IGN Reviews PlanetSide (7.7 Score - Negative comments)

[Squeeky]

IGN Has a 5 page review of PlanetSide up. This review is an extensive review, and IGN isn't as pleased as the other sites are with PlanetSide. WIth a review score of 7.7, the comments aren't all that great. This is one of those rare occasions when a site has negative comments for the game. Here is a snip for you to chew on:

I had a lot of hope for PlanetSide. When I saw it down in San Diego a few months back, I even had hope because it hadn't even entered beta. But sadly the final product just couldn't hold in and conquer all of the great ideas that are the foundation of the product.

Check out the full review in the link below.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/422/422895p1.html

[Prowler]

Fair Score imo.

[Masurao]

I think IGN has it down 100%

[reaver101]

There really should be victory conditions and a server reset when they had been met. I mean, wars do end eventually.

[Prowler]

Originally posted by reaver101
There really should be victory conditions and a server reset when they had been met. I mean, wars do end eventually.


Or do they.......

[Ginzue]

Bah I love the game to death. Now think about this for a second, (evarybody is way to critical) think of a game that is JSUT like PS but is better.....

There...

[OneManArmy]

the yugo may have been the only car of like it of its time. that doesn't make it a good car....

[wasupx]

sounds bout right. It seems like the reviewer got a negative impression and stuck through that view. I seen other reviews just the opposite, guy loved playing it and overlooked the faults.

Mainly look at his view of the graphics: "The game looks nice, especially for a MMOFPS, but really only if you have everything at high detail. Low detail really kinda sucks." he gives it an 8.0.

no shit, most games look like shit when you put it on low detail. Sorry, i get the bias feeling too much with reviewers these days.

[FadeToBlack]

I think it hit pretty dead on. I did kinda like his idea of city warfare, quite interesting.

[MJBuddy]

It was fair imo, id only give PS about an 8, which it only deserves becauses it actually is fun to play

graphics, weapons, lag, gltiches...all bad points on the scale

hell, the crash to desktop glitch is back now, only now it's zoned and everyone within certain areas just randomly crash

do u KNOW how hard it is to defend a CC if everyone in the room goes into LD due to crash? they could waltz in, kill everything and hack

[Sputty]

Rating an MMO after less than a month isn't really fair at all. The entire point is they add content continuously. They better do another review in a few months time.

[kerosene31]

I am having tons of fun playing PS, but their complaints are fair I think. However, I feel that with Sony and the fact that this game is pay to play, that we will see a lot more improvements as far as new continents, etc. I think they already hinted at one somewhere. We also have new vehicles for sure.

If this were some unknown company I would worry, but Sony did a great job supporting EQ and improving it over years.

I can really see us a year from now looking back and saying "remember when the game first came out? All we had was..."

[Cyber]

While he does hit on some valid points he also calls on alot of things as negitive that to me either simply don't exist in the game or I just disagree with.

The most obvious of these two me is the "long wait times to get into the action" - Sorry, this one I really can't agree with. Play any other MMOG and the wait times are 2-3x what you see in PS. 10 minutes (if your the most unlucky SOB logging in) to wait for the hart that will take you ANYWHERE IN THE GAMEWORLD is too long ? Heck you can even try your hand at instant action during that wait time to see if it'll land you somewhere good (admittly this rarely seems to work anymore, but you can just recall for the hart immediately if it looks lousy).

There's some other ones that are questionable, each continent in PS has it's own rather unique feel compared to the others. For instance while Cyssor / Amerish and Forestal are all 'green' each one plays and feels signficantly different then others.

*shrugs* Either way it seems like this guy while he does have some good points got too mired in trying to find as many things as possible to complain about. And then turned around and gave it a *semi* ok score.

Of course with IGN, I wonder if that just means Sony didn't fork over enough ad money for good review. ;)

[FzzyNoNoseChimp]

This has been the most accurate review of the game I have seen yet. I love Planetside to death and I will continue playing it, but I still must admit that IGN nailed each and every fault of PS on the head and adresses them. Whats great about Sony and the Dev's is that they will continue to update this game and spend countless hours improving the experience. I do hope the devs take a look at this review because I believe it is the best accumulation of all of the problems that PS is currently enduring!

[Marsman]

I'm not particually impressed by a reviewer that doesn't even know the number of battle continents on the planet. (There are 10 battle continents and 3 sanctuaries, not 7!). Pretty things to look at is an RPG viewpoint - not an FPS viewpoint. When's the last time you admired the rocks in a game of quake? Such things are just fluff in an FPS. While the review does point out some valid shortcomings, I felt it was overly critical towards areas a FPS player could care less about. Victory conditions are subject to point of view. Planterside chose not to be a slave to a preset timer or obtaining a single goal in favor of a persisitent world where victory lies in the personal achievments of the sqaud and its players. I personally don't need a match to end to enjoy the feeling of acomplishment. The review did hit one aspect dead on - the right squad and teammates make or break planetside. A well organized squad can be effective, kick ass, and have a ton of fun in the process whereas a poor squad and team can be an exercize in frustration and bordom. This game requires teamwork like no other I have seen, which is it's prime appeal to me. That combined with sheer scale of players and battle enviroments make planetside like no other game out there. But if fluff and the need to be held by the hand and pointed to a decisive victory is your thing, PS probably isn't your game.

[TekDragon]

Cyber,
The most obvious of these two me is the "long wait times to get into the action" - Sorry, this one I really can't agree with. Play any other MMOG and the wait times are 2-3x what you see in PS.

Dont compare downtime in a RPG to downtime in a FPS. It makes you look silly. What downtime is there in Tribes? Unreal Tournament? Or maybe you dont want to focus on non-MM games. Ever play 10six? I could log on, grab a gun, armor, mods, gear, and vehicles and head to an enemy base within 2 minutes.

PS has 1/50-1/100 the weapons/armor/mods/gear that 10six had. PS has a fraction of the complexity. Yet PS has more downtime. Hmmm....

There's some other ones that are questionable, each continent in PS has it's own rather unique feel compared to the others. For instance while Cyssor / Amerish and Forestal are all 'green' each one plays and feels signficantly different then others.

It doesnt realy matter what the terrain looks like when the developers designed the game so that the ONLY thing that mattered was bases. They didnt design in a way to keep frontlines out in the wilds. It happens sporadically, but 95% of the fighting happens around bases.

Keeping that in mind: the devs decided to see just how lazy they could be and designed FIVE bases for the ENTIRE world for handling almost ALL of the combat. Of COURSE a reviewer is going to say everything looks the same.

If the devs do one of the following (or both), then it wont be an issue:
1. Find a way to move the front lines out into the terrain
2. Spend a few hours making some more god damn base designs

Until they feel like doing either of these, one an important game design, and the other a simple task requiring a minimum of effort... then a reviewer should be free to critisize.

[condor]

:mad: :mad: IGN You cant handle the fact that PlanetSide is the only one of its kind and so you rip on it. Ill have you no that there are outfits that you can join permanately. There are more than enough people to make the game fun; The experiance is incredible. The landcsape is realistic and make you feel like your there. You failed to mention the incredible base structures, towers, and warpgates which are beautiful. Everything is nagative and you hopelessy rip on someones succes because it's not you. Patches continually improve the game making the lags shorter and happen less. New vehicles have been designed and are being implemented on Monday 9. You dont bother to check out the new website for Planetside that has an up-to-date Battlefield Report of the continents and who owns them. You constantly mess up reviews saying "... I like the MAXes better because they are faster." This is completely bogus and im starting to wonder if you actually played the game or your making a dumb excuse. Now, to the game design. It's a game about war, do you expect objectives like "scout a base but dont do anything and report back to commanders about the enemies in the area." You kill other people and take over bases. What do you WANT? The abuse of PlanetSide was uncalled for and is unfair for a game of PlanetSide's calibur(get calibur, as in gun)
Planetside Rocks

[Navaron]

I liked the review. You could tell he hadn't spent *alot* of time with the game, but the review does give one perspective I haven't heard yet - what joe blow will think when he buys the game. He nailed most of the complaints and problems I've heard from others, and some I share.

I can honestly say, the game will be great. I think it should've released with more options, and more toys. He's right, all three sides are the same, all bases are the same, and locking 3 continents and coming back to see them flip flopped is not uncommon. There is little story, and little story or game supported reason to hold bases. This doesn't mean I don't like the game, but that I like it enough to point out what I think it needs.

I'd say in a follow up review, or a review of an expansion pack he'll be singing the prodigal son's tune.

*edit* whew, almost missed a chance to slam the flight model

/slams flight model

;)

[Doppler]

Could anyone else find this guys name anywhere in the piece? I couldnt, speaks bad to me when you put I in a document so much, but dont sign your name at the end. Personaly I think some of his points may have been right, and some of his points are indicative of the twitch gamer monopoly that seems to be taking over at IGN. Here's how i see this guys house, he's got every console known to man, but his computer he got from work so he can do reviews at home. Seriously i may study journalism over computer science just because it seems so much easier to bash then to actualy create.

[Doppler]

Also, too much of his review seems to be colored by his interactions with players, this guy who complains about how long it takes for squads to get up and running also professes his lvoe for being a grunt because he doesnt have to lead. All in all i think it's unfair to judge a game based on it's player base, by that logic whatever EQ gets should be half of what it is.