The Reddit Q&A Makes Me Nervous

[Figment]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I like how everyone is such an 'expert' on how an MMOFPS can and cannot work due to playing one game and having zero design experience.

I wouldn't say that assertion to be correct: there are quite a few people in the PS community that design stuff for a living. Quite a few engineers, there are even game designers around.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I agree with OP. I posted this in another thread, but it's very relevant here:


The more I learn about this game, the more nervous I am becoming.

More and more it sounds like they've been taking steps backward rather than forwards in both design and ambition with this new release. As far as I can tell, there are fewer continents, fewer facilities, and fewer vehicles. Loadouts have been limited, so that's no longer up to the creativity and preference of the player to choose what they carry; they just pick a 'kit' and have to work with what they have in that kit. You can't be a heavy weapons guy who doubles as a medic. It's verbotten in the New Planetside.

If it weren't for the updated graphics I would think this was a design document that had been given a few more years to bake before it was released as PS1.

I'm also really, really nervous at just how much is being cribbed from Battlefield. I mean, look, I know Higby likes the Battlefield games. I liked Bad Company 2. Thing is, if I wanna play Battlefield, I can just play that; and I imagine people who are in the market for Battlefield games probably feel the same way. SOE seems to be hoping that the 'mmofps' appeal will carry Planetside 2 pretty much all on its own; if it didn't have that feature, it sounds like someone could reasonably confuse PS2 with a really elaborate Battlefield mod.

This game seems really low on the innovation, and really high on the imitation. Factor in all the corners they have to cut in order to wrap it all in a nice glossy next-gen bundle and what we're left with is a sequel that will launch as HALF the game the original was when IT launched.

I loved Planetside. I played it more than pretty much anyone. I've been drooling over the possibility of a sequel. But the more I learn about PS2, the more that drool is drying up, and being replaced with a really uneasy feeling...

P.S. It's worth pointing out that saying "Well, we'll see how it is in Beta and work with the problems then" is a nonsense statement. By the time they roll out the beta, the core game mechanics will be in place. Some minor tweaking on power and movements and aesthetics and balance will probably be discussed, but the core gameplay we see in beta will be there at launch.

And the launch sounds like it's going to be very weak, just looking at the volume of content when compared to PS1.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

You can't be a heavy weapons guy who doubles as a medic. It's verbotten in the New Planetside.

And using HA as a cloaker or bolting an armor repper to your max were verboten in the old planetside, whats your point?

fewer continents, fewer facilities, and fewer vehicles.

But they are far, far better designed. Facilities are superficially similar, but individual layouts will differ. Fewer vehicles, but they can actually be customized now.

Loadouts have been limited

Loadouts have always been limited. They are now limited in a different way. MAX units gain mucho customization.

so that's no longer up to the creativity and preference of the player to choose what they carry

You mean my creative rexo/ha/deci interior loadout? Or my rexo/MA/ESAV outside loadout? Or my creative Agile/ma + glue gun in the pack driver loadout?

Thing is, if I wanna play Battlefield, I can just play that

What if you want to play a Battlefield MMOFPS?

[Death2All]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Snip

Very well said. I think I agree with pretty much everything you said. Although, I think I'm a tad more optimistic than you


Also really liked this bit.

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

P.S. It's worth pointing out that saying "Well, we'll see how it is in Beta and work with the problems then" is a nonsense statement. By the time they roll out the beta, the core game mechanics will be in place. Some minor tweaking on power and movements and aesthetics and balance will probably be discussed, but the core gameplay we see in beta will be there at launch.

I'm tired of threads, ideas, opinions or what have you being instantly dismissed because some throws out that "Wait until beta" line. The whole point of making a thread discussing your thoughts and feelings about how feel about a particular gameplay element, is that you'll sway other's thoughts and or have someone from the development team pick up on it. That's ten-fold considering how in touch with the community has been with us thus far. Telling someone essentially to "shut up" kind of counteracts the entire point of making the thread in the first place.

[Death2All]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

And using HA as a cloaker or bolting an armor repper to your max were verboten in the old planetside, whats your point?

That.....you....could....do...that...?

[Shade Millith]

Originally Posted by Death2All

That.....you....could....do...that...?

What he meant was that it wasn't possible, because of balancing.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

snip

Hello.

Pointing out that there were fairly optimal loadouts for various roles does not discredit my complaint that by creating rote 'kits' variability can be hampered. Actually, it reinforces it. After all, even years after the launch of the game, top players would compare loadouts, figuring out creative or personalized ways of arranging items, combining weapons types, and so forth.

There was a lot to be said for being a rexo who carried maybe a suppressor and a loadout full of decis, if you could make it work. That was the magic of Planetside. Half the fun was figuring out how to make yourself the most useful you could be with limited resources, certs, inventory space, and slots.

Now we're edging more towards Battlefield, where the kits allow you to, oh, maybe choose a different color of gun. The game is basically doing it for you, patting you condescendingly and offering that you not worry your pretty little head about it, it'll figure out the best stuff for you, and pidgeon-hole you according to the rote classes the devs have decided they will employ. And why do they do this?

1) It's easy. All you need to do is copy the system wholesale from Battlefield, and then pump in a little planetside flavor, and knock off for lunch.

2) It makes balancing a breeze. If you don't allow players the freedom to explore the game's space, you can decide FOR THEM what they'll use, and not have to worry about pesky players who figure out optimal loadouts and such.

3) See reason 1.

I don't care if your MAX can have a machine gun or mine can have a laser. In PS1, there were three MAXes per empire. That's how they handled it; by adding additional content. And this fits in nicely with your rebuttal that there are 'less but better designed'.

If you mean 'glossier' then I agree with you; they are much better on the eyes. If you mean designed better from a gameplay perspective, I'm not so sure I'm sold; that's one of those things where it will be past the point of no return once we have an opportunity to actually see it. I will say this: any time you approach a game from a design standpoint and say "What the players really want is LESS VARIABILITY IN THEIR SURROUNDINGS" then you are on the wrong side of history.

When I hear "three facility types" I see all worthwhile infantry combat going down in the same three samey environments, and that's terribly boring. It's a lazy approach to design.

It just bodes very poorly when the starting position of the sequel is, when viewed from an objective standpoint of gameplay variety, starting off from a position far behind it's predecessor. You know what I see? I see an SOE meeting where someone said exactly what you did: "Hey, what is people wanna play Battlefield, but as an MMO? We can do that! They didn't copywrite all those little gameplay elements, and we have the Planetside brand. Let's just crib everything from DICE or whatever, make it all sci-fi, shove it in there."

Ask yourself; who is this game for? I know of many PS1 players who are leery of the Battlefield influence because, hey, we've all played battlefield, and the original Planetside lent nothing to that kind of pacing and setting. Is it for Battlefield players? Maybe some will show up for a month or two before going back; As good as PS2 looks, it will never match the populations, and the Battlefield players who are used to static, reliable match-based gameplay will get tired of hunting for battles and the considerably more deliberate, slower pace of Planetside.

Instead of offering something drastically new, SOE seems to be trying to go for the "It's Battlefield, but an MMO, with lasers!" appeal. The graveyards of the gaming industry are rich with headstones that read "It's like [popular game] but with [alternative setting]!"

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

What if you want to play a Battlefield MMOFPS?

I do, but they won't make one...PS2 is the only hope in the near term.

[Skittles]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Hello.

Pointing out that there were fairly optimal loadouts for various roles does not discredit my complaint that by creating rote 'kits' variability can be hampered. Actually, it reinforces it. After all, even years after the launch of the game, top players would compare loadouts, figuring out creative or personalized ways of arranging items, combining weapons types, and so forth.

There was a lot to be said for being a rexo who carried maybe a suppressor and a loadout full of decis, if you could make it work. That was the magic of Planetside. Half the fun was figuring out how to make yourself the most useful you could be with limited resources, certs, inventory space, and slots.

Now we're edging more towards Battlefield, where the kits allow you to, oh, maybe choose a different color of gun. The game is basically doing it for you, patting you condescendingly and offering that you not worry your pretty little head about it, it'll figure out the best stuff for you, and pidgeon-hole you according to the rote classes the devs have decided they will employ. And why do they do this?

1) It's easy. All you need to do is copy the system wholesale from Battlefield, and then pump in a little planetside flavor, and knock off for lunch.

2) It makes balancing a breeze. If you don't allow players the freedom to explore the game's space, you can decide FOR THEM what they'll use, and not have to worry about pesky players who figure out optimal loadouts and such.

3) See reason 1.

I don't care if your MAX can have a machine gun or mine can have a laser. In PS1, there were three MAXes per empire. That's how they handled it; by adding additional content. And this fits in nicely with your rebuttal that there are 'less but better designed'.

If you mean 'glossier' then I agree with you; they are much better on the eyes. If you mean designed better from a gameplay perspective, I'm not so sure I'm sold; that's one of those things where it will be past the point of no return once we have an opportunity to actually see it. I will say this: any time you approach a game from a design standpoint and say "What the players really want is LESS VARIABILITY IN THEIR SURROUNDINGS" then you are on the wrong side of history.

When I hear "three facility types" I see all worthwhile infantry combat going down in the same three samey environments, and that's terribly boring. It's a lazy approach to design.

It just bodes very poorly when the starting position of the sequel is, when viewed from an objective standpoint of gameplay variety, starting off from a position far behind it's predecessor. You know what I see? I see an SOE meeting where someone said exactly what you did: "Hey, what is people wanna play Battlefield, but as an MMO? We can do that! They didn't copywrite all those little gameplay elements, and we have the Planetside brand. Let's just crib everything from DICE or whatever, make it all sci-fi, shove it in there."

Ask yourself; who is this game for? I know of many PS1 players who are leery of the Battlefield influence because, hey, we've all played battlefield, and the original Planetside lent nothing to that kind of pacing and setting. Is it for Battlefield players? Maybe some will show up for a month or two before going back; As good as PS2 looks, it will never match the populations, and the Battlefield players who are used to static, reliable match-based gameplay will get tired of hunting for battles and the considerably more deliberate, slower pace of Planetside.

Instead of offering something drastically new, SOE seems to be trying to go for the "It's Battlefield, but an MMO, with lasers!" appeal. The graveyards of the gaming industry are rich with headstones that read "It's like [popular game] but with [alternative setting]!"

I wanted to quote both your previous posts but fuck it........................


I want to have your man-babies!!!


SPOT ON

With both posts, and what seems to escape the majority of people around here is that 3-6 months after PS2 is released and the new BF in the series is out and running 70% of the population will bail YET again on PS for a franchise that does BF better then all the imitators, and all those attempting to guide potential issues in another direction are stuck with a half-assed game of BF with purple-red-blue uniforms.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Skittles

I wanted to quote both your previous posts but fuck it........................


I want to have your man-babies!!!


SPOT ON

With both posts, and what seems to escape the majority of people around here is that 3-6 months after PS2 is released and the new BF in the series is out and running 70% of the population will bail YET again on PS for a franchise that does BF better then all the imitators, and all those attempting to guide potential issues in another direction are stuck with a half-assed game of BF with purple-red-blue uniforms.

You've hit the nail on the head. It's the terrible, dirty secret of what happens when one brand tries to imitate another.

"When you set out to be like X, all you do is remind your customers how much better X is compared to your imitation."

[Brusi]

I agree, except that PS2 will probably still be more fun to play than PS is now, regardless of it's attempts to immitate PS.

PS back in the day, however... unbeatable!

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Pointing out that there were fairly optimal loadouts for various roles does not discredit my complaint that by creating rote 'kits' variability can be hampered. Actually, it reinforces it. After all, even years after the launch of the game, top players would compare loadouts, figuring out creative or personalized ways of arranging items, combining weapons types, and so forth.

Fortunately you still get to alter what guns you carry, alter the guns themselves, and alter whatever it is you get to carry in those inventory slots.. grenades, medkits, etc.

Sure, the game is more restrictive in some aspects. I may not be able to make a medic with heavy armor. But its less restrictive in others. I may not be able to make exactly the type of medic I want to make, but I'll always be able to grab a medic if I wish.

Now we're edging more towards Battlefield, where the kits allow you to, oh, maybe choose a different color of gun. The game is basically doing it for you, patting you condescendingly and offering that you not worry your pretty little head about it, it'll figure out the best stuff for you, and pidgeon-hole you according to the rote classes the devs have decided they will employ. And why do they do this?

No, they are making balance decisions. Exactly the same type of balance decisions they made in PS1 when they patted you on the head and said we're not letting you use HA as a cloaker or a glue gun as a MAX or not letting you get into a driver seat in rexo, etc.

2) It makes balancing a breeze. If you don't allow players the freedom to explore the game's space, you can decide FOR THEM what they'll use, and not have to worry about pesky players who figure out optimal loadouts and such.

This, at least, is an agreeable statement. It does make balancing much easier. Considering the ceaseless bitching about balance in PS1, one would think people would appreciate this aspect.

I don't care if your MAX can have a machine gun or mine can have a laser. In PS1, there were three MAXes per empire. That's how they handled it; by adding additional content. And this fits in nicely with your rebuttal that there are 'less but better designed'.

So you count 3 100% identical units that had a gun that should have been changeable but weren't as 3x the content? Interesting. By that reasoning, each empire has 4 tanks, not 1, since they have 4 different weapon configurations.

If you mean designed better from a gameplay perspective, I'm not so sure I'm sold;

You would have to try really, really hard to make a worse FPS environment than PS1 bases and towers. What little they've shown of the new bases is far superior to what PS1 offered. Hell it took me weeks just to notice the difference between PS1 bases.

Also, the game is not just about bases anymore. A good portion of territory captures will take place in the field.

All that said, I agree that 3 bases is a pretty anemic number, and would be much happier if they'd said 5 or 6.

Ask yourself; who is this game for? I know of many PS1 players who are leery of the Battlefield influence because, hey, we've all played battlefield, and the original Planetside lent nothing to that kind of pacing and setting. Is it for Battlefield players? Maybe some will show up for a month or two before going back; As good as PS2 looks, it will never match the populations, and the Battlefield players who are used to static, reliable match-based gameplay will get tired of hunting for battles and the considerably more deliberate, slower pace of Planetside.

Instead of offering something drastically new, SOE seems to be trying to go for the "It's Battlefield, but an MMO, with lasers!" appeal. The graveyards of the gaming industry are rich with headstones that read "It's like [popular game] but with [alternative setting]!"

I believe they are making it for FPS fans, of which PS1 fans are a tiny subset. They are doing what all games do, copying what they perceive as fun/popular ideas others have proven, putting their own twist on it, and adding a few new things of their own. You know, like how PS1 copied many of the gameplay elements of Tribes?

Its also interesting that you take the wide array of different armors with different capabilities, and far more customization options for both infantry and vehicles, and an mmo environment with a pretty respectable variety of terrain, and a whole slew of mechanics to support logistics and direct the combat, and dismiss it all as them copying exactly what someone else did and slapping lasers on it. Oh yeah, sure, once you ignore a vast majority of the game, a small portion of it is somewhat, but not totally, like this other game.

Oh, and the games industry is also littered with the graves of 'Lets try this totally new and unique thing that nobody else has ever done!' and 'Lets just redo what we did last time.' Turns out making a good game is both really hard and a matter of no small amount of luck, and there is no winning formula.

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Fortunately you still get to alter what guns you carry, alter the guns themselves, and alter whatever it is you get to carry in those inventory slots.. grenades, medkits, etc.

Sure, the game is more restrictive in some aspects. I may not be able to make a medic with heavy armor. But its less restrictive in others. I may not be able to make exactly the type of medic I want to make, but I'll always be able to grab a medic if I wish.



No, they are making balance decisions. Exactly the same type of balance decisions they made in PS1 when they patted you on the head and said we're not letting you use HA as a cloaker or a glue gun as a MAX or not letting you get into a driver seat in rexo, etc.



This, at least, is an agreeable statement. It does make balancing much easier. Considering the ceaseless bitching about balance in PS1, one would think people would appreciate this aspect.



So you count 3 100% identical units that had a gun that should have been changeable but weren't as 3x the content? Interesting. By that reasoning, each empire has 4 tanks, not 1, since they have 4 different weapon configurations.



You would have to try really, really hard to make a worse FPS environment than PS1 bases and towers. What little they've shown of the new bases is far superior to what PS1 offered. Hell it took me weeks just to notice the difference between PS1 bases.

Also, the game is not just about bases anymore. A good portion of territory captures will take place in the field.

All that said, I agree that 3 bases is a pretty anemic number, and would be much happier if they'd said 5 or 6.


I believe they are making it for FPS fans, of which PS1 fans are a tiny subset. They are doing what all games do, copying what they perceive as fun/popular ideas others have proven, putting their own twist on it, and adding a few new things of their own. You know, like how PS1 copied many of the gameplay elements of Tribes?

Its also interesting that you take the wide array of different armors with different capabilities, and far more customization options for both infantry and vehicles, and an mmo environment with a pretty respectable variety of terrain, and a whole slew of mechanics to support logistics and direct the combat, and dismiss it all as them copying exactly what someone else did and slapping lasers on it. Oh yeah, sure, once you ignore a vast majority of the game, a small portion of it is somewhat, but not totally, like this other game.

Oh, and the games industry is also littered with the graves of 'Lets try this totally new and unique thing that nobody else has ever done!' and 'Lets just redo what we did last time.' Turns out making a good game is both really hard and a matter of no small amount of luck, and there is no winning formula.

I agree with what you said.

Tho I'd like to add that it's highly unlikely that if one has played a very niche game for years, despite all the drawbacks such as the subscription and low pop, that one will appreciate any iteration of PS2 that is both a PlanetSide game and commercially viable.

[Bittermen]

Originally Posted by duck

I agree with the OP.

This game will turn out to be like All Point Bulletin - full of hype, but game was terribly executed.

IMO APB looked like shit.

PS2 looks boss.


No reason to worry yourself over a game you haven't even played yet. Especially a F2P one.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

1) It's easy. All you need to do is copy the system wholesale from Battlefield, and then pump in a little planetside flavor, and knock off for lunch.

2) It makes balancing a breeze. If you don't allow players the freedom to explore the game's space, you can decide FOR THEM what they'll use, and not have to worry about pesky players who figure out optimal loadouts and such.

3) See reason 1.

If you expect me to buy the tripe that the devs are taking the easy short cut in making Planetside 2, you've got to be out of your mind. Do I honestly have to remind you that they are using a brand new engine, designing massive maps from scratch, and striving to achieve player numbers that have never been attempted with graphics of this quality? Taking the easy way out? Hardly.

Will classes make balancing easier? Probably, but so what? Balance was a freaking nightmare in Planetside with forum wars about balance being more brutal than any in-game battle. At least we can be assured that when they raise the level cap (and they will just like every other MMO) that we won't have to worry about everyone using the same exact one-man-army loadout.

You asked "who is the game for?" It's not only for people that played Planetside 1 and considering pretty much every fps player has dipped their toe in the COD / BF pool, you can rest assured that they can't be avoided.

Planetside 2 isn't innovative? If it's not, then please tell me what is, because I've been waiting for years for a game even remotely like this.