PS2 v. BF3......FIGHT!

[BlackJet]

Hokay, so you're all going to rage at the title, I know. I can hear it all now: "BF3 and PS2 are nothing alike!" "That’s like apples and oranges!" "64 people versus 2000! No contest!" Alright...feel better? Got it all out of your system? Cool, now the healing can begin :)

Anyhoo, derogatory remarks aside, I have played both games extensively now and I have many thoughts I'd like to share with the community. I feel both games have many similarities and differences that can be directly compared and analyzed, and hopefully some constructive conclusions can be made. None of my observations deal with metagame or overall battlefield congruency, so the difference in scale between the two games is not terribly important to the discussion. Also, don't take this rant as me hating on PS2, take it more as lessons it could learn from another good shooter.

First off, there's the gunplay. This is one of the areas I experience most, being mostly infantry in both games. I can say overall I find BF3's guns more agreeable than PS2's. There's a variety of factors in this decision, the biggest being ease of aim, which can in turn be divided into a few key mechanics. In BF3, I never find myself fighting the recoil of the guns, no matter how much kick they have. In PS2, it seems guns just have a more "jarring" animation to them when they recoil, which makes medium/long range follow-up shots quite a challenge. This also makes burst fire tricky, as I find myself trying to reacquire the target in between each burst, whereas in BF3 it just seems natural. I'm not sure what the overall cause of this difference is, but I think it's in how each game affects your camera due to recoil...maybe it's some other graphics issue, where fast movements cause the screen to blur or otherwise obscure the player's vision. The other big issue in aiming is time-to-kill (TTK). BF3, even on normal mode, has a much shorter time to kill, even without factoring in Heavy Assault shields. The reason I say this affects aim is that with a longer TTK, suddenly movement tricks are able to overcome the initial advantage of good aim, and gunfights get a little more arcadey. Time and again in PS2, I get the jump on someone, do about 75% of their health, then they sprint away or jump or jet pack away out of my sights and I have to try and reacquire them. Then it becomes a game of who can play arena style shooters better, each of us circling and jumping and knifing furiously to try and get that last bit of health. The result of tactical gunplay with a longer TTK is frustration all around, at least to me. Having no unit collision certainly doesn't help matters either, though I'll touch on that later. Oh...and don't get me started on bunny hoppers :p One more (less important) difference in the gunplay that mostly is just my own taste is the sounds. BF3 guns give a much more satisfying sound when firing. Maybe it's because they're space guns and lasers, but overall PS2 gun sounds are very...tinny and weak (recent exception being the new SMGs).

BF3 gunplay: satisfying (but could do without suppression...)
PS2 gunplay: mostly satisfying with multiple intermittent frustrations

Next I'd like to touch on vehicle gameplay. The first major thing that comes to mind is how each game deals with rough terrain. Both games have areas with incredibly bumpy hills, deserts, etc. And both games pretty much require that vehicles drive over it. In BF3, you can definitely feel the bumps and jumps, but your gun doesn't seem to suffer too much from it. It mostly stays on target, and I find myself able to hit targets while on the move, at least up to a certain range. In PS2, not only does the MBT main cannon resist movement (which actually causes me a bit of wrist pain trying to hone in on my targets), but the rough terrain causes the main cannon to shake all over the place. Also, vehicles seem to stick to the ground better in BF3, whereas in PS2, it's not uncommon for sunderers to flip over and flashes to spin out of control, seemingly on a whim. Maybe the devs had to make certain concessions in physics to make the game so massive, or maybe the vehicles are working as intended. All I know is tankplay is very undesirable to me in PS2 currently, and I wish it was otherwise. Air units are largely untouched by me in both games so I can't comment on either.

BF3 tankplay: Easy to control, good physics
PS2 tankplay: Taxing on the wrist, hard to aim, have to fight the terrain
BF3/PS2 planes: The Great Unknown...

Some additional observations:

-Graphics. BF3 is much more polished, and it came that way out of the box. Even several months after release, PS2 has way too many laughably blurry textures and so-so effects. Lighting is beautiful though.

-Frame rate. Now I know this one is mostly due to PS2's scale, but it's a constant annoyance to me and even crippling at times. I play BF3 at max with no issues, but I'm lucky if I can get 30 frames in PS2, 10 if I'm unlucky.

-Render distance. Also a sign of PS2's scale, but still annoying at times.

-Camo. Oh god the camo. If I see one more bloody joker with giraffe camo, I'll fly to Africa, slaughter and skin an actual giraffe, come to your house--I mean, er...it's really hard to tell who's who with the current camo's >>

-Unit collision. It needs to come back. I know T-Ray responded to this request by saying it'd be annoying having dimwitted allies stand in every doorway while you try to get through, but that's where they could take a lesson from Team Fortress 2. In that game, friendly units don't collide but enemies do. It makes perfect sense for clustered hallways and buildings, so it doesn't become a chore trying to jostle through the masses, but at the same time, you are a physical barrier to the enemy. And most notably for me, it'd make close range duels so much easier to sort out. No more knifing at the guy only to pass right through them, hitting the air behind them, or have them run through you and then have to try and spin around to fight back. No cheesy tactics like a MAX charging through a group of defenders to turn around and fire at their backs.

So! After much griping and complaining, I've reached the end of my rant! I don't know how many of my observations are intended by the devs, how much is in the works to be fixed, or if I've touched on something thus far unheard of. Really this is all just my personal preferences, and anyone may feel free to disagree! I know a lot of you feel Planetside 2 has nothing in common with other shooters and therefore shouldn't feel obligated to answer for any perceived differences between them. I feel that most of the gunplay and tankplay advantages I've pointed out in BF3 should hold true for most if not all shooters, unless the goal is extreme realism, or technical issues get in the way. If anyone has thoughts on any of these various ramblings, please comment! I will take all jibes, jabs, and ribbings in stride, and hopefully some of you can add additional constructive criticism in the process :D

TL: DR...Planetside 2 can take some hints from other games in the genre :cool:

[Pella]

Totally different game's.

And totally shit thread.

GG.

[BlackJet]

Totally different game's.

I get the feeling you didn't read much past the title and intro...but either way to each their own :) I know there's apparently this huge hatred for BF3 and COD and everything else that's popular, I suppose because the community feels those games are dumbed down versions of this one, or maybe they feel threatened by them, as they're fairly successful. I try to look past prejudices though, and if you'd read the meat of the post, you'd find most of what I've mentioned is stuff to think about in any FPS, regardless of single or multiplayer, small or large scale, simple or complicated. I just chose to use BF3 mostly because I have experience with it more than most other shooters.

[Koadster]

Well if it was PS2 vs BF2/BF2142 you have a worthy arguement, BF3 is a total garbage game ruining the series.

[Vashyo]

Well if it was PS2 vs BF2/BF2142 you have a worthy arguement, BF3 is a total garbage game ruining the series.

Sadly for me, that applies to PS2, atm. Propably not as badly though. ;)

[ChipMHazard]

Oh my, hehehe... There are most certainly those who would argue that Planetside 2 is exactly like Battlefield 3... Prepare for le shitstorm.

Besides just having opened the gates of hell themselves, I will still endeavour to make a constructive comment.

There's probably a good reason why BF3, in most cases, has a shorter TTK. Because it's a smaller game. Personally I would up the TTK in PS2 a bit since I feel like it's too low in big battles, makes sense more people shooting at you the faster you die. I feel that
infantry in general and certain vehicles go down to quick.
I like the gunplay in both games and it feels satisfying in both games, well except when they ramped the supression affect up way too high... I hate it when the game takes away my ability to aim. Planetside 2 also does this with the shaky cam.

I am not a fan of PS2s vehicle gameplay, least of all the physics that come into play when driving a turreted tank. Besides sometimes feeling like you're driving on ice, I detest not having turret stabilization.

Graphics... Comes with the territory when you make games as huge as PS2. You can't compare the performance between the two games, period. If DICE tried making maps the size of PS2 continents with as many players then well... Wouldn't run as well as PS2. I know that DICE has actually been able to field a lot more players than just 64 on their servers, I think it was 256.

You'll get used to the camo as in you'll get used to identifying enemies by their silhouettes and overall colour scheme, which isn't completely negated by camo afaik.

Unit collision? Meh, I don't know. One side of me wants it in and the other side of me knows what kinds of issues it would produce. I would be nice to have MAXs' that can block the enemy, but not so nice to have block your own spawn doors.

Planetside 2 has most certainly taken "hints" from other FPS' out there. Some will argue too much, some will argue just enough and some will argue not enough.

Well if it was PS2 vs BF2/BF2142 you have a worthy arguement, BF3 is a total garbage game ruining the series.

And... There's that. Bringing up Battlefield on a Planetside forum is like bringing a knife to a gun fight, not necessarily a good idea.

[BlackJet]

BF3 is a total garbage game ruining the series.

Well if you agree about the argument, but not the game, that's an agreement to me :) It sounds like you dislike the changes in the metagame or the DLC or maybe getting rid of commanders...I'm not sure, but in the aspects I mentioned in this post, I feel it did things right and Planetside 2 could take some tips.

[BlackJet]

Oh my, hehehe... There are most certainly those who would argue that Planetside 2 is exactly like Battlefield 3...

Well I wasn't going to go that far, but in some ways I totally agree. I'm not sure why everyone in the community wants to deny up and down any relation between the two games. They're both massive (relatively), multiplayer, multi-faceted (Air, Armor, Infantry...maybe Sea someday?...Hopefully? >>), tactical, have multiple classes (having very similar load-out structures, even), focus mainly on point capturing (albeit on vastly different scales), and give an overall "battlefield" experience. I think this goes back to people just being mad at the Battlefield series in general, disliking the direction they took with BF3? So it must be bad in every way, including having no similarities to any game they like? Just conjecture, but there it is :)

[Qwan]

I read the entire thread, I think BF3 and PS2 have similarity's but play in different ways. I mean lets face it, the only thing different about a BF3 and CoD players is that SOE is catering to BF3 and CoD players, but when the next new shinny FPS comes out, the BF3 and CoD players will stop playing PS2 and move on. Vets like myself and a score of others will continue to log in and play a game designed around attracting the BF3 and CoD crowd. So I think that the comparison of the two games is sence less. I think the forge light engine is awesome, I still dont like the cookie cut out classes but its digestible, and as the time goes by, and more content is added, ill start to see more of the PS i grew up with.

[BlackJet]

I read the entire thread, I think BF3 and PS2 have similarity's but play in different ways.

I fully understand the differences in gameplay between the two, and I'm not trying to say one should equal the other. I disagree that SOE made a game to attract BF3 and COD players though. Well, rather I disagree that they chose to specifically emulate those two games. It's more like they took the best aspects of current modern shooters (those two being the most prominent but not the only ones) and applied them to their world, because modern shooters have learned from their predecessors. They've been constantly improving the shooter formula since Wolfenstein 3D, and it would be kind of silly to try and go backwards. It would also be silly to try and make a different style of tactical shooter from scratch. I'm not sure what they could even come up with, but why would they want to? The formula is there, most prominently in the form of COD and BF3, and it's tried and true. If players gripe and groan about a particular shooter, it's usually not about the base mechanics, it's about the specifics ("this gun is OP!" "Akimbo so dumb!" "noobtubers!", etc.). So saying the gameplay is different between the two games is correct but also possibly misleading.

Bottom line, none of what I've covered suggests changing any base gameplay, only refining the mechanics so the players can better enjoy its goodness :)

[Satanam]

I don't think any game is "shit", people worked to make them and they just do it because they wanna get profit as everyone else. Anyway, I don't like some games as much as others, in this case BF3 is not better than PS2 for me. I can say PlanetSide 2, Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 are the best games I have at the moment, and I have a lot of it. I have COD (all of them), same as Crysis series, and Resident Evil series, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, and so on.
There are games that I like so much that I buy stuff like t-shirts, action figures (Crysis 2 Nanosuit and aliens, for example) and stuff, and the best part is my girlfriend likes it. She plays different games that I played too but I didn't like so much (like RaiderZ, for example).
Well, unfortunately I can't play as much as I wanted because I gotta work and go to college, but I really like games. That said, I can point some things on BF3 to explain why I didn't like it so much:
1. The first thing I felt when I played this game by the first time, was that I couldn't "feel" the character's weight. In PlanetSide 2, Crysis 2 and Crysis 3, it's notable;
2. People who's always trying to prove Battlefield 3 is a great game like it's The Ultimate Piece of Fun or something;
3. Singleplayer. I didn't feel so good while playing singleplayer version, it was a bit boring for me;
4. I didn't like aircraft battles, dogfighting is not one of the best parts of Battlefield 3.

I won't even reply if anyone quote my post to say something like "you're wrong in this part", it's just my opinion, so it's not impossible to be against other people's opinion.

[MrVicchio]

I love BF3, I played the heck out of it, heck my stats, pay attention to the C4 stat ;) However, since they are two loves, I cannot have them fight, in fact I don't let PS2 and BF3 know about each other, that would be a fight I refuse to be caught in the middle of.

[thegreekboy]

Well if you agree about the argument, but not the game, that's an agreement to me :) It sounds like you dislike the changes in the metagame or the DLC or maybe getting rid of commanders...I'm not sure, but in the aspects I mentioned in this post, I feel it did things right and Planetside 2 could take some tips.

Well.....um, regarding that, I have something for you to read

http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread.php?3880-The-True-Story-of-Battlefield-3-the-Battlefield-Franchise-Its-Community-amp-EA-DICE

[Ghoest9]

Id really rather compare it to 2142.

[ChipMHazard]

Id really rather compare it to 2142.

Same here.

[Bunk]

PS2 is just BF3 with never ending map.

[seanman]

i would go for bf2 vs ps2...
Im sorry bf3 doesnt have good strategy flag, almost nor recoil, and a drift tank wtf (i can drift with tank), u can see at mordor for reference. I did a scrim/clan war 8v8 and vanila bf2 much better.
Many things at bf2 a strategy flag, and so ps2 with strategy region like the crown which i most hate but i admit it. The weapons, about the recoil i can see bf2 more realistic (almost like ARMA), NC weapons have it (that's why i love being NC). PS2 some weapons have blurry recoil or almost no recoil. The Variant of MBT of PS2 more good, i remembered how play powler and vanguard like, t-90 and m1a2 abrams. The different of tank at bf2, they have weak spot, 1v1 tank at bf2 you can one hit dead, PS2 sadly no just rear, side, front and top.

Jet? i can use j-10 like mosquito, f35b like scythe, and reaver like sukhoi.. almost same but different about hovering. PS2 doesnt have stalling but bf2 can have strategic stall.

[Twido]

To give you some support, the idea of the thread (to learn from other games) is a good one. I think the problem is to say you like everything in BF3 a bit better but don't give a convincing reason why beyond personal preferance.

You are right in that the gun recoil and aiming from a moving tank (not magriders) is tricky.this isn't such a bad thing though is it, doesn't it just mean there is a higher skill ceiling? I like to fight agains't the recoil of my TMG 50, when I get it right it is very effective and it feels like it should be!

[VaderShake]

BF3 is the reason I quit playing the BF series after 10 years and 10,000+ hours. BF3 is a shallow shell of what BF was becoming when it launched BF2 then BF2142, then DICE did an about face and chose another customer and to go after the COD crowd.

Yes BF3 looks pretty but the gameplay is simple, repetative, and boring. Also if you have been gaming of 30+ years like me you would appriciate what PS2 is trying to do here as a benchmark for FPS/MMO you will support it to see if they can pull it off. Esspecially when most games studios are just rehashing the same shells of games and calling it some fancey name or other garbage.

PS2 is what I use to think of as a massive innovative sequel to BF2142........(FYI I never played PS1, to busy playing BF) DICE would need to seriously ramp up the number of players for BF4 for me to even look at it quite honestly.

[Dragonskin]

DICE would need to seriously ramp up the number of players for BF4 for me to even look at it quite honestly.

I was a long time BF player and have played almost every BF to come out... even the F2P ones. Vadershake has a valid point. I don't think DICE can make the Frostbite engine work with the player scale that PS2 offers. Especially since they seem to be catering to the console crowd now. I don't expect BF4 to be that amazing and I think it will mark the first new BF game that I won't pick up. BF3 was already the worst in the series in my opinion. The Frostbite engine is cool, but the destructible environments is starting to feel like a gimmick that is wearing out to me. They already had to scale it back considerably since Bad Company in terms of how far you can destroy an object.

Reminds me of Red Faction. Red Faction 1 had awesome destructibility. Each title after had less and less.

[Bags]

both have the depth of a puddle of water

but i guess ps2 wins due to size

[BlazingSun]

BF3 wins for me. While not a great game, it was way more entertaining than PS2. Size doesn't always matter after all!

[BlackJet]

Id really rather compare it to 2142.

I kinda wish I had played it so I could comment, but the opinions of my friends at the time was that it wasn't a good game (they mostly complained that it was gimmicky), so I never got it.

As for what game most compares to PS2, well that wasn't exactly the point of what I was writing, but at the same time it's in the same spirit. Constructive comparisons can be made to any game, so yeah, go ahead and post your thoughts on what other games did things better so we can help make our game the best it can be :D

Reminds me of Red Faction. Red Faction 1 had awesome destructibility.

Destructible structures would be an amazing addition to the game, but I think it would be best reserved for the player-made bases they keep hinting about in the future. Persistence kind of requires things to be, well, persistent :lol:

[joepaiii]

BF3 is the reason I quit playing the BF series after 10 years and 10,000+ hours. BF3 is a shallow shell of what BF was becoming when it launched BF2 then BF2142, then DICE did an about face and chose another customer and to go after the COD crowd.

Yes BF3 looks pretty but the gameplay is simple, repetative, and boring. Also if you have been gaming of 30+ years like me you would appriciate what PS2 is trying to do here as a benchmark for FPS/MMO you will support it to see if they can pull it off. Esspecially when most games studios are just rehashing the same shells of games and calling it some fancey name or other garbage.

PS2 is what I use to think of as a massive innovative sequel to BF2142........(FYI I never played PS1, to busy playing BF) DICE would need to seriously ramp up the number of players for BF4 for me to even look at it quite honestly.

Totally agree! I loved BF2142 and the combat. PS2 is definitely reminds me of that game. All we need is a Titan! I never played PS1 and gave up on BF when they dropped the squad chat and commander.

A game like PS2 has so much promise and could go so many different directions - if they develop the fan base and increase the revenue stream to finance those new investments (new continents, islands, sea battles ect). To do so I think they need to learn from the successful games to see what pulls people in and keeps them there.

[maradine]

I woke up this morning, kissed the woman, rolled out of bed, and went to the restroom. Sitting there, on the pot, as I do, I thought to myself - "what this forum really needs is another BF3 thread."

Wishes do come true!

[Thunderhawk]

I woke up this morning, kissed the woman, rolled out of bed, and went to the restroom. Sitting there, on the pot, as I do, I thought to myself - "what this forum really needs is another BF3 thread."

Wishes do come true!

Roflmao....

(That's all I'm contributing to this thread with)

[Methonius]

I woke up this morning, kissed the woman, rolled out of bed, and went to the restroom. Sitting there, on the pot, as I do, I thought to myself - "what this forum really needs is another BF3 thread."

Wishes do come true!

People do tend to have epiphanys while sitting on the toilet, something magical is happening.. lol

[zulu]

I like the suppression system in BF3 -- that would be cool to see in PS2. The destructible environments are also pretty neat, though if that were even possible in PS2's engine I doubt it could be implemented in any real way because of the immense size of the maps (and how would buildings and terrain get un-destroyed? Buildings could be repaired with a repair tool, I suppose...).

I agree about the gun stabilization and vehicle handling in BF3. Many of PS2's vehicles handle top-heavy to an extreme degree, and it's essentially impossible for a Lightning, Vanguard, or Prowler to hit anything at a distance past a few meters while on the move. Tank designers in the future must have just forgotten about the things put on tanks at the end of the 20th Century.

I like the class system in the BF games a bit more than PS2's. BF2's, especially, where there were distinct classes for anti-tank soldiers as well as a good mix of "attacking" classes (Assault/Support/Special Forces). I think PS2 right now really favors huge numbers of Heavy Assault soldiers and not much else (medics, a few engineers, but light assault seems more like a specialized thing; infiltrators kind of the same, but that's how they should be).

I like playing medic in BF3 a lot more than in PS2. Part of that, I'm sure, is that medics in BF3 have access to the best guns because it's just the Assault class, but a good bit of it is that the defibrillators just feel more visceral than PS2's medic gun. Also I feel like I'm having a very definite impact on my team's victory, since winning or losing comes down to respawn tickets. In PS2, the medic's impact on the game is a lot less, I think, because respawning near a battle is so easy (hard to raise the medic's profile in the battle, though, without making it more difficult to respawn near the battle, and that's probably not what the devs want).

There are a lot of things that PS2 does better than BF3, I think. The biggest thing I hate about the BF games is the phenomenon of people just hanging out at the deployment area, waiting for a tank or jet or helicopter. That's changed a little in BF3 since you can respawn directly into vehicles, but I still see it. And I can understand why: Sometimes you just want to play in a tank or fly around. In Planetside, if I want to fly a Mossy, I don't have to wait until one appears at the warpgate and race everyone for it -- I just make one (though the time limit on them is more than a little vexing sometimes, particularly if your frame rate drops for no reason and you slam into a tree and you have to wait another ten minutes -- I often just log out at that point).

In PS2, if you're tired of getting spawn-camped or beating your head against the wall of a base, you can just go do something else. You can go to another battle, go get a vehicle, spawn as an Inf and go hack turrets at an enemy base, or even just go back to a base of your own and repair all the turrets and stuff. I like that a lot. In Battlefield (well, in all more conventional FPS games) if you're getting murdered over and over, that's pretty much it. You just have to leave the server if you don't like it.

Overall I think I like PS2 a lot more.

Edit:
Also PS2's integral voice chat system is very nice. With BF2 you have to use that stupid Origin system in order to talk to anyone.

[ringring]

This is not a fair contest. Both are FPS games but while Battlefield is about 'battles' Planetside is about a series of battles within the context of the global war.

That this is not evident right now is sad and indicative of the changes that the devs need (and say) to make.

[Rolfski]

I love BF3 but stopped playing it because of PS2: This game has just more Battlefield moments that all Battlefield titles combined.

BF3:
+ map flow
+ vehicle handling
+ gun variety
+ gun handling
+ looks
+ solo play
+ reward/upgrade pacing

PS2:
+ scale
+ class balance
+ potential for depth
+ vehicle freedom
+ team play
+ F2P
+ dev responsiveness

[VaderShake]

I love BF3 but stopped playing it because of PS2: This game has just more Battlefield moments that all Battlefield titles combined.

If they manage to get rag-doll physics in....OMG the possible hillarity is overwhelming. Bodies flying everywhere, road kills, sniper tumbling down cliffs, so many possiblities....

[Xaine]

Totally different game's.

And totally shit thread.

GG.

Wow, you really are a cunt aren't you.

[Bags]

I love BF3 but stopped playing it because of PS2: This game has just more Battlefield moments that all Battlefield titles combined.

BF3:
+ map flow
+ vehicle handling
+ gun variety
+ gun handling
+ looks
+ solo play
+ reward/upgrade pacing

PS2:
+ scale
+ class balance
+ potential for depth
+ vehicle freedom
+ team play
+ F2P
+ dev responsiveness

how does planetside have battlefield moments?

[Stardouser]

BF3 tankplay: Easy to control, good physics
PS2 tankplay: Taxing on the wrist, hard to aim, have to fight the terrain


PS2 tanks are definitely not optimum. Camping is often required for accurate shots, and when you consider that what you are shooting at 400 meters away has its own engineer repairing to soak up your shots, you have to stop and camp to have any chance. And if you do miss a shot then the engineer will definitely get ahead of you.

Of course I am boiling it down to 1 tank vs 1 tank ranged engagements, but mass battles make the need to camp even worse.

Note: This is not praise for BF3. A lot of PS2 design decisions, including vehicle, are lacking, but PS2 is worth playing whereas BF3 is basically best used for graphics card benchamarking.

[Hamma]

We would be fools to think they aren't similar. But they are also different.

[Sledgecrushr]

Bf3 has good peripheral support. If anything ps2 can learn a little from that.

[Kirotan]

Bad Company 2 is better than BF3 IMO. If BC2 had 64 player maps then this might be a good comparison. I'll just say that PS2 > BF3, and BC2 > BF3, but BC2 and PS2 aren't really comparable (both delicious fruits, an apple and an orange).

BF3 isn't good enough to warrant this discussion, IMHO.

[BlackJet]

I love BF3 but stopped playing it because of PS2: This game has just more Battlefield moments that all Battlefield titles combined.

BF3:
+ map flow
+ vehicle handling
+ gun variety
+ gun handling
+ looks
+ solo play
+ reward/upgrade pacing

PS2:
+ scale
+ class balance
+ potential for depth
+ vehicle freedom
+ team play
+ F2P
+ dev responsiveness

In fact this is the reason I prefer PS2 over most other shooters, and it's what got me into PS1, even though the shooter mechanics were far inferior to any other competing game. I also mostly agree with your summary. The main reason why I still play BF3 is because I STILL can't get good frames in most PS2 situations, something that frustrates me to no end. In fact, I played a bit this morning on Amerish where there were like 10 people total on continent, and was getting 70 frames. Under those conditions, guns felt much more manageable, and I might be willing to retract my observations on overall gunplay, though I'd have to test this out further to be sure.

[Rolfski]

how does planetside have battlefield moments?
If you have played BF3 and you know how this game markets itself with "Battlefield moments" then you know that PS2 eats BF3 for lunch on this regard.

[camycamera]

Well.....um, regarding that, I have something for you to read

http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread.php?3880-The-True-Story-of-Battlefield-3-the-Battlefield-Franchise-Its-Community-amp-EA-DICE

wow, that man is a god.

but god damnit, not another BF3 thread.

i mean, BF3 is okay for a quick herp derp shoot and kill, but for what i used to use BF2142 for the large scale (yes, i know bf3 has some large battles, but i hate the lack of teamwork and the fact that the flags are so close together, removing all of that epic armies-rolling-towards-the-flag-thing. that, and it isn't futuristic, where cool stuff happens :P), i now use PS2 for. when i want teamwork, zerging with my outfit, and BLOWIN' SHIT UP, PS2 is where it is at.

[seanman]

about community
zh1nt0 and Mordor aka old ea.co.uk forum = enemies
higby and psu = friends
reason i played ps2 because dev and community are friends.

[BIGGByran]

In PS2, not only does the MBT main cannon resist movement (which actually causes me a bit of wrist pain trying to hone in on my targets), but the rough terrain causes the main cannon to shake all over the place.


Ever tried the Magrider?

[Bags]

If you have played BF3 and you know how this game markets itself with "Battlefield moments" then you know that PS2 eats BF3 for lunch on this regard.

battlefield doesn't have moments at all

lol

if you want stories play planetisde, if you want lens flare play battlefield. no match based game can compete with ps in stories because there are no stories in match based shooters other than "uh yeah this one time I got like 5 kills"

[BlackJet]

Ever tried the Magrider?

I've tried it a couple times, but I'm not VS. I run NC with my outfit and TR on the side when I want to solo play. Though in regards to the Mag's cannon vs. the others, that is one reason I dislike the current balance between the tanks. It seems the Magrider has most of the desirable advantages. It side strafes constantly, making medium to long range shots at it quite difficult, it can navigate terrain like no other without the cannon being bumped around, and trying to plant C-4 on it is a nightmare, because it's hovering so you have to aim upwards (and C-4 goes barely a foot in front of you...) and it could randomly strafe on top of you at any given moment even if it doesn't notice you. Now I'm mostly infantry so I am biased against it, so feel free to tell me otherwise if you have armor experience.

[Qwan]

I fully understand the differences in gameplay between the two, and I'm not trying to say one should equal the other. I disagree that SOE made a game to attract BF3 and COD players though. Well, rather I disagree that they chose to specifically emulate those two games. It's more like they took the best aspects of current modern shooters (those two being the most prominent but not the only ones) and applied them to their world, because modern shooters have learned from their predecessors. They've been constantly improving the shooter formula since Wolfenstein 3D, and it would be kind of silly to try and go backwards. It would also be silly to try and make a different style of tactical shooter from scratch. I'm not sure what they could even come up with, but why would they want to? The formula is there, most prominently in the form of COD and BF3, and it's tried and true. If players gripe and groan about a particular shooter, it's usually not about the base mechanics, it's about the specifics ("this gun is OP!" "Akimbo so dumb!" "noobtubers!", etc.). So saying the gameplay is different between the two games is correct but also possibly misleading.

Bottom line, none of what I've covered suggests changing any base gameplay, only refining the mechanics so the players can better enjoy its goodness :)

Your right they didnt want to emulate just those two, but how else would you attract newer gamers, I believe that they took a look at the FPS games that were out there on the market all of them BF3, CoD, Tribes, you name it. Saw what they all had in common, for instance the cookie cutter class, i.e.: medic, heavy assault, engineer, ..... and made sure that it was implemented into PS2, that way they could attract a lot of new players. As far as the PS vets, they new that naming the game PS-2 and using the same weapon names, factions, and game play style (continuouse combat on a large scale) would bring them in. The thing thats got most vets putting palm to forhead, is the refining part, we went threw this, the years of OP weapons, and lag, and bugs, its like were starting at square one all over again. Waiting for updates, new weapons, vehicles (please no Fucking BFR's), patches, and so on. I mean the game is still there, me and my bud's log on and go at it, running missions and stuff, cause we have patients and know this game is only going to get better. But I think that whats going to hurt the game in the long run is that alot of these more modern gamers, wont have the patients, its not happening fast enough, granted they have the look forward page, but I guarantee you alot of players wont be around for that, there used to getting there game in a nice shinny package all done ( maybe a patch or two) and there set. They chose this formula, I just hope its enough to keep the player base high, if not were going to be merging more servers here real soon.

[Paperboy]

At the moment I prefer BF3 over PS2, mostly because it is stable and runs great.

[psijaka]

battlefield doesn't have moments at all

lol

if you want stories play planetisde, if you want lens flare play battlefield. no match based game can compete with ps in stories because there are no stories in match based shooters other than "uh yeah this one time I got like 5 kills"

^ this is so true. BF just seems so shallow after Planetside.