.

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Duskguy]

im new to planetside, but i've been a BF player for a while.

worried about the game being completely F2P and (possibly) the station cash shop.
-no initial cost means anyone can play. while this invites more players, i worry about those younger gamers. i've been on xbox for the past 5 years and can say with confidence, little kids can ruin the game (random needless trash talk, music playing over he mic, simple bad play)
-dont like the fact that the shop COULD turn into a buyers win thing, even if they dont give weapons. if there is an in game equivalent that is maybe not as great or doesnt last as long as the station cash version, i wouldnt mind at all

looking forward to the large maps and large player base.
i admit there will likely be lots of zerg battles, but i dont think PS1 players need to worry about that especially since while the front lines look like they would be the zerg battles, you could drive/fly around and take a new point.
in addition to being able to go around, being that there are lots of players, the main zerg can be at the front and outfits could flank around.

i believe outfits working together to coordinate will lead to that strategic fighting mentioned as being in PS1. and will be key to who can get the upperhand (at first). having an outfit or two with a few platoons organizing attacks across a large front behind the main lines could force the enemy to give up those facilities or lessen the defense of the main battle.

[Goldeh]

Never, in my 20 years of beta testing have major systems been revamped in beta.

I'll believe it when I see it.

20 years worth of beta testing eh? They must have you chained up to the computer or something:D

[VaderShake]

As a gamer for over 30 years I think everyone would be better served if they looked at PS2 being it's own game. Franchises often struggle with producing "true sequels" unless the just cookie cut the same technology with the same content plus a few new bells as whistles which eventually gets boring or is forced to change with technology upgrades.

PS2 takes a big leap in it's vision and aspiration over PS1 and is it's own game that will appeal to who it appeals to. I hope it keeps the PS1 vets and adds a large crowd wanting more than current FPS's have to offer.

[Noctis]

It's not a sequel, it's a 10 yr after re-do.

[NePaS]

Are you referring to Gal drops, an iconic tactic of the first Planetside? If so, then preventing direct drops on base would probably degrade the game.

He means drop podding.

[MrBloodworth]

It's not a sequel, it's a 10 yr after re-do.

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

[Program]

This concurs with my feelings as well. Other than large battles, im not seeing much Planetside.

All the bases seem to be arena style designs. With no doors to direct or change the flow. The "Breach and siege" game is gone. Coupled with lack of an SOI, no fronts to base assaults. The Continents themselves are little more than server selections with the advent of each empire having a home base on each. There will be no GLOBAL movement of fronts.

The most positive thing I can say, is the art is fantastic, and the shooting looks solid.

Yeah, I agree with your here. I've never played the original Planetside, but I do notice a distinct lack of walls when comparing the PS2 facilities with the original bases. I also wish there were an open class system, an inventory, and that the game offered a bit more player freedom.

However, the shooting looks great and it's a gigantic game!

[Deadman]

I've been playing games for a very long time and I am a [sadly, unsubbed vet] ex-PS1 player and when I came back to PS1 during the free month they gave us I was still very impressed with it all. There are some things I personally felt could be improved and these are just my opinions so any true long term players please keep that in mind before flame-throwing me to death.

- The base layouts where not siege friendly. The bottleneck corridors when attacking or defending just became too cluttered and ended up just being a grenade spam fest.

-Once you capped a facility an invading army just sat and camped it for 15 minutes until the hack came through. This is fine but 99% of my experience the opposing faction would cut their loses and rally to defend an adjacent base. So, as an aggressor, you would often have to sit and wait jumping up and down or knifing each other out of boredom. Incentive to reclaim a facility from an invading force needed to be greater.

- BFR's should have never been implemented. Personally I stayed away from the caves as well.

On the flip side of things:

Accessibility is a buzz word thats been floating around for a while now when Devs talk about their latest projects, but I think accessibility is a double-edge sword.
I've played a number of games that are (strange as it might sound) too accessible. I dont particularly mean dumbed down or designed for bad players I mean the elimination of certain aspects, choices or "work" that add to immersion of a game. Its sometimes ok if it takes time or "work" to accomplish something because its part of the journey or adventures you have. e.g a platoon leader may sound out a recall to sanctuary to organize a Gal drop. This takes time and with today's standards is not convenient and is too time consuming when players just want to stay in the action. Its a logical counter-argument but in PS1, even that was fun.
You would recall, climb in a Gal spot, chat a bit and get assigned a target then, when everyone was ready, you would all set off as one deadly force. You can still do this in PS2 by all means but I suspect it might be less common due to squad spawning if its not implemented correctly. This is just one small, and possible too vague, concern of many when I look at how other developers have made their games a little too convenient.
Its very hard to say what is a positive and what is a negative addition to a game though. Blizzard are doing "accessibility" wrong for example (for anyone who plays their games).

[LampShade]

I agree with this. I can't help but feel there will be no room for strategy, only directing the flow of the zerg. It is hard to speculate on this subject without seeing what objectives there are though.

This goes along with the driver=gunner thing... I liked the fact that the driver wasn't the gunner in PS. It really made it so you had to communicate and work together rather than just jump inside a tank and go blow stuff up. Logistics is similar.


- BFR's should have never been implemented. Personally I stayed away from the caves as well.

You would recall, climb in a Gal spot, chat a bit and get assigned a target then, when everyone was ready, you would all set off as one deadly force. You can still do this in PS2 by all means but I suspect it might be less common due to squad spawning if its not implemented correctly. This is just one small concern of many when I look at how other developers have made their games a little too convenient.

BFRs were terrible, totally agree.

Myself and my out of LOVED the caves. It was a good change of pace that we would do maybe 1 out of every 3 or 4 times we played, not every time by any means. I think we actually had a "cavern night" once a week.

I hope the Squad spawn does not become OP. They should NOT have ways for people to increase the Squad spawn time, IMO. It should be constant for everyone. Or if increased, increase it by only like 5-10%, nothing significant like 30% or god forbid 50%....

Maybe instead of "Squad Spawning" This would by done via galaxy when the Galaxy is mid-air. This would require someone to be piloting the Galaxy and would also require some defense to ensure it doesn't get shot down... So in other words, it's very difficult to get a Galaxy to stay afloat for long over an enemy base that is well defended. People can continue to "squad spawn" from the galaxy until it is shot down...

[RoninOni]

I agree with this. I can't help but feel there will be no room for strategy, only directing the flow of the zerg. It is hard to speculate on this subject without seeing what objectives there are though.
During some of their interviews they talked about a mission system created by players... so players who certify into a "command tier" will be able to create missions other players can accept.

It's not in yet, so still in development and who knows exactly how it will work and what types of missions you can give, but I'm hoping for a fairly comprehensible system allowing for scouting/patrol routes, troop transport and escorts, etc allowing tactical minded players to help focus their forces into more organized actions than the pure zerging that you currently see in the streams.

If they pull off this mission system right, I already have a few designs on it... a couple of ideas to do some fun, sidegames even. It's going to be hell to manage even with a good system so I'm hoping for a great system :D

@Lamp: Galaxy's can be deployed to offer squad spawn.... so there is that.... though it's buggy at times in the current build from watching last nights Higby stream. NBD ofc as it's beta... beta is beta :D ... but yah, I think they need to increase the delay on re-squad spawn (they might have superficially lowered it since gal spawns seem glitched, who knows)

Additionally, I think they need to put a 5-10 min wait timer on MAXes.... if you die in a MAX you shouldn't be able to spawn in another right away.

Finally, I understand how imbalanced BFR's were in PS1, but that doesn't make them a horrible concept... I'd like to see them return actually but they'd need to be balanced better. Couple of ideas.... #1 you can always nerf their armor and firepower #2 Give a much higher resource cost and wait time than any other vehicle #3 Limit their ground speed so they'd primarily be used for defense.

I mean hell, I have hopes for PS2 that will add even more powerful vehicles than BFR's honestly... if and when they add Naval combat between continents I'd like to see massive carriers that would take an IMMENSE resource cost (Outfits would need to pool resources to buy one for the outfit). Carrier Captains could enter the bridge to layout a course or could take the wheel for manual control (but it's a big honkin ship and not that maneuverable). The carrier would have vehicle spawn terminals, maybe long range artillery for shelling coast lines (or more likely those go on the battleships), and lots of ship to ship and AA gun posts. Losing a Carrier would be a HUGE blow to an outfit. Then there would be battleships that could be manned by 3-6 players, submarine 1-2 man underwater fighters, and troop/tank landing craft to take landing parties from the carriers. (Primarily to land tanks as Troops would be more apt to ride Gals from the Carrier). There could even be a few "Oil Drilling platforms" off the coasts to give more for naval crews to combat over.

Then allow the 'HQ' on each continent to actually be capped/destroyed, so a Faction forced off a continent would need to embark on a DDay to re-establish a foothold.

[Deadman]

I agree the BFR's could have been altered to a point where they were less frustrating to have around. Im excited about the prospect of new powerful and impressive looking titans of war in the future, however balance is the primary concern.
Limit the number of them on the same map? Players whine. Limit them to only the highest ranked players? Players whine. Inevitably the devs cave in from all the bitching on the forums and allow everyone and their mother to drive around in death machines. The game morphs into the next Mechwarrior game but one that feels very unengaging and stale.

So you would have to consider adding these cool things but not having 6000 of them roaming around at the same time and somehow keeping the playerbase happy (most players want access to everything these days without wait). Your idea of a outfit resource pool could well solve that as long as it was designed so it wouldn't go out of hand.

[SUBARU]

This concurs with my feelings as well. Other than large battles, im not seeing much Planetside.

All the bases seem to be arena style designs. With no doors to direct or change the flow. The "Breach and siege" game is gone. Coupled with lack of an SOI, no fronts to base assaults. The Continents themselves are little more than server selections with the advent of each empire having a home base on each. There will be no GLOBAL movement of fronts.

The most positive thing I can say, is the art is fantastic, and the shooting looks solid.

Well said

[Boone]

Yeah, I agree with your here. I've never played the original Planetside, but I do notice a distinct lack of walls when comparing the PS2 facilities with the original bases. I also wish there were an open class system, an inventory, and that the game offered a bit more player freedom.

However, the shooting looks great and it's a gigantic game!

I never played the original Planetside either. Just watched some short video clips, but from what I saw the bases in Planetside, atleast once inside just looked like bottleneck/Operation Metro type shit..then again..I never played :cool:.

I personally think the bases look great regardless of walls. I could go either way with it really..I don't tend to nit pick all that much. I can understand people wanting doors but like I said it doesn't really bother me all that much.

I'm sure there is still quite a bit left to show and implement come release. I do understand the nostalgia though (I want UO2).

[SUBARU]

I have no idea what your hard-on for Doors is about.

Every single base attack was the same thing in PS1. Go down one of a few paths to console, hack, wait, obnoxiously bring ANT. Go to next base, repeat. You could've replaced any base with a medieval castle and you wouldn't have noticed the difference.

This system makes taking basis a bit more active, while at the same time the terrain and base layouts will make taking bases different, as we saw with The Crown.

As an aside, from what we've seen of Biolabs, they look like they might be most similar to PS1 capturing.

Right now base battles have no flow.It looks like a bunch of little kids runing around playing lazer tag

[Comet]

For those worried about base captures. They have already stated a few times they are currently working on how they work to add more depth to them. This includes how spawning works around/in the base, delays on attempts after capture and more than just capture nodes to add to the strategy of taking a base like making vital parts (generators, vehicle pads, ect.) more accessible to the attacking team. It's not going to just be a flat out arena that so many people are scared of.

They've also gone over the problems with the old PS1 base capture mechanics that prove it's an old design that can be made more progressive - which they are doing.

[RoninOni]

I agree the BFR's could have been altered to a point where they were less frustrating to have around. Im excited about the prospect of new powerful and impressive looking titans of war in the future, however balance is the primary concern.
Limit the number of them on the same map? Players whine. Limit them to only the highest ranked players? Players whine. Inevitably the devs cave in from all the bitching on the forums and allow everyone and their mother to drive around in death machines. The game morphs into the next Mechwarrior game but one that feels very unengaging and stale.

So you would have to consider adding these cool things but not having 6000 of them roaming around at the same time and somehow keeping the playerbase happy (most players want access to everything these days without wait). Your idea of a outfit resource pool could well solve that as long as it was designed so it wouldn't go out of hand.


Yah it kinda leans on Eve's design of corporations/merc groups/whatever having pooled resources for their massive battlecruisers.

A simple way is to just make them cost a HELL of a lot more than they're really worth comparatively to individual unit purchases. It would be better to spend most of your resources on tanks and fighters, and then when your outfit loses these massive investments... IT HURTS. Carriers would act as spawn points for an Outfit, basically they'd be purchasable, mobile, naval bases for an outfit (that don't feed you resources). Battleships would support squad spawning (and only spawnable from a owned naval base), and Submarine fighters would just be spawned from carriers or coastal naval bases.

They could even extend PS2 beyond a persistent world with sea's to a supporting low orbit space... but that would be even more difficult to balance.

The Naval units are at least restricted in influence to the coast territories, and off coast platforms.

And yes, Balance is the most important factor. Balance > All Else... and having an ocean filled with 500 carriers would be just a lil inane :P

[Drelam]

I hope characters battle ranks don't exceed to a point where every character can have every certification. That destroys each characters uniqueness.

[Papscal]

I am worried about spotting/big red names. No AMS. No Prone. And what looks like a pay to win system.

[SpcFarlen]

I really dont even think they should have slapped a 2 on it. Besides the names of vehicles, weapons and the factions... its really a different game. Higby did state that its a "re-imagining" rather than a true sequel.

So im really only going to judge it based on that. It has been almost a decade, so it deserves to be looked at with fresh eyes.

I hope characters battle ranks don't exceed to a point where every character can have every certification. That destroys each characters uniqueness.

And you can unlock them all. But you are limited in number by which ones you can use. Cant have higher RoF, Damage, and Accuracy on a riffle for example. You can only have one.

[Pella]

Yes the game is great. Obviously needs a lot of bug fixes and tweaks.

The game is lacking direction in its current state which im sure will be ramped up by SOE soon as Beta gets in full swing.

[Bags]

from what we've seen, very doubtful.

[ringring]

I hope characters battle ranks don't exceed to a point where every character can have every certification. That destroys each characters uniqueness.

I don't think there's any link between battle rank and certifications, at least not in the old PS way.

You gain certs and battle rank at the same time by virtue of gaining xp but the only think battle rank appears to confer is the ability to answer the quetion 'what battle rank are you'.

Certifications don't seem to work in the same way that ps1's did, where if you had three cert points free you could cert main battle tank and then 6 hours later, if you wanted to you could uncert it and cert something else but you couldn't have both at the same time.

In ps2 it seems almost everything has it's own cert tree that is very deep. But you can still be a universal solider right out of the box, ie have the ability to drive tanks, fly aeroplanes, be a medic, be an engineer, be a max, be a light or heavy assault. The difference will be you will only be very basic versions of them until you invest your cert points into the specific cert trees.

[leecH]

Probably will be utter chaos for the first month or two until outfits get organized and people figure out the game.

^ this. the players first need to get used to the game. find outfits. organize them. then they will learn about the game. things like landing a galaxy on a biolab platform (as seen in the total buiscit video). which are the viable weapons, upgrades and stuff..

when starcraft 2 came out the first televised tournament in korea is a joke compared to what you see now. because people have not figured the game out yet. and those were professional players!!

i feel like squads and platoons will be very very important when it comes down to chokepoints. given the complexity of the map itself and the structures there must be situation you can only solve by a organized well played out major attack.

If PS2 does not appeal to a PS1 vet - what will?!?!

[Boone]

I am worried about spotting/big red names. No AMS. No Prone. And what looks like a pay to win system.

Please elaborate on how it looks P2W. That's a pretty stupid statement. No prone? Wow, get over it. Did it make BF3 that much better?

People complaining about the "flow" of battle is kind of a joke seeing as there is really no organization going on. Do you guys want to be told where to go? Not sure why people would want big long hallways to fight over, unless you really really enjoyed maps like Operation Metro, which all I heard was complaining.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

This system makes taking basis a bit more active, while at the same time the terrain and base layouts will make taking bases different, as we saw with The Crown.

As an aside, from what we've seen of Biolabs, they look like they might be most similar to PS1 capturing.

I really wish I could say how absolutely ironic these 2 statements are :rofl:

[XPquant]

Yes it's worthy.

[Crator]

It WILL be worthy! As long as DEVs listen to player base. Not just PS1 vet player-base but everyone in beta.

[Boone]

Worthy outside of the 1% (some nostalgic PS1 vets).

[Lord Paladin]

My biggest concern is their taking out the "supply" mechanics. That, to me, is what helped make planetside 1 epic. There were supply lines you had to defend, and you could win a siege of a base because you cut the enemy off.

Driving an ANT may not have been particularly exciting, but I always felt like a hero when I got that thing through to a base which was almost empty. Also, the lattice system meant your faction had clear objectives... So i'm curious/worried about how PS2 will be without those.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

I've been calling it Battlefield: Auraxis since FF 2010 when they had their first panel for it and Smed talked about how he <3 BF and want to bring over elements from it. From what we have seen, my names more correct than PS2 ;)

[Crator]

I keep seeing bickering back and forth about what PS1 vets would like to see done to the game vs. what non-PS1 vets want. How bout SOE just have multiple types of servers then? One would cater to a specific type of play-style over the other.

EDIT: Why does everyone always get so hung up on semantics?

[Crator]

Oh, I know, I'm not surprised I don't think. Just, why limit the play-styles when you can have two servers with different ones? I suppose this may happen if the game is wildly successful and there is a demand for this type of thing.

[sisu]

Right now base battles have no flow.It looks like a bunch of little kids runing around playing lazer tag

I can't believe your judging the strategic depth on beta footage of unorganized players just trying to figure the game out. Almost all of the videos up so far have been the E3 and other game show streams where random people walk up and start playing--you're not going to see eb and flow--and if you've been watching any of Higby's stream, or playing the beta yourself, you can quite clearly see strategic play at times. Gamer's are in general such a jaded, negative bunch...

[Rivenshield]

My only real concerns at this point are:

1) Can they *really* deliver 2000 combatants per continent? I'm sure their servers can handle it, but can they really make that work on the client side when most of that 2000 come together for a three-way? I've entertained serious doubts on that from the get-go.

2) With fixed bases on each part of the continent, we're going to be fighting the same enemy over the same terrain IN THE SAME DIRECTION most of the time. That will get really boring really fast. Bring back sanctuaries and rotating warp gates, please! It kept things fresh in PS1. It'll work on the new Auraxis too.

Other than that, the new game looks and sounds awesome (except for the chaingun on the TR MAX, which sounds like garbage). Can't wait.

[Cronik]

(its driver=gunner like bf3 now)

because BF3 invented shooters.

The #1 thing I'm worried about is veterans moaning about how the game isn't a copy&paste of PS1 with better graphics. :cry:

[Crator]

I don't think any PS1 vet want just PS1 with better graphics. We want something new. But a lot of PS1 vets know what mechanics are needed (or have a good idea) based on PS1 knowledge. This is due to the massive nature that PS1 supported and what PS2 is supposed to support.

[Papscal]

Please elaborate on how it looks P2W. That's a pretty stupid statement. No prone? Wow, get over it. Did it make BF3 that much better?

People complaining about the "flow" of battle is kind of a joke seeing as there is really no organization going on. Do you guys want to be told where to go? Not sure why people would want big long hallways to fight over, unless you really really enjoyed maps like Operation Metro, which all I heard was complaining.

Are you stoned? You must be responding to another post, or your stoned.

[RodenyC]

Not worthy of a sequel at all.The only reason they can even call it planetside is that fact we have 3 factions,vehicle warfare,and it's big.Other than that I don't really see it being a sequel.Like Matt said, it's a redone version of Planetside.I find it dissapointing that this game may not be the game I(and probably some vets) were not looking for since we started hoping for a planetside sequel.As well I don't believe any vet would had been ok with just a updated graphics version of PS1.

[Boone]

Not worthy of a sequel at all.The only reason they can even call it planetside is that fact we have 3 factions,vehicle warfare,and it's big.Other than that I don't really see it being a sequel.Like Matt said, it's a redone version of Planetside.I find it dissapointing that this game may not be the game I(and probably some vets) were not looking for since we started hoping for a planetside sequel.As well I don't believe any vet would had been ok with just a updated graphics version of PS1.

Nostalgia is a bitch.

You just browse boards to games you don't look forward to?

Are you stoned? You must be responding to another post, or your stoned.

It's possible.

I believe I quoted the right person though *shrug*.

[RodenyC]

Nostalgia is a bitch.

You just browse boards to games you don't look forward to?


Who said I wasn't looking forward to the game? Looks like a great game.But I was looking forward to a Planetside sequel which it doesn't look like it's going to be.And yeah nostalgia is a bitch.

[MacXXcaM]

Actually I think PS2 will have a much deeper impact on gaming than PS1 did. So, yes, it will be worthy. Hardly anybody did know PlanetSide until recently. This will change now.

[Boone]

I don't see a lot of chatter about PS2 thought outside this forum which has me kind of worried. I know it's (closed beta?), not a TON of info out there and still has little while to go. I think when people look at Planetside 2 they just forget it.

Think about it, you see a game you've never heard of with a 2 behind it and you think to yourself "never heard of it, couldn't been that good". This is the mentality of most people I'd say.

I really hope this game is wildly successful and has a big impact on gaming in the future. This is the kind of game I believe a lot of people have been wanting. Now they just need to make sure it can run decent on lower end systems.

[Hunterzen]

Think about it, you see a game you've never heard of with a 2 behind it and you think to yourself "never heard of it, couldn't been that good". This is the mentality of most people I'd say.

That's a good point, but I think once PS2 is released on Steam F2P list it will gain a lot of popularity over the next couple of months.

[Crator]

Think about it, you see a game you've never heard of with a 2 behind it and you think to yourself "never heard of it, couldn't been that good". This is the mentality of most people I'd say.

F2P with a lot of advertising will negate this.

[Grendel]

Yes, it will be. No question. All the elements are there, and SOE is still tuning them. Even better, they appear to have learned from the (many) mistakes that were made with PS1.

IMO, PS2 is going to blow PS1--which was amazing--out of the water.