View Full Version : Best game I've ever played...?
dethred
2012-10-21, 03:17 AM
Not to ruin the festival of negativity, but after spending a quick 7 hours of my life without even realizing it had passed, I have come to the conclusion that this is probably the best game I've ever played.
Finally had the chance to run with an outfit, and then with some random squads, and the foundation of the game is just astonishing. The sheer scale of the world, the massive battles, and diversity of combat is unlike any game I've ever played.
I love BF2 and BF2142 for their large maps and large scale combat, but this game puts them to shame. Our side was trapped in our base, and after numerous attempts to break out by massive flights of Galaxies, everyone get in a ground vehicle and formed the largest FPS fighting force I'd ever seen. Must have been at least a few hundred people moving together capping bases.
Within about 30 minutes we had retaken almost half the continent. A little later, our entire squad got on the ATVs and flanked a hilltop base that had been under attack for the better part of an hour. We were able set down a base and allow our forces and a few Sunderers to park in the main entrance for spawning. The indoor battle lasted another 30 minutes and we finally took the base.
I've never played a video game quite like it. The lighting effects and the sun light coupled with the other visuals make it extremely engrossing! We even had to turn off our headlights on the ATVs during our attack to avoid being detected. I've never seen anything like it.
I agree that there are some rough edges, but the base game is second to none. You have battles inside the bases which fulfill any desire for a close-range battle, then the outside stuff to satisfy open-world combat.
My only concerns:
Resources seem to be irrelevant (and thus holding territory is almost as irrelevant).
Some players require probably 30+ bullets to kill, which under any circumstances is ridiculous.
The interface for the squad menus, player/leader board, etc are all incomplete.
There needs to be a way of spawning on the squad leader. This will keep the squad together as a unit, and worked extremely well in other games in the past.
Either way, I almost feel like I stole something from the devs for playing something so great for 7 hours without yet paying for it.
Nice to hear that bf players enjoy the game. The question is if you will still enjoy the game when the next bf is released. For sure a lot of ps1 vets wont enjoy the game simply because the casual bf player was more important and the game was designed for their needs.
Shenyen
2012-10-21, 05:48 AM
Casual gamers keep games alive.
Exactly!
Planetside 1 attracted some 250k players in its best days.
With the cost of game development in recent years, a playerbase of 250k wouldn't be enough to support the game for a long time.
50% Planetside and 50% Battlefield, attracting 1-2 million players, is better than 90% Planetside and 10% Battlefield, attracting 200k (as FPS evolved over time, it is unlikely that a 100% remake of Planetside would attract a group as large as when the first part was released, because now other games (like BF3) feature stuff that was exclusive to Planetside in 2003).
Because with only 200k players - Planetside 2 won't even survive til the release of BF4.
Redshift
2012-10-21, 05:54 AM
Right now there is a mutiny in Starcraft 2, interestingly enough it is by vets who demand
that SC2 expansion HOTS be more appealing to casuals. Casual gamers keep games alive.
You can attract casuals so long as you have big battles and decent graphics. This game will have no trouble doing that, but to actually get people hooked and spend money on it means have some form of decent gameplay on top of it, this is where PS2 fails atm.
ringring
2012-10-21, 05:59 AM
The indoor battle lasted another 30 minutes and we finally took the base.
I've never played a video game quite like it. The lighting effects and the sun light coupled with the other visuals make it extremely engrossing! We even had to turn off our headlights on the ATVs during our attack to avoid being detected. I've never seen anything like it.
I agree that there are some rough edges, but the base game is second to none. You have battles inside the bases which fulfill any desire for a close-range battle, then the outside stuff to satisfy open-world combat.
My only concerns:
Resources seem to be irrelevant (and thus holding territory is almost as irrelevant).
Some players require probably 30+ bullets to kill, which under any circumstances is ridiculous.
The interface for the squad menus, player/leader board, etc are all incomplete.
There needs to be a way of spawning on the squad leader. This will keep the squad together as a unit, and worked extremely well in other games in the past.
Either way, I almost feel like I stole something from the devs for playing something so great for 7 hours without yet paying for it.
This is nice to hear but you'll have to cut us PS1 veterans a little slack.
The scale isn't that new to us. Yea, 2000 people per continent is higher than the 600 people per continent that we knew, but we've all already been through the 'jaw drops' moment and the 'look at all those people' thing.
To your specific points;
Yep resources do feel pretty much irrelevant .... I'm not sure that this is a bad thing. However, resources aren't/shouldn't be reason to fight - they simply enable you to fight. The reason stuff is all in the meta-game which we have been banging on about from the start - this is coming soon.
30 bullets to kill? If this was not a max then I don't know I haven't experienced something like that.
The interface/map etc, does need a lot of fixing ... but I imagine that's in the works.
There is a way to spawn on squad leader, the squad beacon which has to be certed into. However, this shouldn't be the primary mode of keeping the squad together, you need an AMS sunderer. In Planetside looking after your spawn points is absolutely necessary - conversely destroying your opponent's squad point is also just as necessary. The one's who are most successful at that will win.
Figment
2012-10-21, 06:04 AM
@Dethred:
At its core, I think most players will agree the game scores decent.
The thing is, most PlanetSide veterans see more than rough edges, because we've played a similar game with refined edges in certain departments. :) We make big deals about things that may seem trivial to others, but we know the impact of.
So it's not so much that the game won't be decent in its own right, it's more that we know it could be a lot better. And that's not nostalgia speaking, it's simply having experience and therefore knowing how well certain alternative systems would work in this context, while also having experience with this and BF systems and knowing they're simply not the optimal choice, layout or need work.
All our "negativity" is constructive critique, because we're typically not bashing, we're saying how it can be improved. When people are disappointed, it's because to many of us, such things are considered "basic" and "no brainers". When they're not in, or changed for the sake of changing (particularly if an inferior change is made), we become both confused and baffled and probably disappointed because it does not fit our expectations. And that's the case for loads of (sub-)systems.
But again, that doesn't mean it won't be more epic than any say... BF game you played even if through sheer scale alone. Typically if you played a large scale shooter, small scale shooters start to bore you.
bullet
2012-10-21, 11:58 AM
Exactly!
Planetside 1 attracted some 250k players in its best days.
With the cost of game development in recent years, a playerbase of 250k wouldn't be enough to support the game for a long time.
50% Planetside and 50% Battlefield, attracting 1-2 million players, is better than 90% Planetside and 10% Battlefield, attracting 200k (as FPS evolved over time, it is unlikely that a 100% remake of Planetside would attract a group as large as when the first part was released, because now other games (like BF3) feature stuff that was exclusive to Planetside in 2003).
Because with only 200k players - Planetside 2 won't even survive til the release of BF4.
I'm tired of hearing this excuse used. Whose to say that these guys in BF/CoD/Anygame wouldn't have liked the original PS? How many of these BF/CoD/Anygame fans ever heard of Planetside or EVER saw any advertising? We might find out soon since they're making PS1 free, but even in its current state, it will be critiqued to hell. People will find every little problem to hate it because they want to hate it.
It doesn't help that the angry PS1 Vets on the main forums constantly make threads to complain. People have just come to hate the vocal minority of angry vets and their game they love.
Meecrob
2012-10-21, 12:10 PM
All our "negativity" is constructive critique,
Haha, that made me chuckle sorry, no offense.
Bittermen
2012-10-21, 12:12 PM
The reason I barely post on these forums anymore is the huge amount of negativity.
The game is fun and it's getting better.
The release date is too soon yes... But this is a F2P title it's never going to stop being changed/optimized/updated and the game has come leaps and bounds from august. I for one just want the game to be released so I don't have to worry about character wipes and I can start spending my SC bucks.
dethred
2012-10-21, 12:55 PM
Nice to hear that bf players enjoy the game. The question is if you will still enjoy the game when the next bf is released. For sure a lot of ps1 vets wont enjoy the game simply because the casual bf player was more important and the game was designed for their needs.
Isn't that precious? To throw a pie in your face, I happen to think this game has more depth and potential longevity than BF2 ever had, which is why I already enjoy it more. I hate the direction that BF3 took, having chosen a COD-clone approach, and I've totally written off the series. I know of dozens of people with the same situation. Sorry, guy, but your precious Planetside series is about to be overrun with hundreds of thousands of people who enjoy an FPS game on a large scale with tactics and teamwork at its core. If that's worrisome to you, then just WOW. Bitter is the best and only word.
From what I saw last night, the amount of teamwork and immersion could not be topped.
Rose tinted glasses can lead to blindness.
I've never seen such negativity for such an excellent game. Its quite frankly getting annoying. The first reply in this thread basically says it all in regards to how ridiculous these arguments are. "Oh no, you like ____ game and also like PS2, so that's proof that this game isn't as good as PS1".
1.) There's everything from people complaining their moderate systems can't handle a dedicated PC game with thousands of participants with huge battles and excellent graphics. Who would have thought a modern game pushing the performance envelope will make slightly dated mid-level PCs display their shortcomings.
2.) There are veterans who are complaining that there is no depth to the game... From what I can tell, it looks like the developers made a tradeoff between the meta game and actual decent combat. I've come from playing competitively in BF2 and 2142 (again, I hated BF3 and detest COD), and this game provides a much better experience in terms of teamwork and immersion. If you don't eventually get your complexity aspect, then either take off the rose-tinted glasses or simply play PS1.
I know its a terrible choice to have to deal with what you're being provided for FREE, or going back to your old game and playing that for FREE.
I also understand the need for constructive criticism, but this crap is just silly. The sheer absolutism of this negativity is counter-productive towards making changes. Tell me this, how is a Developer going to look at this forum and see anything but a general "We want an exact remake of PS1 with better graphics but don't want to have to spend more than $150 on a graphics card"? Most of you probably have at least one valid criticism, but when you flood the forums with the negativity its self-defeating.
I saw the same thing with BF3 forums from BF2 veterans (I was one of the complainers), and it didn't work at all. Worse off, just like BF3, this game will probably have a MUCH larger player base which will serve to invalidate all your criticisms in the eyes of the developers.
ringring
2012-10-21, 01:36 PM
2.) There are veterans who are complaining that there is no depth to the game... From what I can tell, it looks like the developers made a tradeoff between the meta game and actual decent combat. I've come from playing competitively in BF2 and 2142 (again, I hated BF3 and detest COD), and this game provides a much better experience in terms of teamwork and immersion. If you don't eventually get your complexity aspect, then either take off the rose-tinted glasses or simply play PS1.
.
Erm, not quite.
The Devs decided to go into beta without the meta-game. Fair enough, one thing at a time. Now, however Smed and Higby have said they're going to add in a meta-game which sounds suspiciously like what we've been asking for.
So, I'm happy enough. Of course the meta-game will need to be tested out and it will get better as more and more continents are added.
If we were vocal in beta and we were, when we were shown the FPS on Indar and was told this is the new Planetside it should have been no surprise. Planetside was always *not* a perpetual 3-way and it seemed at one time that was what we were going to be given (on 3 continents).
But things have changed and perhaps that's been because of the feedback that has been provided.
One thing that Higby said yesterday in an interview at SOE Live summed it up for me - to paraphrase - Planetside is not about a small skirmish here or there and is not about a battle here are there, it's about a War. That's it exactly, PS is a global war between 3 teams across multiple continents. We knew that from the start but the game mechanics didn't support it too well, we thought.
You've said what makes you annoyed. Well there's something that gets to me too, it's when people say (effectively) shut up! Stop complaining! Stop being negative!
I'm not negative but I won't stop saying what is wrong and how the game feels as a player. The reason is - guess what? This is a beta. We're supposed to provide feedback and the most important feedback we can provide is not about bugs, tho that's important and it's not about balance, it's about how the game feels and how the game plays out.
So, I am glad you enjoyed your session, it really did remind me of the first time I played Planetside. GG
Monarch
2012-10-21, 02:15 PM
I have actually stopped going to the forums at the official PS2 site anymore. The negativity is simply overwhelming and often unfounded.
Carver
2012-10-21, 02:27 PM
I like the game a lot. It's not perfect but it's a lot of fun, especially when you are rolling with a good squad.
I'm sure there are tons of people that agree. They sure don't seem to post in forums, but somebody is filling up those servers. I guess they are too busy having fun playing the game. But it's nice to see a topic that isn't: "This game will fail because it isn't an exact copy of Planetside 1 with better graphics."
Captain1nsaneo
2012-10-21, 04:28 PM
...festival of negativity...
I love this turn of phrase. Absolutely love it.
I agree that the general tone is negative. Right now though you're eating a Taco without cheese. It's a great Taco! And you can't understand why people are complaining about how these great Tacos don't have any cheese. You don't need cheese! This Taco is wonderful as is! You won't understand until you have a Taco with cheese.
The original Planetside is coming up on 10 years. You know what's younger than Planetside? Modern Warfare. Halo only beats PS by 2 years. Everything that you named as what you thoroughly enjoyed from PS2 has been in PS1 (except the headlights, [yes even the graphics (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/04/13) were good]) and as much as it seems that we're blowing smoke out our bums we're really talking about how great cheese is and how we wish we had some cheese.
Because in the end, we want you to have a Taco with cheese too.
I have actually stopped going to the forums at the official PS2 site anymore. The negativity is simply overwhelming and often unfounded.
Quite so! Quite so! I prefer PSU because about 25% of the posts are longer than my thumb and cause me to think.
As to casuals, they'll come for what's currently on offer, that's not a problem. The problem is what happens after they've finished the appetizer?
ringring
2012-10-21, 05:23 PM
... snip ...Because in the end, we want you to have a Taco with cheese too.
Well said .... I wish I had the words... although maybe my problem is I've never eaten a taco. :D
Figment
2012-10-21, 05:29 PM
Isn't that precious? To throw a pie in your face, I happen to think this game has more depth and potential longevity than BF2 ever had, which is why I already enjoy it more. I hate the direction that BF3 took, having chosen a COD-clone approach, and I've totally written off the series. I know of dozens of people with the same situation. Sorry, guy, but your precious Planetside series is about to be overrun with hundreds of thousands of people who enjoy an FPS game on a large scale with tactics and teamwork at its core. If that's worrisome to you, then just WOW. Bitter is the best and only word.
Ehrm... What are you talking about here?
PlanetSide (1) == tens of thousands of people who enjoy an FPS game on a large scale with tactics and teamwork at its core. We tend to find PS2 shallow on that level.
Why? Because it has become more like BF series, which is even more shallow in comparison. So we're not really concerned about the new people flowing in, we're concerned with the game not being tactical enough, instead it being too zerg oriented (numbers equals win =/= teamwork equals win!).
Since you did not play PS1, I don't really get why you're trying to talk in a degenerative way of PS players, since you have no frame of reference to judge them on.
From what I saw last night, the amount of teamwork and immersion could not be topped.
Rose tinted glasses can lead to blindness.
I've never seen such negativity for such an excellent game. Its quite frankly getting annoying. The first reply in this thread basically says it all in regards to how ridiculous these arguments are. "Oh no, you like ____ game and also like PS2, so that's proof that this game isn't as good as PS1".
That's not what was said. You're putting words in Mox' mouth.
1.) There's everything from people complaining their moderate systems can't handle a dedicated PC game with thousands of participants with huge battles and excellent graphics. Who would have thought a modern game pushing the performance envelope will make slightly dated mid-level PCs display their shortcomings.
Depends on how you look at it: the devs stated they would make it run on a 5 year old PC, so the expectation level was created by the devs. If the devs said 1-2 year old PC, we'd not be having that discussion. But now, they set the standard where a Duo Core must be able to run it as the majority of PCs from that time era were Core2 Duo.
If it doesn't do that well, then you'll get complaints.
2.) There are veterans who are complaining that there is no depth to the game... From what I can tell, it looks like the developers made a tradeoff between the meta game and actual decent combat.
Uhm... Let me get this straight, are you saying that "more meta game == non-decent combat"? O.o' Where do you base that on? From experience: more meta game == better combat, more strategy, more tactics. Lowering the complexity of the game makes battles more straightforward, which benefits zerg-gameplay. Zerg-gameplay is a worse type of combat because it requires the least thought and allows the smarter players less room to compensate by playing smart and focused.
Don't get me wrong, zerg can be fun, but it's also relatively tiring and less satisfying to win a zergfight (unless you beat the zerg playing smart, but that's not possible in PS2 due to lack of crowd control options due to funneling and choke points not being options).
We're saying: combat is worse than it could be on several levels. Of course it's a billion times better than BattleField 3. PS1 was that as well.
I've come from playing competitively in BF2 and 2142 (again, I hated BF3 and detest COD), and this game provides a much better experience in terms of teamwork and immersion. If you don't eventually get your complexity aspect, then either take off the rose-tinted glasses or simply play PS1.
I know its a terrible choice to have to deal with what you're being provided for FREE, or going back to your old game and playing that for FREE.
Without pop, the actual content? How nice of you to provide the option between playing a game that is relatively shallow and ill-construed from the veteran point of view or stop playing altogether. And btw, you're the one currently wearing the rose-teinted glasses: PS2 fanboy goggles to be exact.
What makes you think you're invulnerable to the same critique you're trying to apply to PS1 veterans? You try to paint PS2 as the bestest ever, while we KNOW it could be the bestestestest ever if they just listened to us more. The game is becoming better over the past months, BECAUSE they listened to veterans and stepped away from some alpha concepts they refused to drop before, because they thought it streamlined the game. You're saying our improvements have made the game better, but since you don't realise that was our doing, we should just shut up and go away?
I also understand the need for constructive criticism, but this crap is just silly. The sheer absolutism of this negativity is counter-productive towards making changes. Tell me this, how is a Developer going to look at this forum and see anything but a general "We want an exact remake of PS1 with better graphics but don't want to have to spend more than $150 on a graphics card"? Most of you probably have at least one valid criticism, but when you flood the forums with the negativity its self-defeating.
How many people have you actually heard "an exact remake"? I'm sorry, but you'll hear 97% of critique go on about SPECIFIC sub-systems. Considering there's about a bazillion systems, of which a few thousand have been changed, YES, we're going to have A LOT of critique! What you don't get though, is all the things we HAVN'T critiqued, because there's either no point in mentioning them or because people take them for granted. It's not fair to say "oh it's mostly critique, so you're just bashing" or "you just want the old game". That's you being an utter narrowminded turd.
I saw the same thing with BF3 forums from BF2 veterans (I was one of the complainers), and it didn't work at all. Worse off, just like BF3, this game will probably have a MUCH larger player base which will serve to invalidate all your criticisms in the eyes of the developers.
True, but the problem is that numbers don't guarantee quality and numbers do not invalidate critique. New players to the genre have less experience and have less options to provide critique, so one should expect them to be rather accepting of "whatever is there". One, being a dev, should not mistake complacency and ignorance for having done the best they could. The best people to ask about what to change ARE PS1 vets, because we're more aware of the (dis)advantages of design options and alternatives than (with all due respect), people who only played small shooters like CoD, BF2/2142/3 or some other multiplayer games. People who played MAG would have better input than players from BF (even though MAG is completely different as well), simply because an upscaled shooter and a game with three factions works completely different.
One of the big differences is acquisition and numerical leverage. What works for a 32 vs 32 game, will not necessarily work in a 650 vs 650 vs 650 game. What works in a 150 vs 150 vs 150 game, is much better comparable.
When the players with the latter experience are negative, they might be on to something that the 32 vs 32 players will be oblivious to until they gained what, 2 years of experience playing the new game. And I'm not saying that to sound denegrating or insulting, the amount of dimensions you have to have a proper grasp on are simply far greater for a PS game and often involve things you never would consider in a smaller scale game.
In a smaller game, group behaviour is different. In a smaller game, balance is different. In a smaller game, the interaction between two players is different. In a smaller game, the power distance between two groups of players is different. Where in BF on a 64 player map, 4 vs 1 would mean at most 32 vs 8, 4 vs 1 in a bigger scaled game can mean 160 vs 40, or 600 vs 150. The power of leverage behaves quite different at those populations and having the exact same type of open maps has severe consequences. I don't expect you to realise that.
I don't expect you to for example have ever argued or have to convince with 50 other people on the next course of action and which map to invade from where, what route and how, or predicting and preparing for an invasion elsewhere. I cannot expect you to have ever needed to come to a concensus for the battleplan of an entire empire and therefore I cannot expect you to know what kind of conditions, psychology, diplomacy, situations and time pressure there is and how the system must be able to deal with and support that type of command. Especially when there's a huge difference between large and small outfits and therefore the amount of influence they might have.
I don't expect you to for example have witnessed fights where 15 people held off a hundred people for 10 minutes till reinforcements arrived, secured a base or even pushed them back, but the way PS2 is designed, you won't ever see that. As such, I cannot expect you to have an opinion of that and therefore also not see any problems. Unfortunately, what I can expect is you not understanding that those who DO have that experience, see why the current game is "flawed". Upon which you conclude that we're just whining, simply because you're missing out on a lot of information.
And I can go on like that. In short, you lack the experience to make proper judgment. That includes you lacking the experience to be able to say if we're whining. :/
Lastly, if a completely new BF3 player with just some months tops of experience in the entire BF series (and all gained in BF3), yet a BF3 fanboy nonetheless, told you you were just whining and BF3 is the greatest game ever and the best of the series and you should go back to BF2 (or BF1942) if you didn't like it... What would you say?
dethred
2012-10-21, 05:32 PM
I love this turn of phrase. Absolutely love it.
I agree that the general tone is negative. Right now though you're eating a Taco without cheese. It's a great Taco! And you can't understand why people are complaining about how these great Tacos don't have any cheese. You don't need cheese! This Taco is wonderful as is! You won't understand until you have a Taco with cheese.
The original Planetside is coming up on 10 years. You know what's younger than Planetside? Modern Warfare. Halo only beats PS by 2 years. Everything that you named as what you thoroughly enjoyed from PS2 has been in PS1 (except the headlights, [yes even the graphics (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/04/13) were good]) and as much as it seems that we're blowing smoke out our bums we're really talking about how great cheese is and how we wish we had some cheese.
Because in the end, we want you to have a Taco with cheese too.
The "General" tone is not negative, THE tone is negative. I post how I love this game and find it to be not only a replacement for Battlefield games (since the Franchise has collapsed into shit), but that this game is far better than any BF game I've ever played... and most of the replies continue on about how shitty the game is. Its unbelievable.
The problem, though, is that someone that came here to sign up for the game, and then read the forums, is getting the impression that the taco isn't filled with delicious ground beef. They're getting the impression that the Taco is filled with with Horse shit. Not just shit from a horse, but shit from a person that ate horse shit and taco bell "meat filling". You guys are about to throw out the taco just because it has no cheese. Most of us that are content with the direction wouldn't mind having some cheese, but the Taco is still great and we're not going to throw it out just because its missing an ingredient. (Also, part of the reason I never played PS1, aside from not having the cash at the time (college), was the horrible graphics and cumbersome FPS aspects.)
Quite so! Quite so! I prefer PSU because about 25% of the posts are longer than my thumb and cause me to think.
As to casuals, they'll come for what's currently on offer, that's not a problem. The problem is what happens after they've finished the appetizer?
Well, considering there are hundreds of thousands of people that were begging DICE for a real Battlefield game last year, they'll be interested in anything that they can find that fills the need. This isn't BF3, or some shallow FPS COD clone, and its designed to be a little more complex. People were playing BF2 by the tens of thousands over 5 years and several sequels after its release. These people simply want a decent FPS shooter with an open world and teamplay mechanic. These people (including myself and my gaming "squad") played for thousands of hours a piece. Planetside looks to be multiple times more engrossing and long-lasting.
And honestly, I don't think there can possibly be such a thing as casuals in this game. There are your hardcore gamers that are willing to learn the *relatively* complex world of Planetside, and there are your teenage or man-child quick fix gamers that buy the yearly iteration of COD and Madden because "everyone else does". No one that has a computer that can play this game fits into the casual gamer realm. That group of players simply doesn't exist, primarily due to the cost and intelligence it takes to assemble a computer (yeah COD fans can't even figure out something as simple as a PC's hardware).
Figment
2012-10-21, 06:45 PM
You know dethred, our burden is being spoiled with knowledge of what can be (not just what could, because it's been done before). Hence we have set the bar there where we think is reasonable. That "reasonable" bar, is significantly higher and what's more, more detailed than for someone who would be new to the series, who just comes in browsing casually.
It's like walking into a store and asking the sales guy which tv is good and getting the one that they want to get rid of, or going in knowing what specs you want and knowing the differences between the brands and what the best buy is.
What we wouldn't give to be as naive and accepting, but having been there, that bar just isn't going to go away, is it? I'm not sure how well you can relate to that, but there's a big difference between going back to BF2, where you need a few dozen players for a viable instance and going back to PS1, where you need a few thousand subscribers for a viable server.
Fear The Amish
2012-10-21, 07:52 PM
as a PS1 vet i have to say i am thoroughly enjoying PS2. Yes there are things i want to change but i feel that they are updating the game almost weekly, and i feel its heading in the correct direction. My biggest issue is the grumbly vet's that make the rest of us look bad with constant negativity that would only be happy with a reskin. Personally i think inventories are garbage and were only added because as an MMO were felt to be needed i prefer the class system. I think the Hex system is better then lattice because now it isn't who has the biggest zerg going down the pipe, and with the mission system coming it will work out better. Yes it has a ways to go but as a F2P title it will constantly be updating and changing and i am happy with that.
Redshift
2012-10-21, 08:03 PM
I think the Hex system is better then lattice because now it isn't who has the biggest zerg going down the pipe, and with the mission system coming it will work out better.
While i agree with you it is moving in the right direction, this part is just wrong. PS2 is all about the zerg, a small force can not hold out against a larger force anywhere near like you could in PS1. Although it's not the hex/lattice that causes it, it's because PS2 bases are terrible for defending.
Fear The Amish
2012-10-21, 08:06 PM
While i agree with you it is moving in the right direction, this part is just wrong. PS2 is all about the zerg, a small force can not hold out against a larger force anywhere near like you could in PS1. Although it's not the hex/lattice that causes it, it's because PS2 bases are terrible for defending.
of course that comes from a TR as a VS i am outnumbered about 50% of the time to the stupidest dimension, so good tactics on our part is to take hex's surrounding the zerg forcing them to split up and then be devoured in detail. This game is NOT about the zerg its about large group tactics playing smart should always beat numbers.
FortySe7en
2012-10-21, 08:30 PM
Nice to hear that bf players enjoy the game. The question is if you will still enjoy the game when the next bf is released. For sure a lot of ps1 vets wont enjoy the game simply because the casual bf player was more important and the game was designed for their needs.
I wish I could figure out a way to purify the tears of this whiny player base, I'd make millions selling it as bottled water.
I'm a PS1 vet from 2003 - 2010. I absolutely love PS2. I know about 400 other vets who do as well, so there are plenty more out there.
The casual BF player was kept in mind because 1000's of the same players won't be logged in for 24 hours at a time. This isn't WoW or everquest, games that take 5-7 hours a day to keep up, and 8-10 hours a day to be AMAZING. Because it is free to play, it will be like League of Legends. People will hop on for 2-3 hours, log off, and come back the next day and play. (Just like in the CoD, BF, and MOHAA series).
Shooters are designed for people to log on, kill some stuff for a few hours, and then log off. Being a part of the FPS scene for a long time, I can definitely tell you that I hate having to do anything but twitch. Its bad enough they are adding a quest system into an FPS (what the hell?) but to try and make it anything other than a good shooter is stupid. There doesn't need to be inventory, there doesn't need to be walls, there doesn't need to be a lot of things in this game other than a sheer desire to log in, shoot some people in the face, and meet some cool people along the way. However, they are adding what they can to keep the PS1 vets happy, while keeping this game true to REAL FPS roots. (ie, hitboxes, TTK, and an aresenal of weapons).
Its absolutely genius the way they are marketing this. I cannot wait for them to open this up to more players.
P.S. - Saying this game is like battlefield and just another shooter is a pointless argument. I've played CS Series, Quake Series, UT series, Doom Series, BF series, MOHAA series, Wolfenstein Series, and multiple other FPS titles. In all these games the basic idea is the same, but all those games are unique in their own way which made them absolutely amazing to play / still play. Planetside may be a basic shooter like BF, but it has enough unique elements to draw in a crowd.
Fear The Amish
2012-10-21, 08:47 PM
I wish I could figure out a way to purify the tears of this whiny player base, I'd make millions selling it as bottled water.
I'm a PS1 vet from 2003 - 2010. I absolutely love PS2. I know about 400 other vets who do as well, so there are plenty more out there.
The casual BF player was kept in mind because 1000's of the same players won't be logged in for 24 hours at a time. This isn't WoW or everquest, games that take 5-7 hours a day to keep up, and 8-10 hours a day to be AMAZING. Because it is free to play, it will be like League of Legends. People will hop on for 2-3 hours, log off, and come back the next day and play. (Just like in the CoD, BF, and MOHAA series).
Shooters are designed for people to log on, kill some stuff for a few hours, and then log off. Being a part of the FPS scene for a long time, I can definitely tell you that I hate having to do anything but twitch. Its bad enough they are adding a quest system into an FPS (what the hell?) but to try and make it anything other than a good shooter is stupid. There doesn't need to be inventory, there doesn't need to be walls, there doesn't need to be a lot of things in this game other than a sheer desire to log in, shoot some people in the face, and meet some cool people along the way. However, they are adding what they can to keep the PS1 vets happy, while keeping this game true to REAL FPS roots. (ie, hitboxes, TTK, and an aresenal of weapons).
Its absolutely genius the way they are marketing this. I cannot wait for them to open this up to more players.
P.S. - Saying this game is like battlefield and just another shooter is a pointless argument. I've played CS Series, Quake Series, UT series, Doom Series, BF series, MOHAA series, Wolfenstein Series, and multiple other FPS titles. In all these games the basic idea is the same, but all those games are unique in their own way which made them absolutely amazing to play / still play.
Couldn't agree with you more, and honestly if we loose some of these whiny ass PS1 vets who want a 2 minute TTK to make up for bad reflex's nothing of value will be lost.
texico
2012-10-21, 08:55 PM
I agree that the general tone is negative. Right now though you're eating a Taco without cheese. It's a great Taco! And you can't understand why people are complaining about how these great Tacos don't have any cheese. You don't need cheese! This Taco is wonderful as is! You won't understand until you have a Taco with cheese.
The original Planetside is coming up on 10 years. You know what's younger than Planetside? Modern Warfare. Halo only beats PS by 2 years. Everything that you named as what you thoroughly enjoyed from PS2 has been in PS1 (except the headlights, [yes even the graphics (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/04/13) were good]) and as much as it seems that we're blowing smoke out our bums we're really talking about how great cheese is and how we wish we had some cheese.
Because in the end, we want you to have a Taco with cheese too.
10/10, made me laugh and it perfectly sums up what most of the negativity is about. Especially the last sentence.
We're fighting hard to get the devs to put the cheese on top because we know that the cheese is all it's going to take to make it the best taco in the taco-making industry.
And the moaning is actually proper critique. Few people are just saying "base designs" or "classes" are bad, they're stating why they don't like it, what effect it has that's detrimental, how it should be changed and why that change is better. How is that bad feedback?
Captain1nsaneo
2012-10-21, 09:16 PM
The "General" tone is not negative, THE tone is negative.
Well consider this, when someone posts about a good time they had or something cool that happened ingame what is there to discuss in it? You might have 1 post congratulating the player or commenting how cool it is but beyond that there's not much to talk about. (example (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=49231)) With a negative aspect there's lots to argue about, discuss, and claw at.
We're also probably playing different games at the moment. I'm CPU bound and getting between 5 and 15 fps in combat. I want a role where I can have such fps but still be a help to my team. Normally those roles would come from working the backlines and causing distractions but they aren't in the game yet which would be fine as long as we got some feed back saying they know about the problem. This may seem small but people have wildly different ways of playing games, it's why some people really like medics in tf2 while others adore spies. More ways to play the game isn't pedantic, it's increasing the size of the net PS2 can spread to capture more players and make a better game for all of us.
dethred
2012-10-21, 10:20 PM
10/10, made me laugh and it perfectly sums up what most of the negativity is about. Especially the last sentence.
We're fighting hard to get the devs to put the cheese on top because we know that the cheese is all it's going to take to make it the best taco in the taco-making industry.
And the moaning is actually proper critique. Few people are just saying "base designs" or "classes" are bad, they're stating why they don't like it, what effect it has that's detrimental, how it should be changed and why that change is better. How is that bad feedback?
I'm not saying you should have a proper discussion on what it might need. Unfortunately, the forums are a polluted wasteland of complaints. If you want a certain feature included, why isn't there a single thread for each issue that everyone signs and keeps getting bumped and a link to it spammed on the Dev's twitter feed? The PS2 forums are just full of every kind of complaint you can imagine and its no wonder the Devs aren't specifically addressing them. I personally don't like the FOV on the Flash vehicles, but I'm not going to start a damned thread about it and get dozens of people to complain.
The whole reason I am having to dismiss many of ya'll complaints is because its to such a level of absurdity, that I make a thread praising the game for what it is so far, and immediately there are massive criticisms.
BF3's official forum was a complete wasteland as well, and they had a cohesive set of requests of the developers (including massive petitions and 50-page long threads concerning single issues). What happened to them? The developers banned everyone who was complaining and when they came back with different usernames, they eventually shut down the forum. Granted, BF3 was such a departure from BF2 that it would be like PS2 having only two factions, continents the size of one region, and many other complete game transformations that suck the soul out of every aspect of the game.
This sub-forum's first two pages only have about 5 non-bitch thread titles. So if you're the developer, how do you even begin? Its quite frankly not as bad as anyone claims it to be, as illustrated by thousands of people playing the beta and having a great time. Could it improve? Sure! Could your tactics for implementing that improvement... uh.... improve? Definitively yes!
dethred
2012-10-21, 10:25 PM
Well consider this, when someone posts about a good time they had or something cool that happened ingame what is there to discuss in it? You might have 1 post congratulating the player or commenting how cool it is but beyond that there's not much to talk about. (example (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=49231)) With a negative aspect there's lots to argue about, discuss, and claw at.
Um... how about "I also like _____ because ______!" or "I had a similar experience when _____ attacked _________ and _____ was excellent."
If most of you can't even consider filling in the blanks, then I'd honestly suggest (for your own sakes) that you give up on the game now. I'm not asking you to do that, but if its that bad that all you can do is criticize it, then from personal experience I can tell you nothing they change will make you happy with it.
Shenyen
2012-10-22, 04:15 AM
They're getting the impression that the Taco is filled with with Horse shit. Not just shit from a horse, but shit from a person that ate horse shit and taco bell "meat filling". You guys are about to throw out the taco just because it has no cheese. Most of us that are content with the direction wouldn't mind having some cheese, but the Taco is still great and we're not going to throw it out just because its missing an ingredient.
THIS!
The negativity in this forum is astounding.
I can understand that Planetside 1 had some features that made parts of it an even greater experience than Planetside 2, but many in this forum sound like grumpy old men, talking about how everything was so much better in the past and how nowadays, everything is horrible.
That ridiculousness is only beaten by the great war between Counter-Strike 1.6 and Counter-Strike Source.
You know dethred, our burden is being spoiled with knowledge of what can be (not just what could, because it's been done before). Hence we have set the bar there where we think is reasonable.
I have played an MMORPG with raids with groups of 150 players and more (DAoC, it later stole the metagame and mapdesign from Planetside for its PvP expansion "New Frontiers", but lacked the necessary FPS-gameplay^^).
An unforgettable experience.
But I won't complain about how WoW or EQ2 are shit, only because they have raids with a maximum of 25/24 players.
Different experiences, but still great.
Figment
2012-10-22, 05:27 AM
That is great Shenyen, but I'm not complaining in BF3 about how it isn't a proper sequel to PlanetSide either. If it was a BC2 sequel that was crappier though...
Oh wait, that's why all those BF3 players are here: BF3 does not make an astoundingly good FPS game and certainly doesn't reach the "BC2 reasonable bar", even if it is a decent FPS game...
You would complain if the next Daoc game would go the way of WoW I'm sure.
PredatorFour
2012-10-22, 06:19 AM
We have good reason to moan really. Apart from being vets for 6/9 years of the original, most of us have been following info on this game like crazy since it was announced 2 years ago(?),we havn`t been waiting 3 months like everyone else new round here. Throughout that time we were told vets will have significant input with the devs to make this game truly special, aswell as getting vet privelidges ingame. All our criticisms(constructive or not) have just been met with deaf ears, with the devs setting certain aspects of the game in stone.
Yes we may sound like bitter old people Dethred, but did you enjoy BF3? Did you want it to be a reskin of BF2 but more improved and smoother round the edges? Ofcourse you did. Whats wrong with us wanting PS to be brought up to date and smoother too? But too many aspects of the original have been changed (as detailed in many other threads). Planetside was ahead of its time but now is slated for being ancient. Truth is, it had many unique features that would still be unique to this day.
Maybe if this game wasn`t F2P and followed a sub model then we couldve made our own loadouts, had different base designs (no spawn camping in vehicles wtf), drivers with separate gunners etc..
ringring
2012-10-22, 06:42 AM
You know before PS2 was announced and we were playing PS1, we were all pretty eager for an update. We scoured all the game site looking at each game announcement and wondering if *this* could be the one and wondering when the games industry would ever *get it* and not simply produce a new game that wasn't a simple clone of another with a few added quirks.
We also analysed what made PS1 so good and I think most agreed it was because it was massive, pvp only, 3 faction warfare across multiple continents that included fps, squad tactics and gloabal strategy and lastly I think we all liked the cert. system which meant you had to specialise at any one time but that you could also recert without penalty apart from a cool-down.
Now PS2, actually includes a lot of that. At the beginning a lot was missing and it seemed would not be included. It appeared the new game was Planetside in name only.
However, either the Devs have beeing keeping their real plans secret or they have changed direction a little in response to feedback but we are getting more of Planetside included in the update than appeared at first.
There are still some things to be addressed, things like the balance between air, armour and infantry, spec. ops tactics and combat engineering. Why is it wrong to comment on these these? Is it helpful to the devs just to keep shtumm?
There again, there are things that vets generally don't moan about .... bugs, we all understand software especially new software has bugs and weapon balance - we all understand this will be a constant issue and the devs a) have the objective data and b) do the best they can.
Gatekeeper
2012-10-22, 08:22 AM
TLDR; bittervet.
Good job being constructive. I'm sure that's exactly the kind of helpful feedback the devs are looking for... :rolleyes:
As for the OP: it's great that you're enjoying the game, and hopefully if other BF players feel the same way that bodes well for PS2's future. But at the same time, just because you're enjoying it, doesn't mean that the complaints a lot of PS1 vets have aren't valid.
Look at it this way: you're enjoying the game now, but maybe it could be even better!
It's not a matter of looking back with rose-tinted glasses and saying that PS1 was perfect - it wasn't. But it did have a lot of good ideas, some of which you're already enjoying in PS2. What's the harm in discussing some of the other good ideas from PS1 that haven't currently made it into PS2? Maybe you'd like the game even more if you got to try those things out...
Also: if there's a right time to moan about a game, it's during beta. That's a large part of what a beta is for :)
Gatekeeper
2012-10-22, 08:41 AM
In a perfect world bittervets would self deport.
So... do you have an opinion on the actual content of my post? (or indeed, anyone's post)
Or are you just here to tell people that if they played PS1 they have no business commenting on PS2? Or are PS1 vets allowed to have their say so long as it's a stream of adoring praise?
Because I've got to tell you, I don't really follow your logic in either case ;)
Figment
2012-10-22, 10:55 AM
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/i-saw-this-and-wept.27969/
Funny what the response of new people to that video is in that thread. :)
Statements like:
"For every one thing good, there were two things bad. I never played PS1 so I can't dispute this claim. But here's a question. Why not carry on those good things and leave the bad? The nice thing about making a sequel is you can cherry-pick which features you retain. You don't have to keep the bad features that didn't work. But you CAN keep the good features that did. Clearly the base design was one of those good features. Even if it wasn't perfect, even if it needed tweaking, that base in that video is so far beyond anything in PS2 it isn't even funny."
":(
If only I'd heard of it when it was relevant."
"about 14 minutes in the vid and tbh i want to uninstall ps2 and get myself ps1 :[ "
"Wow. I didn't play PS1, but after watching that I wish I had. There is so much more to the game than PS2. SO MUCH MORE DEPTH. I can empathize with with PS1 veterans for sure. Planetside is like a hollow shell of its former self with PS2."
"That vid makes me miss it and I never played the darn thing."
"While there are plenty of improvements over PS1 with 2 ... seeing PS1 again and playing it before getting into the tech test I must say the base design and the actual interation with the bases should be steering towards the PS1 direction. I really was hoping for real bases that would look awesome with the new graphics, ntu runs, lattice, strategy and tones more stuff that made PS1 so awesome."
"Never knew of or played PS1 and after seeing this I feel I missed out on one of the best experiences in gaming. After seeing and playing PS2 beta now, I feel it is definitely not as detailed as PS1 was, and I think they could do a LOT better. Also, I could care less about how good the game looks graphics wise, as long as I can run it at a good FPS. the unoptimization and feel of this beta in it's current state is definitely not that great in my opinion. I have a great system and barely manage in massive battles. I wouldn't mind if they scaled down the graphics a bit just for better performance."
Just saying, these are quotes from people with no PS1 experience and just a view of that 50 min video explaining a base (not even combat), or some before tech test playtime... Simply because they can see what makes it different. >.> Note that the vid actually points to one of the base design flaws everyone agrees with: the ease of camping base doors with vehicles. THAT is one of the things that we wanted to have fixed (next to roof protection at a wall from aircav spam). Instead, we got bases where vehicles DRIVE IN ALL THE WAY UP TO THE CONTROL POINT, CAMP NOT THE EXTERIOR DOORS, BUT THOSE OF THE SPAWN ROOM and then you wonder just what the hell happened to make that design decision happen. All we wanted was more infantry cover, especially in the inside-outside area, wider doors and corridors to make door, corridor and corner camping less easy and predictable...
Somehow that translated into the most hated PS1 building to defend: the AT Redoubt: in PS2 ALL spawnrooms open up to the outside directly, whether it's the roof or the ground level, it always results in constant all-angle camping where tanks can insta-kill you as you spawn and try to make a move, CCs are placed in even more impossible positions and the same can be said for SCUs and some of the generators. That's just bad design and I at that point I can't accept that, especially since it's something that's relatively easy to revise. :/
And yeah. PS1 base interiors were much bigger. Courtyard was indeed too empty and they did improve that a little (bit over the top actually, should still have enough room for vehicles to move around side by side), but the base interiors have been dumbed down tremendously to one or three room buildings and by losing all connectivity. They could easily create a subteranean structure that links barracks to main bases and generator areas or make some of these bases more compact, or the Tech Center's entire interior could be filled with rooms and an extra spawnroom. Instead, the tech has cubicle offices without a ceiling so you can get spanked from any side by jetpackers, or when every room you want to guard has 2 to 4 different ways to get behind you or shoot you from the outside...
When you see things like that and compare, eh... You can't but look back and say "that was actually better, why didn't they do that?".
Shenyen
2012-10-22, 11:01 AM
@Figment and PredatorFour
Actually, i always saw Planetside 1 as a sucessor to Tribes 2 :P
If you upscaled Tribes 2 to 500+ players per server, you wouldn't fight for flags, you would fight for bases.
Design-wise, Planetside looked and felt like as if the tribes from Tribes forgot how to use their jetpacks, but everything else felt very similar.
Tribes 2 was imho the greatest game of its time and when i learned that SOE was making a kind of MMOTribes (with the same producer), i signed up ASAP.
Planetside was relased and Planetside turned out to be great.
Planetside inherited the title of "greatest game ever" of its spiritual father Tribes 2.
And now there's Planetside 2...
Which i have been waiting for from the moment the first rumours about "Planetside Next" surfaced.
Yes, it is somehow watered down.
I loved Infiltrator-hacking bases and i'll never forget the moment when some NC MAX didn't notice that i was standing cloaked behind her on top of the control console, hacking her base.
Someone got into the room, stopped my hack.
And still, that MAX never thought about HOW that CC might have been hacked with her standing there.
Took her about 10 minutes and 1 or 2 more hacks by me, until she realized that i had been standing right behind her all the time and shot me.
That will never be possible in Planetside 2.
I know and i would love it, if it was possible in the sequel...
But we have other great additions, of which the most important is the more streamlined FPS system at the base of the game.
Planetside 1 felt like an MMORPG with an added FPS layer on top of it.
That added depth, but also made you manage your inventory and featured a lack of hit boxes and stuff.
The subscription model and the inferior FPS mechanics made the population dwindle.
Planetside 2 is different, it feels like a FPS with an added metagame/light MMORPG-layer on top.
Shooting stuff is way more fun and works much better.
The F2P system and accompanying better FPS mechanics will make sure that the game is played by a larger number of players, keeping the game alive for a much longer time than PS1 had.
Just taking the complete mechanics from Planetside 1 and adding the graphics of Planetside 2 would have created a desaster, nobody would play it, maybe except for some veterans from part one.
It simply isn't a game that is fit for a 2012 mainstream release.
Oh, i hated it when i went to GamesConvention in Leipzig and saw the Team Fortress 2 tent. I waited twenty minutes (it was quite early and the games wasn't very hyped yet) to play the sucessor to that other great game, Team Fortress Classic.
I sat down, put on the headphones, the round began and - OMFG, WHAT DID THEY DO?
The comic graphics were okay, but the removed the grenades - how in the world should my scout/medic now 'conc' around the map?
I detested the game, thought it was horrible - i even began waiting for Fortress Forever instead, which was a mod that recreated the REAL TFC, not that dumbed down mainstream release Valve put together...
Well - nowadays, i play Team Fortress 2 from time to time and while i see that it doesn't feature the depth that the first (well, actually TFC was the second TF game) featured - IT IS FUN!
I can play it for hours and have fun, something that i would never have imagined after that heinous discovery in an orange tent at the GC in Leipzig.
Oh, and the reason why i play TF2 instead of TFC or Fortress Forever?
Because the disappeared from this world, their servers dead or filled with bots, no human being to ever again to grace the old and beloved maps 2fort, well, shutdown2 etc...
So while TF2 is no TFC - it is the closest to the original game that there ever will be.
Don't compare Planetside 2 to Planetside, because it won't live up to the ancestor, if you have years of memories in PS1.
But there will never be a new Planetside 1, because it had its time and it will be gone in a few years.
Instead, rate Planetside 2 to other contemporary games, knowing that it will be most likely the most Planetside-like game you will ever experience in the next years.
dethred
2012-10-22, 11:22 AM
Now PS2, actually includes a lot of that. At the beginning a lot was missing and it seemed would not be included. It appeared the new game was Planetside in name only.
So here we have it. The soul of this game sounds very similar to PS1. Yes many details may be changed or missing, but every sequel has that issue. BF3, however lacked Just about everything that made a BF game a BF game. You guys take issue with very small matters when Compared to the bigger picture. If the devs went the way of most studios (DICE for instance), then this game would have more in common with cod than Planetside.
My entire point (not even the reason to start this thread) is that you guys are being negative and Over critical of everything to the point that it's self-defeating. If you want change... make a single mega-thread for each of your major complaints and have thousands of people so sign it, then present it to the developers. I''ll even sign it if it's constructive and more geared towards change than towards superfluous bitching.
Figment
2012-10-22, 11:27 AM
Tbh, PS2 feels more like a RPG than PS1 and that's exactly due to the class system.
Controller providing power/mana? Engineer. Check.
Healer for ALL your heals? Medic. Check.
DPS for ALL your anti-tank damage? Heavy Assault. Check.
Tank for taking some brute force in your face? MAX. Check.
Rogue for sneaky backsta... backshotgun? Infil. Check.
PS1 was more of a FPS, because it actually let you decide what weapon to use where and how and in what combination. That the actual gunplay wasn't as good as some modern shooters, eh sure, what do you expect? Certainly with CSHD?
If you compare PS1 and PS2 base design, it's clear PS2 is a deathmatch zombie-shoot m up, because your enemies will come even through the walls (literally with all the damn amount of windows) while PS1 is a strategy and conquest game, because the bases are designed to be sieged.
Crator
2012-10-22, 11:34 AM
^ A lot of it isn't bitching. It might come off as such. But that's just people who are emotional and didn't spell out exactly what they think. Hell, they might not even know if they are thinking properly. A lot of times people just need to converse about the subject to understand. Even then, people may not understand because we are all just speculating due to the fact that we don't have enough info on the direction SOE is trying to take.
Question, you guys harping on the PS1 vets for being, so-said, "bitter". What do you guys have to gain by telling us that we are wrong or that we shouldn't be discussing things about PS2, even if it's a game mechanic that should have been put in from PS1?
Well that's good then. Cause I'm a fucking idiot.
THIS!
Fear The Amish
2012-10-22, 12:50 PM
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/i-saw-this-and-wept.27969/
Funny what the response of new people to that video is in that thread. :)
Statements like:
Just saying, these are quotes from people with no PS1 experience and just a view of that 50 min video explaining a base (not even combat), or some before tech test playtime... Simply because they can see what makes it different. >.> Note that the vid actually points to one of the base design flaws everyone agrees with: the ease of camping base doors with vehicles. THAT is one of the things that we wanted to have fixed (next to roof protection at a wall from aircav spam). Instead, we got bases where vehicles DRIVE IN ALL THE WAY UP TO THE CONTROL POINT, CAMP NOT THE EXTERIOR DOORS, BUT THOSE OF THE SPAWN ROOM and then you wonder just what the hell happened to make that design decision happen. All we wanted was more infantry cover, especially in the inside-outside area, wider doors and corridors to make door, corridor and corner camping less easy and predictable...
Somehow that translated into the most hated PS1 building to defend: the AT Redoubt: in PS2 ALL spawnrooms open up to the outside directly, whether it's the roof or the ground level, it always results in constant all-angle camping where tanks can insta-kill you as you spawn and try to make a move, CCs are placed in even more impossible positions and the same can be said for SCUs and some of the generators. That's just bad design and I at that point I can't accept that, especially since it's something that's relatively easy to revise. :/
And yeah. PS1 base interiors were much bigger. Courtyard was indeed too empty and they did improve that a little (bit over the top actually, should still have enough room for vehicles to move around side by side), but the base interiors have been dumbed down tremendously to one or three room buildings and by losing all connectivity. They could easily create a subteranean structure that links barracks to main bases and generator areas or make some of these bases more compact, or the Tech Center's entire interior could be filled with rooms and an extra spawnroom. Instead, the tech has cubicle offices without a ceiling so you can get spanked from any side by jetpackers, or when every room you want to guard has 2 to 4 different ways to get behind you or shoot you from the outside...
When you see things like that and compare, eh... You can't but look back and say "that was actually better, why didn't they do that?".
of course they say that to a video that doesn't show 15 minutes waiting for a hack to go through. Or sitting in sanc for 30mins - 1 hour waiting for enough people to actually have a chance of opening a continent. or the multiple times you spent 30 minutes getting to a location and dying. With good editing i can make Postal look like the greatest game ever....
SUBARU
2012-10-22, 12:56 PM
I love this turn of phrase. Absolutely love it.
I agree that the general tone is negative. Right now though you're eating a Taco without cheese. It's a great Taco! And you can't understand why people are complaining about how these great Tacos don't have any cheese. You don't need cheese! This Taco is wonderful as is! You won't understand until you have a Taco with cheese.
The original Planetside is coming up on 10 years. You know what's younger than Planetside? Modern Warfare. Halo only beats PS by 2 years. Everything that you named as what you thoroughly enjoyed from PS2 has been in PS1 (except the headlights, [yes even the graphics (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/04/13) were good]) and as much as it seems that we're blowing smoke out our bums we're really talking about how great cheese is and how we wish we had some cheese.
Because in the end, we want you to have a Taco with cheese too.
Quite so! Quite so! I prefer PSU because about 25% of the posts are longer than my thumb and cause me to think.
As to casuals, they'll come for what's currently on offer, that's not a problem. The problem is what happens after they've finished the appetizer?
All i really wanted was a Taco with cheese :( But they gave me a Burrito instead
dethred
2012-10-22, 01:21 PM
^ A lot of it isn't bitching. It might come off as such. But that's just people who are emotional and didn't spell out exactly what they think.
Complaining for the sake of complaining is called bitching. Where are the poll threads for each major issue the veterans have? You guys need to organize (ironically I'm seeing no teamwork or deliberate approach to solving the problem from vets of PS1).
Crator
2012-10-22, 01:24 PM
^ Polls threads are not allowed by both SOE and PSU. Also, not everyone reads and participates in forums. For true poll results you really have to present the poll to the player via the launchpad.
bullet
2012-10-22, 02:15 PM
of course they say that to a video that doesn't show 15 minutes waiting for a hack to go through. Or sitting in sanc for 30mins - 1 hour waiting for enough people to actually have a chance of opening a continent. or the multiple times you spent 30 minutes getting to a location and dying. With good editing i can make Postal look like the greatest game ever....
We still sit around for 10-15 minutes trying to cap a base, depending on influence.
I've never sat around the sanc for any longer than 10 mins and that was because I was coordinating with a squad/outfit or taking part of a Empire raid. That seemed to be an issue when Planetside was dead.
I doubt it would take you 30 minutes to get across Cyssor in the slowest vehicle, but it sounds like you were trying to lone wolf your way into a base. With the proper support and logistics, the group/zerg would have been supporting you with AMSes and or hacked a tower. Before AMSes, I had this issue in PS2. If a Gal couldn't get through to the base because of its inability to be stealthy, then there were no spawn points close enough to the next outpost/base.
The video shows the core elements of the game which supported the huge fights and provided the meta-game.
ringring
2012-10-22, 02:54 PM
We still sit around for 10-15 minutes trying to cap a base, depending on influence.
I've never sat around the sanc for any longer than 10 mins and that was because I was coordinating with a squad/outfit or taking part of a Empire raid. That seemed to be an issue when Planetside was dead.
I doubt it would take you 30 minutes to get across Cyssor in the slowest vehicle, but it sounds like you were trying to lone wolf your way into a base. With the proper support and logistics, the group/zerg would have been supporting you with AMSes and or hacked a tower. Before AMSes, I had this issue in PS2. If a Gal couldn't get through to the base because of its inability to be stealthy, then there were no spawn points close enough to the next outpost/base.
The video shows the core elements of the game which supported the huge fights and provided the meta-game.
15 minutes waiting (10 minutes in the cave)... if no enemy was trying to resecure or you decided not to go to the next base.
No one ever spent 30 minutes trying to get into a fight. Press esc+i and in 2 seconds you would be there. Or fly, 5 minutes to cross the largest continent.
Of course when a raid was forming you would wait for everyone to gsther up, but who cared, you were about to see something awesome.
VaderShake
2012-10-22, 03:11 PM
Not to ruin the festival of negativity, but after spending a quick 7 hours of my life without even realizing it had passed, I have come to the conclusion that this is probably the best game I've ever played.
Finally had the chance to run with an outfit, and then with some random squads, and the foundation of the game is just astonishing. The sheer scale of the world, the massive battles, and diversity of combat is unlike any game I've ever played.
I love BF2 and BF2142 for their large maps and large scale combat, but this game puts them to shame. Our side was trapped in our base, and after numerous attempts to break out by massive flights of Galaxies, everyone get in a ground vehicle and formed the largest FPS fighting force I'd ever seen. Must have been at least a few hundred people moving together capping bases.
Within about 30 minutes we had retaken almost half the continent. A little later, our entire squad got on the ATVs and flanked a hilltop base that had been under attack for the better part of an hour. We were able set down a base and allow our forces and a few Sunderers to park in the main entrance for spawning. The indoor battle lasted another 30 minutes and we finally took the base.
I've never played a video game quite like it. The lighting effects and the sun light coupled with the other visuals make it extremely engrossing! We even had to turn off our headlights on the ATVs during our attack to avoid being detected. I've never seen anything like it.
I agree that there are some rough edges, but the base game is second to none. You have battles inside the bases which fulfill any desire for a close-range battle, then the outside stuff to satisfy open-world combat.
My only concerns:
Resources seem to be irrelevant (and thus holding territory is almost as irrelevant).
Some players require probably 30+ bullets to kill, which under any circumstances is ridiculous.
The interface for the squad menus, player/leader board, etc are all incomplete.
There needs to be a way of spawning on the squad leader. This will keep the squad together as a unit, and worked extremely well in other games in the past.
Either way, I almost feel like I stole something from the devs for playing something so great for 7 hours without yet paying for it.
I (and about a dozen of my friends who played BF for 10 years) are enjoying the beta as well with hopes of more meta game, team play elements, and personalization elements being added to the game as it contiues it's developement to lauch and beyond.
I understand the PSVets gripes after going though a similar situation with BF3....however the BF franchise had a game released about every 2 years instead of 9 years. Had we gone from BF1942 to BF3 with a 9 year pause in the middle and DICE not blatantly lying to us about BF3 "evolving" when it obviously did not, perhaps things would have been different.
PSVets, I hope you realize not everyone coming into PS2 is a COD/BF casual player, some of us have been gaming for 3 decades or more and we know a great game when we see one. I do hope the SOE team continues to develope and add tried and true stuff that was successful in PS, make it better and also add new interesting stuff to keep PS2 moving forward. On it's own legs PS2 beta is shaping up to be a heck of allot of fun and a unique expirience each time I play.
I guess time will tell if the PS1 vets will be satisfied or not so why not give it the time some of you are asking for to allow SOE to get it right.
Sardus
2012-10-22, 03:27 PM
This is a damn fun game. There is no doubt about that in my mind ;)
Figment
2012-10-22, 04:53 PM
of course they say that to a video that doesn't show 15 minutes waiting for a hack to go through. Or sitting in sanc for 30mins - 1 hour waiting for enough people to actually have a chance of opening a continent. or the multiple times you spent 30 minutes getting to a location and dying. With good editing i can make Postal look like the greatest game ever....
Yeah and on the other hand you sit in PS2 and never have time to do anything about a hack that's going through because you have no time to organise anything and get back there in time. THAT MUST BE PERFECT THEN?
:groovy:
I'm sure that also means you have to change EVERYTHING ELSE if ONE TIMER bothers you. Like, making it assailable from all directions instead of 1, 2 or 3, no 6 directions at least! You should also sit in the middle of the crosspoint of all those directions if you want to capture it AND it should be possible to hit that area with tanks and aircraft from the outside as well. Right?
Because PS2 is somehow perfect, right?
Can you just imagine for fuck sake, that what they liked was the base layout? AND THEY, FFS, ALREADY LIKED THE LAYOUT OF AN AMP STATION BETTER THAN A PS2 BASE. Come on man. That says something!
Stop being a white knight that completely and utterly misses the point and understand the damn point that's being made!
And about sitting in sanc for an hour, that's your fault. You could easily neutralise a base somewhere, I did that on my own during zerobases... again: ffs! In PS2 you can't neutralise bases at all because the NTU system has been removed. Right? No worries then, because you can get back into every continent with ease right? No wait, resources run out and you just get warpgate camped by a shitload of tanks for hours at end (Esamir under NC control lasted four days and that's just the days I logged on, 1 hour seems like a blessing to me!)... No really, that's a lot more fun isn't it?
And it's not like you take 5-15 minutes in PS2 to get anywhere and then die because you can't even bloody fire a rocket back, since you're not ALLOWED TO by the game, yet whatever fires at you, can one shot you, or has such a fast TTK, that you can't respond at all, THAT IS FUN RIGHT? No, THAT is NOT fun. What is fun, is having a frantic duel with a Thunderer or Deliverer vs a Reaver or Liberator that lasts for 4-5 minutes and come out on top, because you outmaneuvre it. Rather than that the Lib kills you in three shots, yawns and moves away. Skill in driving, ever heard of that? NOT in PS2 no.
FFS, if you want to complain about PS1, don't come with one little thing that was only boring because your empire, or the enemy didn't respond fast enough to your liking. You know how often I've found myself without enemies in PS2 so far? LOTS. Taking empty outpost after empty outpost after empty outpost and getting LOADS OF EXP, MORE EXP than trying to take a big base. More, why? Because it's more frequent. How about the base cap exp system of PS1? That's obsolete too then is it? Just because it's from PS1? Not that there's a difference between no fight == 0 points and huge fight is 2500 points, right?
Get of your high horse and accept that PS2 is a game that's comparable to a toddler in comparison to PS1. Just because PS1 had issues, which it had plenty, doesn't mean it's still not superior in many more ways to PS2. Even the squading system is superior to PS2, although PS2's looks prettier, it's not more functional or practical or intuitive and you can't even see how it comes over to others.
PS2 is far from ready for launch. FAR FROM. It needs shitloads of critique to get it anywhere near fit. IF you don't care for PS2, please, praise, praise, praise. If you care for where PS2 goes, critique critique critique.
People who don't care should be thrown out of Beta, tbh. Because they apparently didn't read their contract: you're supposed to provide feedback of any issue you find!
GLaDOS
2012-10-22, 10:31 PM
This is truly a ridiculously fun game, and it's only getting better. My Saturdays just melt away to it.
dethred
2012-10-23, 11:27 AM
Yeah and on the other hand you sit in PS2 and never have time to do anything about a hack that's going through because you have no time to organise anything and get back there in time. THAT MUST BE PERFECT THEN?
:groovy:
I'm sure that also means you have to change EVERYTHING ELSE if ONE TIMER bothers you. Like, making it assailable from all directions instead of 1, 2 or 3, no 6 directions at least! You should also sit in the middle of the crosspoint of all those directions if you want to capture it AND it should be possible to hit that area with tanks and aircraft from the outside as well. Right?
Because PS2 is somehow perfect, right?
Can you just imagine for fuck sake, that what they liked was the base layout? AND THEY, FFS, ALREADY LIKED THE LAYOUT OF AN AMP STATION BETTER THAN A PS2 BASE. Come on man. That says something!
Stop being a white knight that completely and utterly misses the point and understand the damn point that's being made!
And about sitting in sanc for an hour, that's your fault. You could easily neutralise a base somewhere, I did that on my own during zerobases... again: ffs! In PS2 you can't neutralise bases at all because the NTU system has been removed. Right? No worries then, because you can get back into every continent with ease right? No wait, resources run out and you just get warpgate camped by a shitload of tanks for hours at end (Esamir under NC control lasted four days and that's just the days I logged on, 1 hour seems like a blessing to me!)... No really, that's a lot more fun isn't it?
And it's not like you take 5-15 minutes in PS2 to get anywhere and then die because you can't even bloody fire a rocket back, since you're not ALLOWED TO by the game, yet whatever fires at you, can one shot you, or has such a fast TTK, that you can't respond at all, THAT IS FUN RIGHT? No, THAT is NOT fun. What is fun, is having a frantic duel with a Thunderer or Deliverer vs a Reaver or Liberator that lasts for 4-5 minutes and come out on top, because you outmaneuvre it. Rather than that the Lib kills you in three shots, yawns and moves away. Skill in driving, ever heard of that? NOT in PS2 no.
FFS, if you want to complain about PS1, don't come with one little thing that was only boring because your empire, or the enemy didn't respond fast enough to your liking. You know how often I've found myself without enemies in PS2 so far? LOTS. Taking empty outpost after empty outpost after empty outpost and getting LOADS OF EXP, MORE EXP than trying to take a big base. More, why? Because it's more frequent. How about the base cap exp system of PS1? That's obsolete too then is it? Just because it's from PS1? Not that there's a difference between no fight == 0 points and huge fight is 2500 points, right?
Get of your high horse and accept that PS2 is a game that's comparable to a toddler in comparison to PS1. Just because PS1 had issues, which it had plenty, doesn't mean it's still not superior in many more ways to PS2. Even the squading system is superior to PS2, although PS2's looks prettier, it's not more functional or practical or intuitive and you can't even see how it comes over to others.
PS2 is far from ready for launch. FAR FROM. It needs shitloads of critique to get it anywhere near fit. IF you don't care for PS2, please, praise, praise, praise. If you care for where PS2 goes, critique critique critique.
People who don't care should be thrown out of Beta, tbh. Because they apparently didn't read their contract: you're supposed to provide feedback of any issue you find!
You're beyond the point of providing constructive criticism. Nothing you just posted furthers your cause.
Crator
2012-10-23, 11:29 AM
You're beyond the point of providing constructive criticism. Nothing you just posted furthers your cause.
Why? Does the things he typed not have constructive elements? You can't have constructive feedback with anger at the same time?
Figment
2012-10-23, 12:03 PM
You're beyond the point of providing constructive criticism. Nothing you just posted furthers your cause.
The sentence above contains no line of argumentation, can therefore not be constructive, nor have any valuable contribution to this thread, forum, nor game.
The line above this sentence contains an argumented reasoning, rather than a blank, dismissive statement as the quote contains. Dethred, that you can't distinguish between constructive critique and negativity was evidenced by your opening post, but do you have to make a point out of it?
Dragonskin
2012-10-23, 12:28 PM
I don't think the game is ready for release. I don't think 1 month is enough time to get it ready for release either. I didn't play Planetside 1, but I have played many FPS games since Quake, Unreal Tournament and Rainbow Six to present... last one being Battlefield 3. I also played tons of MMORPGs which include Warhammer, Aion and Guild Wars 2 that have similar concepts with base capturing.
I wish bases were more unique in PS2. A lot of them feel copy/pasted and most of them don't seem to take any advantage of the terran around them. Bases feel way too open.. in a hostile planet like this...where are all the barriers and walls? Only a few bases actually seem like they were thought out. Turrets seem fairly useless for what they were intended for, but AA guns seem better.
Guns need tweaking. Some more than others and cert unlocks really need to be adjusted. Forgrip for a bolt action sniper rifle?? why? Cut that 12 point cert out and just make the useful ones cost more to make up for it. I don't see why they have useless unlocks.. just cut them and re-calculate the cost of the ones that are worth getting. Flash lights seem pointless. In BF3 you can use them to temporarily blind enemies in CQC.. in PS2 they are only useful for seeing in the dark... but that completely gives away your position to the enemy too. Laser sight is only useful for a stat attachment.. there is zero functionality.. no actual laser emitted which was dissappointing coming from BF3 to PS2. Sniper rifles have a scope pre-attached.. it doesn't tell you the strength of the scope that I have seen. So I have been trying to unlock others to see if they are better or worse. I was under the assumption that they would probably be the lowest tier scopes, but the 7x seems to magnify less than the stock one.. is that wrong?
Anyway, the game as tons of potential, but they have a lot of things that need to be tweaked, fixed or removed. MAG was probably one of the best FPS games I have played because of how much team play there was. PS2 seems to be even better.. I just need to find a outfit to join I guess. Here's hoping that SOE can pull it off.. over the years they have given me a very sour taste in my mouth... hoping PS2 can redeem them some.
PClownPosse
2012-10-23, 12:37 PM
All in all, I'm enjoying myself greatly. I usually don't visit game forums much, unless it's to discuss a game I enjoy.
Considering the realm of "popular" FPS games, I can understand some of their design decisions. I heavily played the BF, MoH and CoD series and enjoyed them all. However, in the back of mind, I secretely wished those games were more like the PS1 that I knew and loved.
But then it occurred to me: those games were ultra successful because of the platforms they catered to, like playstation and Xbox. PC games are kind of in the realm of the older, more stodgy crowds and for the most part, we were use to the type of learning curve and customization ability PS1 presented.
In any regards, I get the sense these things have been discussed and beat to death before, so you're going to have to excuse my naviaty as I came here blind, with a ten year gap between the planetsides and I'm only one week into my new experience.
I'm sure they'll tweak things as it progresses, but I think first impressions are very important, especially to the more fickle younger people out there that my try this out. So far, aside from a few frustrating elements I've already mentioned, the impression that I get is good.
The Loverator
2012-10-23, 02:00 PM
Not to ruin the festival of negativity, but after spending a quick 7 hours of my life without even realizing it had passed, I have come to the conclusion that this is probably the best game I've ever played.
W~ell said... ...
I too have realized that this Game can give me as much Fun as i only had with the Multiplayer of Halo 1 ( yes, "One" ) in 2008 or such, or even more...
I have realized that - of Course - Planetside 2 is still F~AR from perfect, since there are many, annoying, little Bugs - and sometimes you have a Streak of bad Luck - or many People on "your" Side successfully deny to think and you all get pwned bad somewhere...
But all in One, i can feel the "old Epicness" i have missed with so much Pain for the last Years. The "Fun" a Game can hold.
I'm really glad that Planetside 2 exists - even tough my actual PC is V~ERY insufficient to play it properly.
I'm looking forward to the Release - to many, beautiful Continents - to nice Players, genius Guilds - and much Fun for everyone who decides to invest Time into this Game.
greetings, LV.
Wolfgang Mozart
2012-10-23, 07:37 PM
Despite the game not being polished I'm having a blast with it. It's the kinda game where I make time to play when i shouldn't.
One of the best shooters I've ever played but the games I like don't usually do well.
R.I.P. BF2142, APB, Brink... PS2? I hope not.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.