Can PS2 Compete Against Older Games? [Archive]

omega four

2013-04-23, 02:43 PM

Now that PS2 has become an "infantry-focused" game, thanks to a number of gameplay decisions by its developers, I was curious if PS2 could compete against other games where infantry-combat is the focus of gameplay. The weakening of vehicles and aircraft and the simultaneous strengthening of infantry has resulted in PS2 becoming much more infantry-friendly and focused than at any time in its brief history.

I put together the following short video comparing INFANTRY-ONLY gameplay from Bad Company 2, BF3, and PS2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8G5QiN15rs

I showed this video to a number of colleagues and friends, most who would characterize themselves as casual gamers (i.e. they play video games as a diversion or just for fun).

I asked them as simple question: "Based on the infantry combat gameplay you've seen, which game do you think you'd most likely play?"

The majority winner was the oldest game of the group: Bad Company 2. The game that came in last place was BF3.

Most voters felt that Bad Company 2 looked the most exciting to play and praised it's explosions, audio sound effects, destructible environment, and smooth character animations.

They also thought that PS2 looked interesting with its sci-fi look, equipment (glowing shields, etc.), and large number of players. But they felt PS2's graphics and sound effects were underwhelming and from a previous generation of games (BF2). They were a little turned off by the "clunky" character animations, especially after someone died.

Finally, the voters felt that BF3 looked the most "cheap" and "cartoonish" of all. While the character animations were smooth and the environment looked fantastic, they thought that the game lacked polish as a whole.

While this informal survey didn't really take gameplay into account, it does show that casual gamers are drawn to games that excite their senses (visual, auditory). It's interesting how the oldest game of the bunch was the one that seemed to achieve that goal.

maradine

2013-04-23, 02:50 PM

Curious why the chronicler chose to only display the most white-bread of infantry gameplay - random HAs coming up behind a guy and unloading. There's exactly one good PS2 firefight in that footage.

ChipMHazard

2013-04-23, 02:54 PM

omega four

2013-04-23, 02:54 PM

Curious why the chronicler chose to only display the most white-bread of infantry gameplay - random HAs coming up behind a guy and unloading. There's exactly one good PS2 firefight in that footage.

The footage I put into this comparison video is all recent (within the past 4 days). I didn't want to cherry pick from the "best" battles. I wanted to show what actual gameplay looked like if a casual gamer were to just log on at any given moment and start playing.

ThatGoatGuy

2013-04-23, 02:58 PM

I would say, even though I watched as a PS2 player, that watching it WITHOUT sound makes PS2 look fucking awesome.

maradine

2013-04-23, 02:58 PM

The footage I put into this comparison video is all recent (within the past 4 days). I didn't want to cherry pick from the "best" battles. I wanted to show what actual gameplay looked like if a casual gamer were to just log on at any given moment and start playing.

Yeah, I guess if you just walk out of the warp gate into the surrounding hills, you're going to be pretty bored. Why not show the actual entertaining fights, since that's what you assert is desired?

ItZMuRdA

2013-04-23, 03:01 PM

omega four

2013-04-23, 03:07 PM

Yeah, I guess if you just walk out of the warp gate into the surrounding hills, you're going to be pretty bored. Why not show the actual entertaining fights, since that's what you assert is desired?

My goal isn't to advertise for any particular game, nor is it to detract or dissuade others from any particular game as well.

While I won't go out of my way to show any particular game in a bad light, I won't go out of my way to show any particular game in all its glory.

I wanted to show causal gamers what they could expect if they were to play any of these 3 games without having to join a clan or outfit first.

For most casual gamers trying out PS2, they are not going to experience huge exciting battles. If anything, when they click "Instant Action", it'll drop them into a field or empty base with nothing but the sound of crickets....

omega four

2013-04-23, 03:09 PM

I would not concur that it has become an infantry-focused game by any means. I wish it would, and it is moving in that direction, but I'm still awaiting improved spawn room mechanics and more forced indoor battles completely inaccessible by vehicles and their weaponry. Even PS1 had more of that -- when you captured a courtyard, you HAD to move indoors, sometimes for what would become very long indoor battles. I wish we had more of that in PS2 rather than it being viable to sit in a vehicle 100% of your time if that's your thing.

If you're a tank driver or aircraft pilot, then you would know that PS2 has already become an infantry-focused game.

Tanks fall very easily to infantry (RPGs, ESRLs, AV turrets, C4, etc.). Aircraft fall very easily to MAXs, Skyguards, base turrets, ESRLs, lock-on RPGs, etc.

PS2 is all about infantry combat now.

maradine

2013-04-23, 03:12 PM

omega four

2013-04-23, 03:13 PM

I'm also curious as to when PS2 supposively shifted towards being more of an infantry based gaming experience. More so than it was before. Because of all the AT+AA weapons available to infantry?

Just how often are you going to be finding infantry only fights in PS2? The Bio Lab... And that's pretty much it, well unless you move onto the pads at which point you might just become fodder for the circling seagulls all screaming "Mine!"

I didn't say "infantry-only". My exact words were "infantry-focused". There IS a difference.

I'm actually indifferent towards PS2 becoming more infantry-focused. But I do think it calls into question if PS2 can compete against other games that are also infantry-focused.

Based on my informal survey, I think PS2 loses out to "brighter, shinier" games that captivate the short attention spans of casual gamers.

So while PS2 will appeal to the more serious, dedicated gamers, it will be challenged to grow a substantial gamer/customer base.

omega four

2013-04-23, 03:15 PM

I am a full-time pilot, (https://players.planetside2.com/#!/5428010618040008705/vehicles) and I have never been more satisfied since tech test. But please do speak for us.

Good for you. But then again, you're probably not a casual gamer, are you?

ItZMuRdA

2013-04-23, 03:15 PM

If you're a tank driver or aircraft pilot, then you would know that PS2 has already become an infantry-focused game.

Tanks fall very easily to infantry (RPGs, ESRLs, AV turrets, C4, etc.). Aircraft fall very easily to MAXs, Skyguards, base turrets, ESRLs, lock-on RPGs, etc.

PS2 is all about infantry combat now.

And I'm almost a full-time infantry player, and I also disagree with you. Vehicles hundreds of meters away still make me shake my fist in anger when I explode to them while actually trying to battle other infantry. There can be a place for vehicles, out in the big open fields, but there should also be a place for infantry fights. Currently, too many bases are still designed where vehicle spam can reach all the way to the poorly designed spawn shields.

omega four

2013-04-23, 03:17 PM

And I'm almost a full-time infantry player, and I also disagree with you. Vehicles hundreds of meters away still make me shake my fist in anger when I explode to them while actually trying to battle other infantry. There can be a place for vehicles, out in the big open fields, but there should also be a place for infantry fights. Currently, too many bases are still designed where vehicle spam can reach all the way to the poorly designed spawn shields.

Why do you shake your fists in anger?

Are you using a HA class or are you playing a sniper?

Did you buy ESRLs or lock on RPGs?

Are you using an Engineer class with an AV turret?

It's not SOE's fault if it provides you with SO many anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons but you choose not to use them.

ItZMuRdA

2013-04-23, 03:19 PM

Why do you shake your fists in anger?

Are you using a HA class or are you playing a sniper?

Did you buy ESRLs or lock on RPGs?

Are you using an Engineer class with an AV turret?

It's not SOE's fault if it provides you with SO many anti-tank weapons but you choose not to use them.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying anything about any of those things. I'm not complaining vehicles are too hard to kill, I'm saying that it is too easy for them to shell infantry hundreds of meters away.

I like fighting infantry with infantry. This thread is about infantry, right? You can see in my stats I use vehicles very little, and I also kill vehicles very little. What I'm talking about is base design that promotes infantry fights where people actually have to get out of their vehicles at one point to continue the battle -- just like PS1 did.

omega four

2013-04-23, 03:21 PM

You're missing the point. I'm not saying anything about any of those things. I'm not complaining vehicles are too hard to kill, I'm saying that it is too easy for them to shell infantry hundreds of meters away.

I like fighting infantry with infantry. This thread is about infantry, right? You can see in my stats I use vehicles very little, and I also kill vehicles very little. What I'm talking about is base design that promotes infantry fights where people actually have to get out of their vehicles at one point to continue the battle -- just like PS1 did.

You're missing MY point.

I'm saying that tanks and aircraft are EASY to kill with the large assortment of anti-vehicle and anti-aircraft weapons. Once you kill the tanks and aircraft off, you're left with nothing but infantry-focused combat.

So kill off the offending tanks and aircraft.

maradine

2013-04-23, 03:22 PM

Good for you. But then again, you're probably not a casual gamer, are you?

Indeed I'm not. But your implication is that casuals like vehicles, and the game is becoming more infantry-centric. And yet, many people find vehicles fun.

If all your asserting is "casual players prefer session shooters because you don't have to invest time in skill building", well, you're absolutely right. Casual players do prefer session shooters. If you're asserting "casual players prefer shooters with swearing in the audio track", well, that's probably true, too. If you're asserting "casual players think PS2's infantry game is comparatively boring", you have knowingly built the comparison without what we would consider exciting fights, and have acknowledged that here.

Hey man, do your thing. Just be careful about what conclusions you draw.

ChipMHazard

2013-04-23, 03:27 PM

I didn't say "infantry-only". My exact words were "infantry-focused". There IS a difference.

I'm actually indifferent towards PS2 becoming more infantry-focused. But I do think it calls into question if PS2 can compete against other games that are also infantry-focused.

Based on my informal survey, I think PS2 loses out to "brighter, shinier" games that captivate the short attention spans of casual gamers.

So while PS2 will appeal to the more serious, dedicated gamers, it will be challenged to grow a substantial gamer/customer base.

I was referring to your infantry only gameplay footage video. Which you did refer to as infantry only.

Well an FPS being match based does offer certain advantages, one of which being that you don't have nearly as many players to worry about, performance wise. You can also offer a better designed level that's more focused towards a specific gameplay types.
If a casual player wants infantry only (Focused) fights then PS2 might not be the game to play, although it is F2P.

Shorter attention span? No. I think it has more to do with wanting to get into the action faster, in order to effectively use the little time you have to play video games a day.

Probably. We'll see just how many players are going to join when the MLG advertising really starts to kick in (If ever).

omega four

2013-04-23, 03:28 PM

Indeed I'm not. But your implication is that casuals like vehicles, and the game is becoming more infantry-centric. And yet, many people find vehicles fun.

If all your asserting is "casual players prefer session shooters because you don't have to invest time in skill building", well, you're absolutely right. Casual players do prefer session shooters. If you're asserting "casual players prefer shooters with swearing in the audio track", well, that's probably true, too. If you're asserting "casual players think PS2's infantry game is comparatively boring", you have knowingly built the comparison without what we would consider exciting fights, and have acknowledged that here.

Hey man, do your thing. Just be careful about what conclusions you draw.

I'm not implying that casuals like vehicles. Not sure where you got that from. If anything, I'm implying that casuals do NOT like vehicles because I'm comparing the infantry-focused gameplay from 3 games and asking casual gamers which appeals to them the most.

The only conclusion that I've drawn is that a 4 year old game can still hold more appeal to a wide casual gaming demographic quite effectively vs. more modern/recent games.

RSphil

2013-04-23, 03:29 PM

i play solo a good bit atm as i havent got the time to get my outfit sorted. i have far more fun in planetside 2 then either of the BF games and i have played every BF game since they launched and competed in a few of them. the reason i came to planetside 2 was the scale of war, never ending maps, no rounds and far less hackers/exploits and servers with restrictions.

i enjoyed BF for many years as you can tell from my long BF background but EA always mess them up and they get worse everytime. people need to play them and see how they differ. you can not judge a game from video's alone.

PS2 looks way better then any BF game atm. when PS2 is up max the graphics are gorgeous. would love some destructible stuff though that engineers would have to re build like we do in Guild wars 2 for example. all in all it is down to the person playing and what he likes.

infantry is fun and with a game of this size you have to have situational awareness at all times which a lot of people just dont have. i have music very low so i can hear footsteps and pinpoint where people are coming from. if i see a tank i avoid it until i am in a position where i can attack it with some safety or i have assistance is taking it down. i love a good foot zerg over hills to attack a base. yes vehicles are also a big thing in this game but they can always be countered with a little thinking and team work.

good video though and its always good to see what other people think.

omega four

2013-04-23, 03:31 PM

Well an FPS being match based does offer certain advantages, one of which being that you don't have nearly as many players to worry about, performance wise. You can also offer a better designed level that's more focused towards a specific gameplay types.
If a casual player wants infantry only (Focused) fights then PS2 might not be the game to play, although it is F2P.

Shorter attention span? No. I think it has more to do with wanting to get into the action faster, in order to effectively use the little time you have to play video games a day.

Probably. We'll see just how many players are going to join when the MLG advertising really starts to kick in (If ever).

All great points with regards to match based games vs. larger, open-ended games.

Shorter attention span comes into play when casual gamers don't care about fighting for a base over a period of several hours or not wanting to spend the time to learn the nuances of the game (hacking terminals, re-deploying, flying backwards in aircraft, etc.).

ChipMHazard

2013-04-23, 03:33 PM

Shorter attention span comes into play when casual gamers don't care about fighting for a base over a period of several hours or not wanting to spend the time to learn the nuances of the game (hacking terminals, re-deploying, flying backwards in aircraft, etc.).

True enough.

omega four

2013-04-23, 03:36 PM

The people I've surveyed have never played a BF game before but have dabbled here and there with COD, Farmville, a few flash-based games, etc.

But most were interested in giving Bad Company 2 a shot after watching my video and were surprised to learn that it was a 4 year old game. Most thought that PS2 was the oldest game of the 3 and that Bad Company 2 was the newest.

As a more serious gamer, I agree with all your points about the BF series games and PS2.

While I do have fun playing PS2, I can certainly see why casuals are more drawn to "prettier" games like Bad Company 2 (which I still find incredibly fun to play).

i play solo a good bit atm as i havent got the time to get my outfit sorted. i have far more fun in planetside 2 then either of the BF games and i have played every BF game since they launched and competed in a few of them. the reason i came to planetside 2 was the scale of war, never ending maps, no rounds and far less hackers/exploits and servers with restrictions.

i enjoyed BF for many years as you can tell from my long BF background but EA always mess them up and they get worse everytime. people need to play them and see how they differ. you can not judge a game from video's alone.

PS2 looks way better then any BF game atm. when PS2 is up max the graphics are gorgeous. would love some destructible stuff though that engineers would have to re build like we do in Guild wars 2 for example. all in all it is down to the person playing and what he likes.

infantry is fun and with a game of this size you have to have situational awareness at all times which a lot of people just dont have. i have music very low so i can hear footsteps and pinpoint where people are coming from. if i see a tank i avoid it until i am in a position where i can attack it with some safety or i have assistance is taking it down. i love a good foot zerg over hills to attack a base. yes vehicles are also a big thing in this game but they can always be countered with a little thinking and team work.

good video though and its always good to see what other people think.

moosepoop

2013-04-23, 04:29 PM

i figured out why the sounds of bc2 and bf3 are so much more powerful and loud:

they have echo.

omega four

2013-04-23, 05:00 PM

i figured out why the sounds of bc2 and bf3 are so much more powerful and loud:

they have echo.

That's a great observation.

The reverb (echo) in BC2 and BF3 is standard but it can actually be INCREASED if you select the audio option called "War Tapes".

That option in BC2 actually makes the reverb overkill but is quite nice in BF3.

Ghoest9

2013-04-23, 05:12 PM

I would not say PS2 is infantry focused.

But what would say is that at release playing infantry you spent most of your time primarily worrying about hiding from tanks and aircraft. It wast much fun outside of biolabs.

Now Infantry is fun and you can think about tactics first and hiding from HE spam second or third.

Ghoest9

2013-04-23, 05:14 PM

As to the OP - wouldnt 2142 have been the obvious game to make a comparison to?

moosepoop

2013-04-23, 05:16 PM

That's a great observation.

The reverb (echo) in BC2 and BF3 is standard but it can actually be INCREASED if you select the audio option called "War Tapes".

That option in BC2 actually makes the reverb overkill but is quite nice in BF3.

since ps2 has such huge open environments, they really should add echo to make it sound huge and open too.

camycamera

2013-04-23, 05:49 PM

i thought PS2's sound design is great, but yeah the esplosions and sound design in BC2 are probalby the best i have EVER heard.

anyway, i have all 3 games, and i have to say:
1.PS2
2.BC2
3.BF3

moosepoop

2013-04-23, 05:57 PM

i thought PS2's sound design is great, but yeah the esplosions and sound design in BC2 are probalby the best i have EVER heard.

anyway, i have all 3 games, and i have to say:
1.PS2
2.BC2
3.BF3

not only the sound, but gun recoil and animation is very smooth in bc2 and bf3, its very polished. ps2 gunplay is jerky and clunky, on the level of bf2 more than 8 years ago in 2005.

i dont understand why planetside 2 animations are not motion captured, since SOE has a motion capture studio and used it for the trailer.

omega four

2013-04-23, 07:58 PM

Now Infantry is fun and you can think about tactics first and hiding from HE spam second or third.

Thank you for making my point.

Now, PS2 is infantry-focused.

omega four

2013-04-23, 08:00 PM

Hamma

2013-04-23, 09:07 PM

SturmovikDrakon

2013-04-23, 09:17 PM

omega four

2013-04-23, 09:22 PM

Interesting video and cool idea to ask people about for sure. I will agree though the PlanetSide 2 footage captured kind of stunk in comparison. It's not really about promoting one game or another it's about putting them on equal footing in a test such as this.

Either way though I think it's still a valid question and an interesting response. Good stuff! :D

Thanks for the comments.

I think PS2 currently "suffers" from a case of inconsistent gameplay experience. There's an extreme gap between the "highs and lows". There are times when PS2 gameplay really shines, as there are intense battles being fought by large numbers of gamers using tanks, aircraft, and infantry.

But then there are times were PS2 gameplay is incredibly boring as gamers capture one empty base after another, punctuated periodically by small skirmishes between a handful of players.

When I captured the PS2 gameplay video, it just happened to be one of those "average" times where the battles weren't huge but they weren't incredibly small either. As such, I think my PS2 footage doesn't serve to detract or promote PS2 as a game. Namely, it "is what it is".

Hamma

2013-04-23, 10:00 PM

I think PS2 currently "suffers" from a case of inconsistent gameplay experience. There's an extreme gap between the "highs and lows". There are times when PS2 gameplay really shines, as there are intense battles being fought by large numbers of gamers using tanks, aircraft, and infantry.

But then there are times were PS2 gameplay is incredibly boring as gamers capture one empty base after another, punctuated periodically by small skirmishes between a handful of players.

This I totally agree with, it's the downside of playing PlanetSide 2 as a single player especially.

Dougnifico

2013-04-23, 10:37 PM

Well, I'm just going to say I love how quickly enemies dropped in BF3 and BC2, but thats another topic.

Ways to make PS2 gameplay better:

1. Redo the sound effects. PS2 is horrid in the sound department in comparison with other shooters on the market. Give everything more pop an echo.

2. Smooth out death animations and make them feel more natural. They seem clunky and recycled. I always see the same constant scripted death animations.

3. Give a bit more feedback for hits. Make it feel like my rounds are ripping through flesh.

4. Drop the whole PG, Rated T for Teen shit. Most people who play this are mature and/or play other M rated games. Add some damned blood spatter to the walls. Make me feel like my bullets really cut someone down.

camycamera

2013-04-23, 11:35 PM

not only the sound, but gun recoil and animation is very smooth in bc2 and bf3, its very polished. ps2 gunplay is jerky and clunky, on the level of bf2 more than 8 years ago in 2005.

i dont understand why planetside 2 animations are not motion captured, since SOE has a motion capture studio and used it for the trailer.

the running animations (not in 3rd person) are motion capped, however 1st person realoading and running are not, because it is difficult. is that what you mean by moar motion cap?
the first person animations aren't great at times, but i dont really mind.

i guess you could say that bf3 and bc2 are more "cinematic" when it comes to explosions and destruction etc, and that is why casuals would appeal more to it, rather than the game mechanics themselves (i prefer ps2 just because of its scale and amount of play-styles available, and the amount of open world-ness it has)

omega four

2013-04-24, 01:02 AM

This I totally agree with, it's the downside of playing PlanetSide 2 as a single player especially.

Agreed. I think a gamer really needs to join an outfit to really get the most out of playing PS2. The trouble is that most casual gamers are either uninterested or unwilling to join outfits.

Well, I'm just going to say I love how quickly enemies dropped in BF3 and BC2, but thats another topic.

Ways to make PS2 gameplay better:

1. Redo the sound effects. PS2 is horrid in the sound department in comparison with other shooters on the market. Give everything more pop an echo.

2. Smooth out death animations and make them feel more natural. They seem clunky and recycled. I always see the same constant scripted death animations.

3. Give a bit more feedback for hits. Make it feel like my rounds are ripping through flesh.

4. Drop the whole PG, Rated T for Teen shit. Most people who play this are mature and/or play other M rated games. Add some damned blood spatter to the walls. Make me feel like my bullets really cut someone down.

All great suggestions.

moosepoop

2013-04-24, 10:26 AM

the first person animations aren't great at times, but i dont really mind.
the first person reloading animations are tolerable, my main problem is with the jerky recoil animation, since it inteferes with gameplay.

ItZMuRdA

2013-04-24, 12:53 PM

I honestly think smoothness and fluidity of combat is one of the biggest hindrances here. Compared to games like BF/CoD and perhaps even moreso to the old greats like CS/UT/Quake, the fluidity of combat in PlanetSide, largely due to client-side hit detection, is lacking severely. Be clear that I am not talking about lag, although server delay and desync is also a growing problem, but rather the downside of CSHD and massive encounters when compared to your typical shooter.

As a result, among other things, hit detection is iffy, movement is clunky, strafing rapidly can cause some serious warping, you often die well after you have turned a corner or taken cover behind an impenetrable object, and so on and so forth. In a game of this scale, I doubt there is a simple solution, but nonetheless it is one of the things that bothers me most and makes me miss the competitive play that I previously enjoyed in many of the aforementioned titles.

Koadster

2013-04-24, 01:08 PM

They dont make games like they used to.. Simple as that.

omega four

2013-04-24, 01:15 PM

They dont make games like they used to.. Simple as that.

Ain't that the truth....

Kerrec

2013-04-24, 01:55 PM

I have a buddy who's a programmer. We play games together, when we can. There's a big difference between what we consider "acceptable" games. Being in the industry, he knows all the technical terms for what you see on the screen, and he knows where the leading edge for the technology is. I personally can tell you if a game looks better or not, but that's about it.

Now, he claims to not enjoy games that are not bleeding edge. It leaves him "unsatisfied". I play games if they are "fun". I crank down the graphics in PS2 in order to get decent frame rates for my PC and I could care less about what I lose. Him, he will put everything on maximum and if the game doesn't run, he doesn't play.

All that to say, he would never play an "old" game, because it is not technologically cutting edge anymore. I personally will play a game based on what I feel like playing. That being said...

The FPS that IMO has the best "combat" mechanics is America's Army. The squad composition is balanced (forced), you can run (a little bit), walk, crouch, lean, prone, ADS and every combination affects your accuracy. You can take a hit, but you need first aid to keep you from bleeding out. Otherwise the TTK is quick and brutal. Levels are designed with doors, chokepoints, objectives and lots of flanking routes. Flashbangs, smoke grenades, grenades... everything works as they should. It's a wonderful FPS, however I won't play it anymore for 3 reasons:

1) if you die early in the round, you have to WAIT until the round is over before getting to play again. That sucks, especially if both teams are down to a couple campers that aren't moving or trying for the objectives.

2) If you want to play a different role, you need to be "faster" than your teammates to get the underbarrel, or the marksman rifle, or the machinegun. Otherwise those slots get filled, and you're stuck playing with the loadout you default to.

3) I don't recall exactly, but teams are small. 16 vs 16? Maps are equally small, and there is no vehicle play.

I've also played alot of BF2 and BF3. On PC, BF3 dumbs down the gunplay some (no leaning, only some combinations offer better accuracy, you're 100% effective and alive until you're completely out of health). However, it is still better than AA because they add vehicle play (Land and Air) as well as bigger maps with bigger teams (32 vs. 32) I actually applaud DICE for trying to implement something like their suppression mechanic, however it was apparent based on the playerbase backlash that people don't want tactical simulation type game mechanics, they want to run around sprinting 24/7 in a team deathmatch with objectives thrown in. And that is what BF3 is. I would still play it, except:

1) If you want to play a vehicle, you have to fight other players to get it. Some vehicles, like the attack helicopter, is limited to 1 per map.

2) 32 vs. 32 is pretty big, for a team deathmatch type game. But it still isn't big scale, not compared to PS2.

So, all that to say, that I really don't understand the OP. I mean, if BC2 is really as good as he makes it out to be to the point that casuals will flock towards it instead of new games, then the BC2 population should be steady or increasing. BF3 has big numbers, but it is a console game too. BF3 PC numbers are not that much more impressive than PS2 numbers, IMO.

I'm a casual gamer. I play when I can, not to a schedule. I'm probably older than alot of gamers these days... I mean, I actually played PONG on a Vic20. I'd never drop PS2 to go play PONG. So it clearly is better than older games. I personally haven't played BF3 since I tried out PS2. They are so similar, yet PS2 offers more. PS2 is cutting into new territory... huge teams, 3 of them with access to any playstyle you want to partake.

IMO, if people look at BF3/BC2 and say it's better than PS2, then it's either nostalgia speaking or they want a very specific game type that PS2 doesn't do. If older games were better than PS2, then people would still be playing PS1. If you spend your game time looking at animations to see what game has better animations, then you are probably Obsessive Compulsive like my buddy. Otherwise, if you're having fun, you won't even notice the prettiness of the game.

Infernalis

2013-04-24, 05:20 PM

Having playing the three (and a ton of FPS) my prefered infantry game with arcade settings is definitely BC2, you felt the weapons had weight, the feeling was good and the TTK was nice. The only problem was the lack of big maps like BF2 and the low players count.

For me the 2 things that make PS2 subpar in infantry fights are well explained with this post (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=915362&postcount=36) and this post (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=915612&postcount=41).

The lattice will increase big fights and reduce the downtime between them but I fear it will never be as smooth and fluid as a (good) game with a few players count on dedicated servers.

omega four

2013-04-24, 05:30 PM

Ghoest9

2013-04-24, 06:28 PM

I completely agree with all your points.

PS2's greatest strength (potentially hosting huge battles in terms of number of gamers) ends up being it's greatest weakness (resulting lagginess and CPU stress when hosting huge battles).

Do you just use the wrong words or do you really have no idea what you are talking about?

camycamera

2013-04-24, 11:27 PM

They dont make games like they used to.. Simple as that.

what a shame.

Mordelicius

2013-04-25, 04:59 AM

omega four

2013-04-25, 11:08 AM

PS2 biggest draw is the number of players per map/continent: contiguous with no loading screen. They said the eventual plan is to have a full map with with all the continents and water in between.

The Bungie people are already making veiled shots at PS2, saying their game (Destiny) is about quality not quantity.

So, it's up the other games to top PS2's ace card.

I agree. I think the problem with PS2's biggest draw is when hardly any one is on to play at non-peak hours. Then it reveals PS2's biggest flaw.

Match based games don't suffer as much as gamers will find the most populated server, so you're guaranteed at least one server being filled.

Canaris

2013-04-25, 11:12 AM

Bags

2013-04-25, 11:15 AM

They also thought that PS2 looked interesting with its sci-fi look, equipment (glowing shields, etc.), and large number of players. But they felt PS2's graphics and sound effects were underwhelming and from a previous generation of games (BF2). They were a little turned off by the "clunky" character animations, especially after someone died.

I feel like your colleagues are terrible people with terrible taste. "I play teh vidya gaems for teh grafix" :rofl:

omega four

2013-04-25, 12:02 PM

I will say this after watching that video and listening to the sound effects of the weapons. The gun sound effects in BC2 beats the pants off both PS2 & BF3.

Wondering how a shooter should sound, that's the one to emulate.

I do prefer PS2 sci-fi look :D

BC2's sound effects and sound staging were definitely big factors in influencing how those surveyed voted. They said that BC2's sound effects definitely did much to creating an immersive environment as they watched the video.

Canaris

2013-04-25, 12:19 PM

BC2's sound effects and sound staging were definitely big factors in influencing how those surveyed voted. They said that BC2's sound effects definitely did much to creating an immersive environment as they watched the video.

:nod:

CrankyTRex

2013-04-25, 12:24 PM

Definitely agree that the sound design in PS2 is not fantastic. The guns don't sound terribly intimidating, and I've never had as much difficulty using sound cues to track things in a game as I do in PS2. I don't know if it's just because it's a big open world so you hear effects that are beyond visual range or what, but most of the time I don't find the sound direction to be a reliable indicator of where something is.

But that's also not what most of my casual friends tell me keeps them from playing. As I've said in other threads, they don't feel like they really are contributing by playing, don't feel satisfied by battling for hours to cap a base that can be taken as soon as they leave and doesn't have much bearing on the game other than changing a hex color, and are incredibly wary of the unlock system because it can feel like P2W.

Personally, I would add that PS2's pacing sucks. There is so much time where just nothing is happening. Either you're sitting there waiting for a point to flip that your team has clearly locked down or huffing your way to a fight or terminal to get something that can get you to a fight. Then the fights themselves either are a quick steamroll as one team's quantity advantage wins out, or a brutal stalemate that seems to make no progress in either direction.

I actually applaud DICE for trying to implement something like their suppression mechanic, however it was apparent based on the playerbase backlash that people don't want tactical simulation type game mechanics, they want to run around sprinting 24/7 in a team deathmatch with objectives thrown in. And that is what BF3 is.

I don't think people dislike tactical sim mechanics, it's just that they have to make sense from a gameplay perspective and work seamlessly within the game world. The suppression mechanic doesn't because the suppression effect should be an internal, emotional thing, not the game messing with the player's ability to see, aim, and fire because someone is shooting in their general direction (which inevitably will bug out and be inconsistent.) The suppression effect should be that I, as a player, am afraid of being shot, and so if a bunch of people open up on my position, I am disinclined to move and/or my aim will suffer due to panic and fear, not because the game has decided to screw with my screen and movement control.

That of course is another problem with PS2, as it's hard to be afraid to get shot (at least outside a vehicle) in a game where death is constant and totally irrelevant to what's going on. "Oh, dead again. Sigh. Re-spawn."

Shogun

2013-04-25, 12:42 PM

oh how i wish ps2 could compete with ps1...

it is still totally failing to immerse me into the war like ps1 did.

the sad thing is, that the vets have been arguing about it even since before techtest!
and the problems have stayed the same:

base design is crap (gameplay only), ps1 design may have been too cookiecutter-like, but bases could be defended and conquered by a good platoon against all odds. in ps2 you bring more soldiers, you win, no matter what.

the state of the war was clearly visible at a glance on the map in ps1. you could see what cont was fought on, who owns what and where immediate help was needed. in ps2 i have no clue what is going on at all. i still can´t see where my squadmates are without staring at the map and zooming around for several minutes. same applys for the hud clutter. i have to spin at least 5 times before i even have a clue in which direction my waypoint may be. forcing me to connect with the mindless zerg and hope they are running somewhere i want to go, too.

there was an almost infinite number of possible playstyles in ps1 thanks to the backpack system. after the br increase this developed into a jack of all trades problem, but until then it worked perfectly and we could tailor our soldier to our preferred playstyle. in ps2 this is not the case. there are only three playstyles. rambo, pilot and driver. everything else is so rudimentary that it doesn´t even deserve to be mentioned.

too many things stolen from popular games like bf3 that simply don´t work for planetside, and too little things taken from planetside 1 that worked fine.

Kerrec

2013-04-25, 12:53 PM

I don't think people dislike tactical sim mechanics, it's just that they have to make sense from a gameplay perspective and work seamlessly within the game world. The suppression mechanic doesn't because the suppression effect should be an internal, emotional thing, not the game messing with the player's ability to see, aim, and fire because someone is shooting in their general direction (which inevitably will bug out and be inconsistent.) The suppression effect should be that I, as a player, am afraid of being shot, and so if a bunch of people open up on my position, I am disinclined to move and/or my aim will suffer due to panic and fear, not because the game has decided to screw with my screen and movement control.

This is most likely starting to derail this thread, but I'll try to avoid talking about BF3 and ask you how it could be implemented into a game like PS2?

How do you make the player so afraid to take the chance of stepping into bullets that a mechanic like suppression can be used as a tactic? Without forcing it via gameplay mechanics?

IMO, it is impossible to affect the the person behind the keyboard's lack of fear while playing a game. What you "want" is not possible. Being realistic, the only options are:

1) forget trying to make something like suppression work in a game, even though it is a HUGE factor in real warfare.

2) punish the players for doing stupid things (in relation to how a gun fight would play out in real war) via game mechanics.

Canaris

2013-04-25, 01:00 PM

CrankyTRex

2013-04-25, 02:35 PM

This is most likely starting to derail this thread, but I'll try to avoid talking about BF3 and ask you how it could be implemented into a game like PS2?

How do you make the player so afraid to take the chance of stepping into bullets that a mechanic like suppression can be used as a tactic? Without forcing it via gameplay mechanics?

IMO, it is impossible to affect the the person behind the keyboard's lack of fear while playing a game. What you "want" is not possible. Being realistic, the only options are:

1) forget trying to make something like suppression work in a game, even though it is a HUGE factor in real warfare.

2) punish the players for doing stupid things (in relation to how a gun fight would play out in real war) via game mechanics.

I don't think it's impossible at all. It really comes down to how immersive the game is and what the consequences are for losing a life. I don't think you'll ever make someone completely terrified to step into bullets like IRL, but there have been many games throughout the years whose mechanics made death undesirable enough that suppressing fire was useful.

The integral component is making your virtual life feel like it means something. In Team DM, that's easy, because every death counts toward the scoreboard. You can double down like AA or CS wherein death means you sit on your ass for the rest of the round, but I personally don't care for that.

In a conquest game we don't have that option, and PS2 further complicates this by being persistent and massive. I don't know that I have the answers to the problem, but there are several components that we can look at.

First off is just the consequence for dying. When you die in PS2, you usually can re-spawn almost instantly right near the place you died. Your death does not increase the speed at which the other team caps anything, and since you'll be right back in the battle, it doesn't create an attrition problem where the other team can now make headway.

Second is your ability to stay alive. In PS2, death comes from all directions and happens usually before you can even react to it. Suppressive fire is useless because the other person is going to be dead before they even know you were shooting at them.

Further, the sound design and navigational tools makes situational awareness more difficult, and does not make the player think "that's a lot of scary sounding guns and they're shooting at me!"

Lastly, if you didn't die, were you going to make a difference? Probably not so much because of the first two issues. Unless you happen to take out a perfectly positioned, lone Sundy, chances are your individual contribution will matter a whole lot less than the sheer number of people who showed up. Hence all the complaints about the Zerg rolling over people.

I feel like we have to come up with an entirely new territorial capture mechanic, and a map design that reflects it. I don't think standing around waiting for timers to run out works either for these aspects or for good pacing. I'd actually like to try territory control based literally on where someone is standing, and bring it into 3D dimensions so you can have air superiority matter too.

So if a faction controls an area, it's because they have actual boots on the ground in that area and those boots are killing the other guys off, not because a few people got to a specific spot on the map and stayed there for some arbitrary period of time.

I'm not sure it would work, but we have a test server now so....:)

Kerrec

2013-04-25, 02:48 PM

...Second is your ability to stay alive. In PS2, death comes from all directions and happens usually before you can even react to it. Suppressive fire is useless because the other person is going to be dead before they even know you were shooting at them...

Suppression is not shooting at someone and missing. I know this is how BF3 tried to do it, but that's where it failed.

Suppression is shooting at the ground, wall, ceiling in proximity to where you know an enemy is bunkered down.

In my minds eye, suppression should be like a rocket exploding that doesn't do damage, but the AoE just screws up your aim. With that in mind, replace the rockets with bullets from a gun.

Then if you're shooting at someone out in the open and completely missed, so that your bullet just flew by and kept going, then there's zero effect, no suppression. But if you are shooting at the ground/wall at a corner where you know an enemy is hiding, then you deny that enemy the opportunity to peek out and shoot back, throw a grenade, blind/dumb fire a rocket launcher or accurately return fire at your allies that are flanking. And if the enemy happens to step in front of a bullet, then he takes damage as normal, but no suppression.

omega four

2013-04-25, 03:13 PM

On a personal note, I think the "massiveness" of PS2 has eventually served to turn me "off" a little to PS2. Given how many gamers there are in any given PS2 battle, I feel like my efforts and participation really don't matter much at all.

In contrast, when playing 16 vs 16 in a BC2 match, I feel like my actions and survival do matter, whether it's defending or attacking an MCOM or capturing a point.

It's funny how the large scale massive battles of PS2 initially attracted me and "wowed" me but ultimately only served to leave me with a somewhat empty feeling while playing.

I don't think it's impossible at all. It really comes down to how immersive the game is and what the consequences are for losing a life. I don't think you'll ever make someone completely terrified to step into bullets like IRL, but there have been many games throughout the years whose mechanics made death undesirable enough that suppressing fire was useful.

The integral component is making your virtual life feel like it means something. In Team DM, that's easy, because every death counts toward the scoreboard. You can double down like AA or CS wherein death means you sit on your ass for the rest of the round, but I personally don't care for that.

In a conquest game we don't have that option, and PS2 further complicates this by being persistent and massive. I don't know that I have the answers to the problem, but there are several components that we can look at.

First off is just the consequence for dying. When you die in PS2, you usually can re-spawn almost instantly right near the place you died. Your death does not increase the speed at which the other team caps anything, and since you'll be right back in the battle, it doesn't create an attrition problem where the other team can now make headway.

Second is your ability to stay alive. In PS2, death comes from all directions and happens usually before you can even react to it. Suppressive fire is useless because the other person is going to be dead before they even know you were shooting at them.

Further, the sound design and navigational tools makes situational awareness more difficult, and does not make the player think "that's a lot of scary sounding guns and they're shooting at me!"

Lastly, if you didn't die, were you going to make a difference? Probably not so much because of the first two issues. Unless you happen to take out a perfectly positioned, lone Sundy, chances are your individual contribution will matter a whole lot less than the sheer number of people who showed up. Hence all the complaints about the Zerg rolling over people.

I feel like we have to come up with an entirely new territorial capture mechanic, and a map design that reflects it. I don't think standing around waiting for timers to run out works either for these aspects or for good pacing. I'd actually like to try territory control based literally on where someone is standing, and bring it into 3D dimensions so you can have air superiority matter too.

So if a faction controls an area, it's because they have actual boots on the ground in that area and those boots are killing the other guys off, not because a few people got to a specific spot on the map and stayed there for some arbitrary period of time.

I'm not sure it would work, but we have a test server now so....:)

CrankyTRex

2013-04-25, 03:24 PM

Suppression is not shooting at someone and missing. I know this is how BF3 tried to do it, but that's where it failed.

Suppression is shooting at the ground, wall, ceiling in proximity to where you know an enemy is bunkered down.

In my minds eye, suppression should be like a rocket exploding that doesn't do damage, but the AoE just screws up your aim. With that in mind, replace the rockets with bullets from a gun.

Then if you're shooting at someone out in the open and completely missed, so that your bullet just flew by and kept going, then there's zero effect, no suppression. But if you are shooting at the ground/wall at a corner where you know an enemy is hiding, then you deny that enemy the opportunity to peek out and shoot back, throw a grenade, blind/dumb fire a rocket launcher or accurately return fire at your allies that are flanking. And if the enemy happens to step in front of a bullet, then he takes damage as normal, but no suppression.

I think you misunderstand my point. I am not saying suppressing fire is trying to shoot an enemy and missing. My point is that PS2 doesn't really allow someone to bunker down in the first place such that you can employ that kind of tactic. Most probably they will be killed either by you or something else from an entirely different direction before that ever happens.

In addition, since getting killed means almost nothing, there's little reason not to swing around the corner and shoot back. If you die, so what. If you don't, you'll probably get a kill and XP.

Not to mention we all have regenerative shields that are perfect for tanking a few hits to keep a flanking force at bay.

Kerrec

2013-04-25, 04:50 PM

In addition, since getting killed means almost nothing, there's little reason not to swing around the corner and shoot back. If you die, so what. If you don't, you'll probably get a kill and XP.

This is exactly the point. To stay sort of on topic with the OP, this game is better than other "older" FPS's because it gets rid of the "unfun" stuff prior game designs had. Prior games penalized players by costing a ticket for a death which doesn't fit in PS2, or making a player WAIT. And it makes sense that players would gravitate towards gameplay that allows them to maximize the quantity of time they're actually playing. The drawback is....

There is no penalty for doing stupid things or flat out dying. So people do stupid things, and throw themselves at a situation because they know respawn is 5 seconds away. This kind of thing ENCOURAGES zerging. And my opinion is, there is NO WAY to add a psychological fear of dying in games that isn't going to be considered a devolution of gameplay.

Hence why I'm 100% OK with developers trying to penalize bad gameplay via game mechanics. In your example above, the suppressed player would not be able to return any kind of accurate fire. This would force him to avoid such situations, or find a smart way to get out of it.

CrankyTRex

2013-04-25, 05:53 PM

This is exactly the point. To stay sort of on topic with the OP, this game is better than other "older" FPS's because it gets rid of the "unfun" stuff prior game designs had. Prior games penalized players by costing a ticket for a death which doesn't fit in PS2, or making a player WAIT. And it makes sense that players would gravitate towards gameplay that allows them to maximize the quantity of time they're actually playing. The drawback is....

There is no penalty for doing stupid things or flat out dying. So people do stupid things, and throw themselves at a situation because they know respawn is 5 seconds away. This kind of thing ENCOURAGES zerging. And my opinion is, there is NO WAY to add a psychological fear of dying in games that isn't going to be considered a devolution of gameplay.

Hence why I'm 100% OK with developers trying to penalize bad gameplay via game mechanics. In your example above, the suppressed player would not be able to return any kind of accurate fire. This would force him to avoid such situations, or find a smart way to get out of it.

We agree on the problem, just not on the solution. I would much rather mechanics be introduced that make me, the player, care about getting shot enough to not want to stick my head out if someone is laying down fire on my position. (Not that there are many opportunities to take up a defensive position in such a way that someone would bother.) Surely there are ways to accomplish that without introducing mechanics that are "unfun."

Wresting control from me, the player, because the game has arbitrarily decided I'm supposed to be afraid is irritating and makes no sense in context, which is why people hated it in BF3. I have no doubt it would be just as, if not more, irritating in PS2. It's just a bad mechanic designed to cover other bad design choices.

This problem is the result of a bunch of other issues that I think PS2 has to solve to reach its potential. Giving people an experience that is emotionally engaging enough that they'd be afraid to get their character killed is an integral part of getting people interested in and hooked on the game.

Kerrec

2013-04-25, 11:19 PM

This problem is the result of a bunch of other issues that I think PS2 has to solve to reach its potential. Giving people an experience that is emotionally engaging enough that they'd be afraid to get their character killed is an integral part of getting people interested in and hooked on the game.

Your character CAN'T be killed. You respawn with everything you had before. There's no loss at all. Therefore there is no way to make death a penalty.

If you've been pursued around a corner, you have the option to peek out and take a shot. There are 2 outcomes:

1) you kill the guy, gain XP and Certs, maybe open up the possibility to gain some ground.

2) You die. You maybe lose some ground.

Not a very hard decision to make. Unless you're a K/D whore, it's a no brainer.

CrankyTRex

2013-04-26, 01:06 AM

Your character CAN'T be killed. You respawn with everything you had before. There's no loss at all. Therefore there is no way to make death a penalty.

If you've been pursued around a corner, you have the option to peek out and take a shot. There are 2 outcomes:

1) you kill the guy, gain XP and Certs, maybe open up the possibility to gain some ground.

2) You die. You maybe lose some ground.

Not a very hard decision to make. Unless you're a K/D whore, it's a no brainer.

Not sure what you're trying to get at here? I believe my posts up to this point have made it clear I agree there is little to no penalty to dying in this game and that is a problem, unless you misinterpreted my use of the phrase "get their character killed" to mean some kind of perma-death thing?

As I said, the goal would be to create systems that make dying something that you a: want to avoid and b: can reasonably expect to avoid through good decision-making and better skills.

Kerrec

2013-04-26, 08:11 AM

Not sure what you're trying to get at here? I believe my posts up to this point have made it clear I agree there is little to no penalty to dying in this game and that is a problem, unless you misinterpreted my use of the phrase "get their character killed" to mean some kind of perma-death thing?

As I said, the goal would be to create systems that make dying something that you a: want to avoid and b: can reasonably expect to avoid through good decision-making and better skills.

And I'm saying that is not possible without forcing the kind of game mechanic that you don't like. The only things that would be considered a penalty, like having to wait longer, would be considered a devolution in game play.

psijaka

2013-04-26, 08:36 AM

@OP

I watched your video, and purely on the basis of what I saw I would go for BFBC2; a game that I have played (and enjoyed).

But that means nothing; there is so much more to PS2 than is shown in the video.

- the BFBC2 infantry maps are pretty small and the matches are short and self contained, whereas PS2 has massive 50-60 square km maps with no arbitrary time limit.

- you haven't really shown PS2 infantry fights at their best, just random sporadic small scale action. How about showing a determined defence of TI Alloys?

- PS2 is not and never will be infantry only gameplay, except in a few very restricted locations. On Woodman a few nights ago the skies suddenly filled with VS Liberators; such an awesome sight that I just stopped and watched - until one of them crash landed on me!

omega four

2013-04-26, 08:37 AM

I created a short video comparing the hardpoint gun turrets (or technically their equivalents) of a 4 year old game (Bad Company 2) and a recent game (Planetside 2). This gameplay footage was recorded in the past couple of days and was not cherry picked. I wanted those I was surveying a sense of what to expect if they were to log in to either game and start playing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3oezqnmYzY

I showed this video to colleagues and friends (all CASUAL gamers) and asked them which game were they most likely to play based on what they saw. As before, the majority preferred to play BC2 over PS2. While they found the PS2 gun turrets to look "interesting" and "pretty", they thought that the BC2 gun turrets gameplay (bullet and impact effects) and sounds to be more "substantial" and "exciting".

When pressed to provide details, they said the following:

BC2:
* Smooth bullet and movement animations and graphics. Everything looks three dimensional.
* Great audio feedback when killing an enemy ("man down").
* Detailed visual feedback showing tracer fire and impact.

PS2:
* Pretty gun shields in different colors.
* Gun turrets looked "mean" and "menacing".

Ghoest9

2013-04-26, 08:48 AM

put it in the other thread - this is lame

Assist

2013-04-26, 08:49 AM

Anyone who wants to attract people to the game shouldn't be showing them a video of the engineer turret. There's hundreds of videos out there that display the value of the game.

edit: Maybe you should show one of the repair tool, and how it's used in this game and other games. I'm sure that's exciting and worthwhile! Seriously, show something interesting that is an integral part of PS2 rather than showing a single aspect in PS2 that doesn't have anywhere near the impact(by game design) that the turret had in BC2.

omega four

2013-04-26, 08:54 AM

Anyone who wants to attract people to the game shouldn't be showing them a video of the engineer turret. There's hundreds of videos out there that display the value of the game.

I'm not interested in attracting people to any particular game. I'm more interested in seeing what elements in a game entice casual gamers to give the game a try.

Assist

2013-04-26, 09:04 AM

I'm not interested in attracting people to any particular game. I'm more interested in seeing what elements in a game entice casual gamers to give the game a try.

Then don't focus only on infantry combat? You're focusing on specific things and completely ignoring the fact that Planetside 2 is designed as massive epic game. Also from reading your posts it's very obvious you're talking to people who do not play Planetside2 and who did play the Battlefield games.

You're just trolling for some reason that I don't understand. Here, let me completely counter your argument in the same fashion:

I showed this game to a handful of friends. They said they would rather play this game than the one they are currently playing.

There, our arguments are now on equivalent levels.

As far as enticing casual gamers to play, look at the number of players in the game below BR30. I get killed far more often by people low BR than higher BR. There's metric shit tons of casual players in Planetside2. Not too long ago everyone was crying that MLG players are not attracted to this game, that all the players are casuals. Now we have a thread complaining that no casuals are interested in the game?

Seriously, I think you're just a bitter troll.

omega four

2013-04-26, 09:18 AM

Yes, your points are all things that a casual gamer would eventually discover over time as he/she played a game.

And that's why I think the ability for a game (or game developer for that matter) to entice a potential gamer to try a game out in the first place is pretty important.

I think there are a lot of potential gamers out there in the marketplace who will never learn firsthand just how great PS2 is as a game because they aren't enticed enough to give PS2 a try in the first place.

As for the gameplay footage, I really don't want to cherry pick only exciting gameplay footage as I think it would be misleading to those I'm surveying. I wanted to include footage from when I've logged in at random times to play. And let's be honest here, the large battles in PS2 have become fewer and more sparse as of late.

@OP

I watched your video, and purely on the basis of what I saw I would go for BFBC2; a game that I have played (and enjoyed).

But that means nothing; there is so much more to PS2 than is shown in the video.

- the BFBC2 infantry maps are pretty small and the matches are short and self contained, whereas PS2 has massive 50-60 square km maps with no arbitrary time limit.

- you haven't really shown PS2 infantry fights at their best, just random sporadic small scale action. How about showing a determined defence of TI Alloys?

- PS2 is not and never will be infantry only gameplay, except in a few very restricted locations. On Woodman a few nights ago the skies suddenly filled with VS Liberators; such an awesome sight that I just stopped and watched - until one of them crash landed on me!

Juryrig

2013-04-26, 09:59 AM

Suggestion - instead of picking identical 'aspects' of different games (ie - turrets in PS2 and turrets in BC2) make two videos which intersperse all the different aspects of each game, to show the depth and breadth - then show them to people one after the other, to see the reaction.

So, using the same style where you cut from one game to the other, instead cut to and from solo infantry/ground vehicle/small squad infantry/AG air vehicle/AA air vehicle/different infantry classes & roles (Engy, medic, Infil, HA MAX etc)/ large scale infantry (Biolab?)/large scale combined arms (Crown assault? TI Alloys defense?)

Include some segments that illustrate the relevant scales; I'm not sure if BC2 has aircraft, but BF3 has, doesn't it? So you could show the fact that a jet covers a BF3 map from end to end in about 15 seconds, then contrast that to flying along the front line on Auraxis, swooping low to buzz three or four separate battles that are going on in separate place on the same overall map at the same time.

Show everything that each game has to offer, across all the 'scales' - then run them past your audience, side by side. I'd be interested in hearing what the response is then.

omega four

2013-04-26, 10:19 AM

Again, I'm not interested in putting together a comprehensive comparison review between 2 games, as you're suggesting. My goal is NOT to ask those I'm surveying to pick a game based on depth and breadth, complexity, metagame, etc.

No, I'm interested in seeing what entices and attracts potential gamers based on what they see and hear. I'm looking at this from a marketing/sales perspective, NOT from a game review/comprehensive evaluation perspective.

It's fine if my comparison perspective doesn't appeal to you or other more serious gamers. I completely understand. But to those who are interested in learning how potential gamers think and respond to what they see, my comparisons might be of interest.

Suggestion - instead of picking identical 'aspects' of different games (ie - turrets in PS2 and turrets in BC2) make two videos which intersperse all the different aspects of each game, to show the depth and breadth - then show them to people one after the other, to see the reaction.

So, using the same style where you cut from one game to the other, instead cut to and from solo infantry/ground vehicle/small squad infantry/AG air vehicle/AA air vehicle/different infantry classes & roles (Engy, medic, Infil, HA MAX etc)/ large scale infantry (Biolab?)/large scale combined arms (Crown assault? TI Alloys defense?)

Include some segments that illustrate the relevant scales; I'm not sure if BC2 has aircraft, but BF3 has, doesn't it? So you could show the fact that a jet covers a BF3 map from end to end in about 15 seconds, then contrast that to flying along the front line on Auraxis, swooping low to buzz three or four separate battles that are going on in separate place on the same overall map at the same time.

Show everything that each game has to offer, across all the 'scales' - then run them past your audience, side by side. I'd be interested in hearing what the response is then.

CrankyTRex

2013-04-26, 10:27 AM

And I'm saying that is not possible without forcing the kind of game mechanic that you don't like. The only things that would be considered a penalty, like having to wait longer, would be considered a devolution in game play.

We already have longer timers with the vehicles and nobody's complaining about that being a devolution in game play. In any case, my concern is with what works, not how old the idea is.

More importantly, penalties are only one half of the coin. My focus wouldn't be on penalties as much as it would be on staying alive to contribute to the fight and the ability to do both.

Juryrig

2013-04-26, 10:38 AM

Again, I'm not interested in putting together a comprehensive comparison review between 2 games, as you're suggesting. My goal is NOT to ask those I'm surveying to pick a game based on depth and breadth, complexity, metagame, etc.

No, I'm interested in seeing what entices and attracts potential gamers based on what they see and hear. I'm looking at this from a marketing/sales perspective, NOT from a game review/comprehensive evaluation perspective.

It's fine if my comparison perspective doesn't appeal to you or other more serious gamers. I completely understand. But to those who are interested in learning how potential gamers think and respond to what they see, my comparisons might be of interest.

I'm a casual gamer.

I was attracted to PS2 because of its depth, complexity and metagame, all things which I believe will give it staying power. because, as a casual gamer with a limited number of hours to invest in a game each week, I don't want to be changing what game I'm playing every couple of months.

The problem with what you are doing is that you have made assumptions about "casual gamers", what they want, what attracts them to a game....

...and you are designing 'tests' with all those assumptions in mind.

If you really want to learn something, design a test which actually tests whether your assumptions are correct.

omega four

2013-04-26, 10:45 AM

Likewise, you're assuming that your wants as a casual gamer translates to all other casual gamers.

You design your surveys they way you want to. I'll do the same likewise.

I'm a casual gamer.

I was attracted to PS2 because of its depth, complexity and metagame, all things which I believe will give it staying power. because, as a casual gamer with a limited number of hours to invest in a game each week, I don't want to be changing what game I'm playing every couple of months.

The problem with what you are doing is that you have made assumptions about "casual gamers", what they want, what attracts them to a game....

...and you are designing 'tests' with all those assumptions in mind.

If you really want to learn something, design a test which actually tests whether your assumptions are correct.

Juryrig

2013-04-26, 11:12 AM

Likewise, you're assuming that your wants as a casual gamer translates to all other casual gamers.

You design your surveys they way you want to. I'll do the same likewise.

No, I'm not. That's the point.

I'm proposing a test that would allow you to compare whether your or my assumptions are universally applicable, or neither, or some combination of both.

You keep designing tests the way you want. I'll keep designing tests to determine the facts.

But then I training in science and engineering. You keep mentioning 'marketing'. So I guess that's where the difference lies....

Bags

2013-04-26, 11:12 AM

you should compare bullet tracers across games

i hear casual players play for the bullet tracers

omega four

2013-04-26, 11:23 AM

But then I training in science and engineering. You keep mentioning 'marketing'. So I guess that's where the difference lies....

There IS a difference between science/engineering and marketing when it comes to sales and advertising.

Consumers don't always choose the most logical product. More often then not, they pick the best advertised or marketed one.

FYI - My education was in science but my career is in business.

psijaka

2013-04-26, 11:53 AM

omega four

2013-04-26, 01:13 PM

Oh come on, omega, to ask people which game they prefer on the basis of the turrets is completely meaningless. What percentage of gameplay involves turrets?

I would say that the percentage depends entirely on the genre of game, wouldn't you?

Varsam

2013-04-26, 02:03 PM

I would say that the percentage depends entirely on the genre of game, wouldn't you?

A completely moot point, as all of the games you're comparing do not fall into whatever genre deeply involves turrets. Since you're determined to contrive facts to fit your position, I'll narrow it down for you: What percentage of gameplay involves turrets IN BF3, BC2, AND PS2?

omega four

2013-04-26, 02:20 PM

A completely moot point, as all of the games you're comparing do not fall into whatever genre deeply involves turrets. Since you're determined to contrive facts to fit your position, I'll narrow it down for you: What percentage of gameplay involves turrets IN BF3, BC2, AND PS2?

I would say that the percentage depends on the player and his/her gameplay styles, wouldn't you?

omega four

2013-04-27, 01:58 PM

Now, I put together some recent tank gameplay footage from Bad Company 2 (a 4 year old game), BF3, and PS2 (the most recent game) to show to some colleagues and friends (all casual gamers). The recorded footage was not cherry-picked and is indicative of my logging in to play these games at random times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjzhFBdr6Zg

After viewing the video, I asked them which game would they be most enticed to try out and play based on what they've seen. BC2 came in first place, followed by BF3, and then PS2.

Most of those surveyed thought that BC2's tank gameplay looked the most interesting because of its graphics, audio effects, and special effects. They felt that BC2's tanks looked the most realistic and 3-dimensional. The audio effects (explosions, tank mechanical motions, solider comments) were thought to be superb. The special effects like explosions, dust impacts from shells, and impact effects were also thought to be top notch. The respondents felt that the BC2 tank battles looked the most "exciting", "realistic", and "intense".

The respondents thought that BF3's tanks looked great as well but didn't seem to move or turn in a realistic fashion. And everything went down hill when they viewed the tanks in combat, as they felt the tanks fought as if they were plastic Fisher Price toys. The special effects were good but looked a little tame (especially the explosions) compared to BC2's. The respondents praised the audio effects but again felt they weren't quite as good as those of BC2's.

The respondents thought that PS2's tanks looked the most 2-dimensional of them all. They also felt that the special effects were lackluster and not as realistic looking as those of BC2's or BF3's. However, the respondents praised how the PS2 tanks moved just as realistically as those of BC2's and sounded great in their own way. They also liked how there were different types of tanks (factions) and liked how they were "painted" (camouflage). Despite these praises though, the respondents felt that the PS2 tank battles looked "boring" and "uninspired".

Hamma

2013-04-27, 02:40 PM

How many of these are you going to do and what are you trying to prove at this point? :p

ChipMHazard

2013-04-27, 02:58 PM

omega four

2013-04-27, 03:26 PM

How many of these are you going to do and what are you trying to prove at this point? :p

I had several more surveys. If you do not want me to post them here, then I'll stop and post them on another forum. I'm OK with that.

Personally, I'd rather post them on forums where the discussion is open minded and mature.

I'm not trying to "prove a point". I'm simply sharing the results of my informal surveys. But again, if there's no interest or if I'm violating this forum's rules in doing so, then I have no problem stopping and moving on.

Just let me know either way. Thanks.

omega four

2013-04-27, 03:32 PM

Personally I prefer the Battlefield series' tank combat over the PS2 tank combat. Mostly because I want turret stabilization and making the tanks have better traction (They slide too easily). Guess you could scratch it up to me not really liking the "feel" of the tank combat in PS2.

The respondents in my survey wouldn't know these points without actually having played all these games firsthand, but I completely agree with you.

I find that BC2's tank combat is by far the best of all 3 games (BC2, BF3, PS2) personally for the reasons you mentioned.

I think BF3's tanks move and slide around as if they're wearing ice skates on a skating rink. They also speed along as if they were sports cars, not tanks.

I think PS2 tanks need major help with turret stabilization, as it's almost impossible to aim when traversing bumpy terrain. And of all the games, PS2's terrain is by far the most undulated and diverse.

I think BC2's tank combat is as good as it gets. The tanks move fast enough to outrun infantry, but not so fast that you think you're driving a sports car. The turrets are just stable enough to get a good shot off, but not so much "easy mode" where skill isn't a factor in tank battles. Finally, the tanks have good traction and don't slip and slide all over the place.

But again, the respondents in my survey wouldn't know any of this. They voted purely on what they saw in my Tank gameplay footage.

omega four

2013-04-27, 03:37 PM

Here is another tank gameplay comparison video that I showed my colleagues and friends shortly after the first tank comparison video. This video is exclusively about tank combat, whereas the first video showed more of a tank aesthetics perspective (moving around without fighting).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXRtpquBv_A

The respondents pretty much voted the same as with the first video. If anything, slightly more respondents voted in favor of BC2 since they found the tank combat more interesting than BF3 or PS2.

It was interesting to note however that more respondents voted PS2 for 2nd Place, as they found PS2's tank combat more interesting and realistic than BF3's.

BIGGByran

2013-04-27, 04:42 PM

Awesome points! I like these surveys, nice to see the point of view of a Casual Gamer and the possibility of getting new people in the game and what they think of it.

However I must say, there are some bad comparison, but sometimes they have to be made.

Infantry Combat:
The infantry combat isn't really showing what "decent" infantry combat in PS2 while the other game might be showing atleast that if not better. You may not be "cherry" picking the videos, but you are showing very "boring" combat in PS2. It almost seem like you picked 1 on 1 fights on PS2 which isn't a typical fight. You are going to have to cherry pick from all game and show 1) "Boring" 2) "Decent" and 3) "Intense" fighting so that you can show all sides of the game otherwise some games can suffer due to you showing its weak side only and not it's strengths.

Tanks:
Eh, can't really say much here, lol. PS2 tank fights do seem boring compared to those.
However! You, again, did not show the "whole picture." The tank fights maybe typical, but you did not seem to show them all the different tanks (MTB mainly). I don't think I saw a Magrider.

Graphics:
It sucks that you are comparing the games when PS2 has to run on low graphics so FPS don't suffer while other games are running on Ultra or atleast High. I noticed that some or most of the clips, that shadows were turned off and that the graphic settings were low.

Other Ideas:
1) Maybe cherry pick the Ultra Graphics (Physics PS2 On) all games and ask which do you like better. Try to show gameplay if possible. None of those clips you picked for PS2 was running on high settings, they seems like they were running low, or at the highest medium settings
2) Show the "true" possibility of the game by showing them the epic battles of each game.

Other Thoughts:
Just because the game is 4 years old doesn't mean it is bad in terms of graphics or gameplay, it just means that it has had enough time to flush out alot of kinks while "younger" games are still working them out.

omega four

2013-04-27, 07:10 PM

Thank you for the comments. As I'm NOT a casual gamer, I too also find it interesting to get the views and perspective of casual gamers like my colleagues and friends, from personal and professional reasons (part of my job duties includes analyzing stocks of entertainment and software companies).

The comparisons may seem "bad" and "off" in the videos but I'm really trying to give the respondents that I'm surveying a "typical" gameplay experience of a casual gamer in the comparison videos. That's why I'm not comparing "boring to boring" or "exciting to exciting", but instead have focused on "typical gameplay to typical gameplay". This keeps the comparisons on an even keel.

The truth is that most casual gamers will not take the time or make the effort to join an outfit, no matter how large or small they may be. So my gameplay videos are recorded from the perspective of playing as a solo "lone wolf" player and not as an outfit member.

Tanks: There was one magrider scene in there. It was hard to accumulate PS2 tank gameplay footage because honestly PS2 has shifted the balance of power towards infantry and away from tanks. As a result, tanks in PS2 don't live very long. And when they do live long, it's usually because the tank driver is playing very conservatively.

Graphics: Actually, my graphics are on Ultra settings for the most part with shadows on Low. The honest truth is that PS2's graphics aren't really that impressive even when compared to a 4 year old game like Bad Company 2. But to be fair, PS2 has to make some compromises to allow for thousands of players playing on the same server simultaneously. Still, the PS2 graphics are what they are.

Other Ideas: The goal of my surveys is not to show the ultimate potential of each game by cherry picking the best that each game has to offer. Instead, my goal is to see what the respondents feel about the typical gameplay that each game offers if they were to log in at random times (not necessarily peak hours) to play each game.

Other thoughts: I completely agree. For the purposes of my survey, I can only provide gameplay video footage from what I have to work with at the moment.

Awesome points! I like these surveys, nice to see the point of view of a Casual Gamer and the possibility of getting new people in the game and what they think of it.

However I must say, there are some bad comparison, but sometimes they have to be made.

Infantry Combat:
The infantry combat isn't really showing what "decent" infantry combat in PS2 while the other game might be showing atleast that if not better. You may not be "cherry" picking the videos, but you are showing very "boring" combat in PS2. It almost seem like you picked 1 on 1 fights on PS2 which isn't a typical fight. You are going to have to cherry pick from all game and show 1) "Boring" 2) "Decent" and 3) "Intense" fighting so that you can show all sides of the game otherwise some games can suffer due to you showing its weak side only and not it's strengths.

Tanks:
Eh, can't really say much here, lol. PS2 tank fights do seem boring compared to those.
However! You, again, did not show the "whole picture." The tank fights maybe typical, but you did not seem to show them all the different tanks (MTB mainly). I don't think I saw a Magrider.

Graphics:
It sucks that you are comparing the games when PS2 has to run on low graphics so FPS don't suffer while other games are running on Ultra or atleast High. I noticed that some or most of the clips, that shadows were turned off and that the graphic settings were low.

Other Ideas:
1) Maybe cherry pick the Ultra Graphics (Physics PS2 On) all games and ask which do you like better. Try to show gameplay if possible. None of those clips you picked for PS2 was running on high settings, they seems like they were running low, or at the highest medium settings
2) Show the "true" possibility of the game by showing them the epic battles of each game.

Other Thoughts:
Just because the game is 4 years old doesn't mean it is bad in terms of graphics or gameplay, it just means that it has had enough time to flush out alot of kinks while "younger" games are still working them out.

omega four

2013-04-27, 08:33 PM

One survey that I will NOT be conducting is Air Combat. PS2 wins that one by default simply because it's the only game that makes aircraft EASILY available to every gamer.

In contrast, Bad Company 2 and BF3 only offer a very limited number of aircraft (2 or 3 at most) per side. While this is balanced for gameplay reasons, it also results in many gamers sitting around their home base waiting to use aircraft or, much worse, players griefing their own teammates over use of aircraft.

BIGGByran

2013-04-27, 08:42 PM

The comparisons may seem "bad" and "off" in the videos but I'm really trying to give the respondents that I'm surveying a "typical" gameplay experience of a casual gamer in the comparison videos. That's why I'm not comparing "boring to boring" or "exciting to exciting", but instead have focused on "typical gameplay to typical gameplay". This keeps the comparisons on an even keel.

I guess the "Infantry" video is what gets me. You say thats what a typical fight in PS2 is, but in all honesty, it isn't. But I guess it would be if you chose to pick fights where there isn't an enemy squad at the location. A typical fight can be 96 vs 96 vs 96 if you want it to be. Just look at your map and find "Enemy Platoons" (not Enemy Platoon. The 's' is the key letter). Everyday, even during slow hours (I guess on decently populated servers) there is always an enemy platoon fighting on your border somewhere.
If a casual player decides to always pick locations where there is only "Enemies Detected" then their typical play will be like what you showed, but if the casual player looks for Enemy Platoon(s) then their typical gameplay will be more epic.
I play during off hours (10am-12pm and 1am-4am) and still find platoon vs platoon battles all the time. So I guess this is why I don't believe the video that you showed of PS2 to be very representative of true PS2 battle even for a casual gamer. Now mind you, a lot has changed since release and fight are found on all continents and not just Indar anymore. Before, it use to be just Indar for the fights and ghost cap on the other continents. It isn't like that anymore on my server.

The truth is that most casual gamers will not take the time or make the effort to join an outfit, no matter how large or small they may be. So my gameplay videos are recorded from the perspective of playing as a solo "lone wolf" player and not as an outfit member.

This game doesn't force you to join an Outfit, you can always find squads. Just think of PS2 as a larger version of those game, because it is. I have solo'ed quite a bit in that game, roughly 1/4 of my game time, and it wasn't hard to enjoy the game. Games with co-op in it is alway more fun when you play with friends or a consistant group of people. That can be said on all 3 of those games. (Also add the bit above about finding fights even as a Lone Wolf player)

Tanks: There was one magrider scene in there. It was hard to accumulate PS2 tank gameplay footage because honestly PS2 has shifted the balance of power towards infantry and away from tanks. As a result, tanks in PS2 don't live very long. And when they do live long, it's usually because the tank driver is playing very conservatively.

Truth. They need to do something, I just don't know what the solution could be. Maybe make outside fighting dangerous for infantry but more for Tanks and Aircraft, but make "inside" base fighting for infantry only with no to little vehicle support.

Graphics: Actually, my graphics are on Ultra settings for the most part with shadows on Low. The honest truth is that PS2's graphics aren't really that impressive even when compared to a 4 year old game like Bad Company 2. But to be fair, PS2 has to make some compromises to allow for thousands of players playing on the same server simultaneously. Still, the PS2 graphics are what they are.

Have you seen these? Please do watch them in HD when you can and tell me what you think.
PlanetSide 2 - Forge Light Trailer - PC

Planetside 2: True Ultra settings + PhysX + NO HUD [Amazing]

Or any on this list (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=planetside+2+ultra+graphics+n o+hud&oq=planetside+2+ultra&gs_l=youtube.3.2.0l10.281463.284166.0.286994.16.11 .0.2.2.2.94.673.11.11.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.Y o2E7nUovKY)

I think the graphics are there, it's just that we can't play with them lol.
Other Ideas: The goal of my surveys is not to show the ultimate potential of each game by cherry picking the best that each game has to offer. Instead, my goal is to see what the respondents feel about the typical gameplay that each game offers if they were to log in at random times (not necessarily peak hours) to play each game.

I understand, but then as a Surveyer, you should ask the player's of the game, what is their typical gameplay like, so you can best represent it to the respondents and not pick what you alone feels as a typical gameplay. As most people on here said, the video you showed did not represent typical gameplay and therefor PS2 was misrepresented.
And again I don't always play on peak hours (10am - 12pm 'noon' and 1am - 3am) but I still see platoon vs platoon vs platoon fights every night.

:)

omega four

2013-04-27, 10:20 PM

Thanks for your comments. A casual gamer isn't going to know the about "platoons vs. platoons" or any other nuances. He's going to click "Instant Action" like I did to make these game footage videos. And then he's going to see the battles that I recorded, for better or for worse.

Again, you and I have the benefit of experience with PS2 and all its nuances. Try looking at it from a casual gamer and newcomer to PS2. They aren't going to see all these things that we do, not for a while at least.

BIGGByran

2013-04-27, 10:55 PM

camycamera

2013-04-28, 08:30 AM

omega four

2013-04-28, 09:20 AM

but... you forgot the crown....

The Crown, and the Scarred Mesa Skydock for that matter, aren't as busy as they used to be....

omega four

2013-04-28, 09:24 AM

I could point out a few things, but they would not be related to "first impressions" but more of the how a casual player plays a game based on his knowledge of previews game he has playing.

Anyways, I can't wait to see what else you have to show your respondents and the response they have to say. So what's next?

Will you be doing one with Vets that have played all 3 to see what they like and dislike and which they like better?

I don't do surveys of vets because they are comprise a relatively smaller group of experienced players. That's not to say that they aren't important. It's just to say that most companies don't really seek to cater to this demographic from a sales perspective.

My goal is to survey the largest demographic of gamers, namely casual players, because it's this gamer demographic that software and entertainment companies target and cater towards to achieve their revenue and profit goals (at least those companies that want to succeed from a financial perspective).

My surveys aren't conducted to necessarily determine the BEST game but rather to find out which game is most likely to ATTRACT casual gamers and newcomers.

SturmovikDrakon

2013-04-28, 12:42 PM

I think what your videos show best is what SOE can learn from DICE in terms of audio, animation and visual feedback in gameplay.

Your turret video show it the best I feel. In BC2, your aim jitters when you shoot, providing good feedback and truly making it feel like the weapon is powerful. There s no COF, but the recoil animation provides a good counter-balance on top of the feedback

In PS2, the turret suffers from weaker audio (compared to BC2) and no other feedback other then the COF increase, and that COF increase makes it feel as if you're not in control of the weapon you're using, which I think greatly cheapens the experience.

Most important part is improving the feedback when the player pulls the trigger and making it feel good. I would personally remove COF from all mounted turrets in PS2 and emplacements and balance them in other ways (this might sound off-topic but it all ties together in the end)

omega four

2013-04-28, 02:00 PM

You've made some great points.

Those I surveyed felt that the PS2 turrets looked nice and interesting UNTIL they actually started firing. Then the respondents felt that something was "off".

With the BC2 turrets, those surveyed thought they looked normal and not particularly "sexy" UNTIL they started firing. Then the respondents were amazed at how realistic the BC2 turrets appeared.

The respondents felt similarly about the BC2 and PS2 tanks, respectively.

I think what your videos show best is what SOE can learn from DICE in terms of audio, animation and visual feedback in gameplay.

Your turret emplacement show it the best I feel. In BC2, your aim jitters when you shoot, providing good feedback and truly making it feel like the weapon is powerful. There s no COF, but the recoil animation provides a good counter-balance on top of the feedback

In PS2, the turret suffers from weaker audio (compared to BC2) and no other feedback other then the COF increase, and that COF increase makes it feel as if you're not in control of the weapon you're using.

I would personally remove COF from all mounted turrets in PS2 and emplacements and balance them in other ways, but most important part is improving the feedback when the player pulls the trigger

Mordelicius

2013-04-28, 02:11 PM

If other games can beat Planetside 2's scale, then by all means do it.

Here's an example of what PS2 is capable of. Note: not my video. I'm sure there are better videos, but found this in a 1 minute search.

Planetside 2 Huge Desert Battle - Post Server Merges 1080p HD - YouTube

The reason big battles happen less often is because they killed the "instant action" button before releasing the new Rush Lanes system (now on Public Test Server). It's much harder to coalesce and concentrate forces on the right area than it used to be.

Yesterday, NC and TR had a good meatgrinder fight on the new Peris satellite. And that's with limited number of players.

moosepoop

2013-04-28, 02:30 PM

Those I surveyed felt that the PS2 turrets looked nice and interesting UNTIL they actually started firing. Then the respondents felt that something was "off".

its the sound effects.

in bc2 and bf3 they recorded actual sounds from inside the cockpit of the tank. you can hear all the tiny details.

the components i heard were engine rumbling + muffled cannon sound + autoloader sound

visual difference i noted was, despit having turret stabilization and little recoil, the screen wobbles shakes a lot when you fire, giving that powerful feel.

omega four

2013-04-28, 02:52 PM

maradine

2013-04-28, 03:33 PM

Perhaps your friends can play the games that they enjoy, and we can play the game(s) that we enjoy. That would be an interesting world.

Sledgecrushr

2013-04-28, 03:38 PM

These last two american wars against impoverished third world countries has ruined wargaming. Yes bullets kill enemy combatants with two shots, when all they have for armor is a dirty tee shirt. Yes tanks can drive anywhere with impunity, when superior airpower has destroyed the enemies ww2 era russian tanks and their infantry does not have portable armor killing rockets.

Its hard to explain to people that everything changes when there is parity between the combatants. When everyones tanks can kill your tank in one shot then you use cover.

I would like to see a recording of your session with these willing focus testers that you have. Because I think you are full of shit.

Maidere

2013-04-28, 03:43 PM

These last two american wars against impoverished third world countries has ruined wargaming.
You made my day dude.

Mordelicius

2013-04-28, 04:20 PM

Again, the point of my surveys is NOT to determine which game is "better" than the other. The point is to see what elements entices and attracts casual gamers to try out a game in the first place.

Please keep this in mind before responding defensively to what other games can or cannot do with regards to PS2. It's simply apples and oranges. PS2 is primarily catered for organized, massive Realm vs Realm fights.

Not to say it won't appeal to every player. It's just that Planetside 2 is not very newb friendly atm.

A couple of friends happened to be at my place so I showed them the short video that you posted. Here are their comments on the video and game:

* Why are the tanks hiding behind hills? Shouldn't the tanks be attacking the enemy like tanks do? Easy. Tanks are extremely cheap to acquire in this game. They capped the resources to 750. I'm pure infantry specialist (and not a tank user) but I believe they cost 200 (or 300) for Lightning and 400 for MBT (not entirely sure). Now compare that to infantry proximity mine (75), tank mine (100), grenade (75) etc. In short, it's for balancing reasons. If they make tanks way too powerful (note: check out what happened with the Magriders and Prowlers before they got nerfed. They destroyed all land battles and camped in faraway hills). It's the compound effect of tanks. If they are cheap, clustered and powerful, basically all non-tank ground units will be obliterated within firing range (and that's just what happened before the nerfs).

Having said that, Higby said they will give tanks probably 20% more HP. Also, wait for the resource revamp. Let's see what they do there if they change the cap and rate of flow. Imo, they artificially capped it low to prevent players from going afk and accumulate/stock large amounts of them. In short, for gameplay reasons.

* What are the red soliders shooting at? Why can't we really see the enemy up close and personal? There are many types of infantry. The one on that video is a Heavy Assault. He's not using scopes either. Heavy assault has two primarily roles: Line breaking and killing vehicles/aircraft with rocket launchers.

- The game has low TTk so if you just charge, you'll likely get shot first.
- There are also Infiltrators (Snipers).

Pick your poison: Slog through slowly cover to cover or rush the Tower base with high casualty and likely destroyed Sunderer (harder to respawn without them).

Lastly, here are many types of bases. Biolab fights are about 90% infantry fight (with a protected dome). Up close as you want to be.

* There's a lot of firing and smoke but why can't we see anything really happening.
- Because the NC have access to fixed Phalanx Turrets on that Tower type base (3rd floor. Means high vantage point and range). That's the main reason.
- Because the silly TR have their Sunderer (infantry spawn vehicle) too far away.
- Because the NC are obviously dug-in, likely with tanks, infantry, and even portable engineer turrets.

Keep in mind these are the comments from casual gamers. When asked if they would give PS2 a try based on what they saw in the video, they said maybe if they had nothing better to do at the moment (which was basically a "no" in polite terms). The selling point of PS2 is epic, large scale, cinematic fights. Also, they released with the barest amount of features possible (what TRay said). Basically, my guess, release it so they can start selling stuff asap while still developing the game.

Quite frankly I thought they will release this game June this year when I tried it in beta last year. Instead they released it November 20 just in time for Christmas.

The only downside for new players is the learning curve is relatively steep. There are no tutorials. Basically, learn as you go. But they just released the Virtual reality room so you can test ALL weapons, vehicles, aircraft and gadgets. And that's a start.

I'll look for good Biolab/Infantry videos on YouTube.

BIGGByran

2013-04-28, 04:42 PM

* Why are the tanks hiding behind hills? Shouldn't the tanks be attacking the enemy like tanks do?

* What are the red soliders shooting at? Why can't we really see the enemy up close and personal?

* There's a lot of firing and smoke but why can't we see anything really happening.

Keep in mind these are the comments from casual gamers. When asked if they would give PS2 a try based on what they saw in the video, they said maybe if they had nothing better to do at the moment (which was basically a "no" in polite terms).

These are legitimate questions, however, they will never be answer unless they play the game to understand it, or atleast have someone explain what is going on. Someone can judge a game by asthetics easily (on all 3 games), but will generally not know whats "truelly" going on in the video and I can understand that from their point of view.

Idea:

How about a survey on: Would you play this game based on:

1) Game Trailer:
PlanetSide 2 Trailer -- Epic First Person Shooter!

2) Gameplay Trailer:
PlanetSide 2 - The Future of War .

This is how gaming companies try to get the casual gamers into their games, so this is a very good survey to do! can't wait to see it if you do it.

You will have to find BC2 and BF3 official trailer. I dunno if they have a Trailer and a Gameplay Trailer. I would be interested to know what they would play based strickly on trailers. Plus if you put it together, I would like to see BC2 and BF3 official trailer and do the same judgement.

omega four

2013-04-28, 04:49 PM

These are legitimate questions, however, they will never be answer unless they play the game to understand it, or atleast have someone explain what is going on. Someone can judge a game by asthetics easily, but will generally not know whats "truelly" going on in the video and I can understand that from their point of view.

That is very true.

There is a saying that goes "You can't judge a book by its cover."

While we know that is well and true, we also know that MANY people do in fact judge "books" by their "covers".

So too many casual gamers judge games by what they see, without taking the time to play a game and learn its nuances firsthand.

That is the point of my surveys of casual gamers.

omega four

2013-04-28, 04:50 PM

I showed this short video comparing the melee (knife hand attacks) gameplay between Bad Company 2 (a 4 year old game), BF3, and PS2 (the most recent game) to colleagues and friends (all casual gamers).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_xrUfi19hM

Based on what they saw, I asked those surveyed which game they would be most likely to try out. The game that got the most votes was BF3, followed by BC2, and then PS2.

The respondents mostly felt that the melee attacks in BF3 were the most visually and graphically depicted. A few even found the melee depictions "grotesque" and "violently disturbing". Most respondents liked how BF3 provided both visual (dogtags) and audio (gagging, crying out) clues that a melee attack was successfully executed.

On the other hand, most respondents were not impressed with how subtle the melee attacks were depicted in PS2 from both a visual and audio perspective. In fact, some respondents were not even sure that melee attacks were occurring, citing the subtle visual and audio clues that accompanied a melee attack.

Most respondents liked how BC2 executed its melee attacks (dogtags, blood, screaming). However, they felt that BC2's melee attacks were not as striking from a visual and audio perspective as those of BF3's.