The Reddit Q&A Makes Me Nervous

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

These wouldn't happened to be the interviews where Higby can't go five minutes without saying "I play a lot of Battlefield and I was thinking, wouldn't it be cool if..." right?

The 'class kits', the lack of vehicle exit/entrance animations, the way the screen registers bullet hits, the numbers that pop up when you score a kill, the squad spawning, the focus on outdoor vs. indoor gameplay, the player indicators, the TTK, the pacing and speed of movement, the killcam, the weapon customization (do I have a laser pointer or a scope? OR BOTH?); all of these have been cribbed pretty much wholesale from Coddlefield.

The cert system that used to make PS really unique has been completely cut and replaced with the skills system from EVE. And who doesn't find EVE compelling? I'll tell you: 100% of the people not currently playing EVE.

What actually survived the transition from PS1 to PS2 is, far from being expanded, has been reduced and condensed. It's a step back in development, and would be less sad if it weren't so typical in the industry. Production companies all over the industry have spoken; we want less complexity, more lens flare. Fewer environments, more dynamic lighting. Fewer player options, crisper textures.

And then we wonder why fewer and fewer newer-generation games have the same charm and staying power of older titles. And I fear we will be wondering the same thing about PS2 when, twelve or sixteen months post-launch, it's already slipped into obscurity.

As a Battlefield refugee I have to say, not everything in Battlefield is bad, but DICE has completely gone to extremes of casualization in BF3. I assume, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that most of you PS folks are like me and you want "middle ground" on things. Middle ground TTK, that is, not fast, not slow. BF3 goes to many extremes...

[Marsgrim]

Interesting posts and points from a number of people.

From my perspective, when I first saw the gameplay videos released and subsequently those from GDC I knew right away that the mechanics/style of combat was going to be a BF3 rip off. The pacing looks just the same, and anyone who has played BF3 or COD is being disingenious if they advocate that those PS2 videos did not indicate that.

However, I felt that this was acceptable as I don't mind those games as a brainless way to fill an hour or 2. They are purely reactionary FPS games of a particular brand or style. I was willing to give those mechanics and style of play a chance within what I thought was going to be the same kind of MMO frame that PS had. The I read the Reddit Q&A.

Essentially, the strategy and tactical element of PS1 seems to have been abandoned in favour of a quick thrill, mindless firefight around a meaningless base on a meaningless continent with none of the actual war strategy that made PS so good.

Now it remains to be seen if the class system can create enough of a tactical playstyle that team work and interaction is preserved, but at this stage it's looking unlikely.

If there is no tactical/teamplay interaction and no strategic driver then there is no point in playing the game over BF3/COD. Those players already fans of those games are going to stick with them. However the PS faithful who have paid over a $1000 to SOE are going to get nothing that resembles our beloved game.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

The 'class kits'

Existed in PS1 for 9 max classes, and the 20 some odd vehicle classes. Ignores that fact that people did everything themselves in PS1. There was no need for a medic class since 75% of people were medics, and 95% were engineers, because it hurt nothing to carry those tools around.

the lack of vehicle exit/entrance animations

Is disappointing, but not that important. Frankly, you answered this best yourself..

Fewer environments, more dynamic lighting. Fewer player options, crisper textures.

Or are you going to try to spin it as being a gameplay feature rather than a graphical one?

the way the screen registers bullet hits

Do you mean you hitting someone? Or you getting hit? Either way, PS had both. The yellow circle in the reticle lit up when you got a hit. The entire screen flashed red and you had the direction indicator when you got hit.

the numbers that pop up when you score a kill

PS1 had numbers pop up, just in the chat screen. At any rate, this is extremely trivial, and I'd put good money on being a toggle anyway.

the squad spawning

The exact same functionality exists in PS1. The HART. They are speeding it up from a 6 minute turnaround to a 1 minute turnaround.

the focus on outdoor vs. indoor gameplay

Existed in PS1.

the player indicators

Existed in PS1. Forgotten the floating red names, and half dozen ways of making enemies show up on the minimap?

the TTK

Needed to be brought down, especially on the high end.

the pacing and speed of movement

Needed improving.

the killcam

Existed in PS1. Oh, but nobody ever stayed dead for intel...

the weapon customization

Complain about lack of customization. Complain about customization.





Or whatever. Sure. PS1 was the best game ever and nothing needed changing, and PS2 is a pure BF3 clone with absolutely nothing new to offer in any way, and will fail because its copying BF instead of copying PS1.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

As a Battlefield refugee I have to say, not everything in Battlefield is bad, but DICE has completely gone to extremes of casualization in BF3. I assume, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that most of you PS folks are like me and you want "middle ground" on things. Middle ground TTK, that is, not fast, not slow. BF3 goes to many extremes...

You're getting close but it's a bit more nuanced than that. PS1 had a pacing and TTK and everything else that was fairly unique to it, and harkened more towards the older arena shooters than it did the gritty war shooters we see today. Even a jackhammer needed to hit you three times before it could kill you from full health. It looks like a short burst from an SMG will do the job, now.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Existed in PS1 for 9 max classes, and the 20 some odd vehicle classes. Ignores that fact that people did everything themselves in PS1. There was no need for a medic class since 75% of people were medics, and 95% were engineers, because it hurt nothing to carry those tools around.



Is disappointing, but not that important. Frankly, you answered this best yourself..



Or are you going to try to spin it as being a gameplay feature rather than a graphical one?




Do you mean you hitting someone? Or you getting hit? Either way, PS had both. The yellow circle in the reticle lit up when you got a hit. The entire screen flashed red and you had the direction indicator when you got hit.



PS1 had numbers pop up, just in the chat screen. At any rate, this is extremely trivial, and I'd put good money on being a toggle anyway.



The exact same functionality exists in PS1. The HART. They are speeding it up from a 6 minute turnaround to a 1 minute turnaround.



Existed in PS1.



Existed in PS1. Forgotten the floating red names, and half dozen ways of making enemies show up on the minimap?



Needed to be brought down, especially on the high end.



Needed improving.



Existed in PS1. Oh, but nobody ever stayed dead for intel...



Complain about lack of customization. Complain about customization.





Or whatever. Sure. PS1 was the best game ever and nothing needed changing, and PS2 is a pure BF3 clone with absolutely nothing new to offer in any way, and will fail because its copying BF instead of copying PS1.

This is perhaps the best example ever offered of 'missing the forest for the trees'. I'm not even going to respond to it, because it would mar its perfection. I'm just going to let it sit there as an example to any and all who actually bothered reading my posts and pulled from it the context of what I was trying to get across, because I don't believe there is any helping this individual.

The important thing to remember about apologists, ladies and gentlemen, is in the face of a critic, they will say anything, literally anything, they can to 'discredit' an opinion, just short of actually addressing the central issue.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

This is perhaps the best example ever offered of 'missing the forest for the trees'. I'm not even going to respond to it, because it would mar its perfection. I'm just going to let it sit there as an example to any and all who actually bothered reading my posts and pulled from it the context of what I was trying to get across, because I don't believe there is any helping this individual.

The important thing to remember about apologists, ladies and gentlemen, is in the face of a critic, they will say anything, literally anything, they can to 'discredit' an opinion, just short of actually addressing the central issue.

You fail to address his points. You simply resorted to discrediting his opinion and ignored his issues with yours.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Marsgrim

Essentially, the strategy and tactical element of PS1 seems to have been abandoned in favour of a quick thrill, mindless firefight around a meaningless base on a meaningless continent with none of the actual war strategy that made PS so good.

I honestly cannot understand how you reach this conclusion. If anything PS2 will have MORE depth in strategy and tactics than PS1 ever had.

Right off the bat, the hex / territory capture addition is a gigantic leap forward in overall strategy. In PS1 with the lattice, every battle was just a hop to the next base where you grind away at the same doorway or stairwell until you break through.

Compare that to capturing territory that provide valuable resources you need for your vehicles and different territory is captured in different ways, and bases have many more capture points. It creates exponentially more options for different tactics.

We still have alot to learn about how exactly resources factor in, but they WILL be a factor so to say capturing them will be "meaningless" is completely off base. They will have far more meaning than turning a continent all one color on some global map.

Battlefield clone? Plattlefield? HAHAHA Why don't you just call it Counter-Strikefield or Goldeneyefield?

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

The important thing to remember about apologists, ladies and gentlemen, is in the face of a critic, they will say anything, literally anything, they can to 'discredit' an opinion, just short of actually addressing the central issue.

If one was not supposed to discuss the 'trees', why did you introduce them as a topic?


The central issue is you are annoyed because you feel they are not copying the game you want them to copy closely enough. You think that they are instead copying a game you do not want them to copy too closely. Since you're a fan of the first game, and not a fan of the second, you feel a mistake is being made, and anyone who disagrees with you is an apologist, a fanboy, or not a true fan.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

You fail to address his points. You simply resorted to discrediting his opinion and ignored his issues with yours.

I see what you did there.

Understand that it's not like I can't go point for point and refute everything he says. I absolutely could and, perhaps a younger, less world-wise me would have leaped at the opportunity and made a delightfully fun afternoon out of the project. But in the end of the day, I'd be giving him what he wanted.

See, the point isn't really to settle on any of the specific elements; we could go back and forth all day and, in fact, that's the objective. Because if we're doing that, then we're not talking about the core issue: that Planetside 2 as presented stands to bring nothing new to the table and is in fact a weaker-looking product than its predecessor.

He disagrees with me, but has yet to really present any compelling evidence that what I am asserting is simply not true. He is instead establishing straw man arguments (such as that PS2 is a direct copy of BF3, and that PS1 is perfect, and numerous other things I've never said) and trying to mire the conversation into a pedantic deconstruction of every single individual element because, and this is important, he either cannot or will not proffer a point of view that I or my fellow skeptics may find compelling. He has tried, in the past, and it didn't take, so now we're on Step 2: Quibble About The Little Things.

Well, no thank you. I'm more interested in the bigger picture. I'm more interested in the forest. I'm more interested in discussing whether or not the game stands to be successful when cribbing so much from other games, and providing so little of its own inspiration.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Raymac

I honestly cannot understand how you reach this conclusion. If anything PS2 will have MORE depth in strategy and tactics than PS1 ever had.

Right off the bat, the hex / territory capture addition is a gigantic leap forward in overall strategy. In PS1 with the lattice, every battle was just a hop to the next base where you grind away at the same doorway or stairwell until you break through.

Compare that to capturing territory that provide valuable resources you need for your vehicles and different territory is captured in different ways, and bases have many more capture points. It creates exponentially more options for different tactics.

We still have alot to learn about how exactly resources factor in, but they WILL be a factor so to say capturing them will be "meaningless" is completely off base. They will have far more meaning than turning a continent all one color on some global map.

Battlefield clone? Plattlefield? HAHAHA Why don't you just call it Counter-Strikefield or Goldeneyefield?

As we haven't had an opportunity to see how the global tactical game will flow, I have opted not to comment about my misgivings here. I am only saying that they are releasing a game that is a follow-up to an earlier one, with what seems to be considerably less content; more to the point, less environmental variability. Three continents? Three base types? Even my detractors have described that as 'anemic'.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Well, no thank you. I'm more interested in the bigger picture. I'm more interested in the forest. I'm more interested in discussing whether or not the game stands to be successful when cribbing so much from other games, and providing so little of its own inspiration.

You want the bigger picture? Battlefield 3 has sold over 11 million copies. 11 Million. If Planetside 2 uses some features from that game it doesn't change Planetside's core gameplay. Planetside is still an MMOFPS and that aspect alone encourages more meta game alone than BF3 will ever be able to produce.

No, you do not care if the game stands to be successful. You care if it fits with your views as to what is enjoyable or not at the expense of everyone else.

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

As we haven't had an opportunity to see how the global tactical game will flow, I have opted not to comment about my misgivings here. I am only saying that they are releasing a game that is a follow-up to an earlier one, with what seems to be considerably less content; more to the point, less environmental variability. Three continents? Three base types? Even my detractors have described that as 'anemic'.

Planetside 1 is currently to big for it's own playerbase and has been for quite some time, there are too many continents and too little fights. At the launch of PS1 there were more continents just to partition the server load.

PS2 hopefully wont have this problem. you can have bigger fights on quality hand crafted continents with more environmental variability per cont than there were in 3 of PS1's. Not only this but the bases are significantly longer and much more tuned to the combat than the copy/paste base types of PS1.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

See, the point isn't really to settle on any of the specific elements; we could go back and forth all day and, in fact, that's the objective. Because if we're doing that, then we're not talking about the core issue: that Planetside 2 as presented stands to bring nothing new to the table and is in fact a weaker-looking product than its predecessor.

What more "newness" are you looking for?
-The game will support 2-3 times as many more players fighting at once.
-It will have a MUCH higher level of detail in graphics.
-The terrain itself is being designed with far more detail and care.
-The bases are completely different from the single cookie cutter base that PS1 had. (let's face it, all the bases were the same exact thing with only minor variations to the floor plan, otherwise a tech plant was identical to an amp station)
-There will be actual customization of both guns and vehicles in both function and form.
-We will fight over and capture territory instead of just bases which means we will actually use the whole map instead of just the immediate area around the bases.
- and much much more as the infomercials like to say.

I'm wondering, honestly, what were you looking for? From what I see, they are taking the core elements of PS1 (massive numbers, combined arms, 3 factions, large maps) and turning it up to 11 with a graphics quality that makes my jaw drop.

EDIT: Ya ninja'd me a bit with your last post but I think this one still applies to my curiousity behind your overall concerns.

[Bittermen]

Originally Posted by TheSHiFT

So the presence of shotguns, miniguns, and shinny laser skins are your evidence that PS2 is nothing like BF? That their only similarity is their genre? Did you watch any of the game play videos that have been released? Have you read any of the interviews?

Most modern FPSs have resources of some type, they have certs of some type, they have classes of some type, and vehicles? You might as well say that modern FPSs have guns too. The only thing that is innovative about PS2 atm is its scale. Keep in mind, not every game needs to innovate to be successful or fun, refinement of the best the genre has to offer can be compelling enough.

Resources in BF3? Tickets? Have no actually effect on gameplay other than the WIN/LOSE.

PS2 resources controls much more than just that. Depends on what you can spawn into action.


Your fears are irrational.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

No, you do not care if the game stands to be successful. You care if it fits with your views as to what is enjoyable or not at the expense of everyone else.

Much like the gentleman before who gave us such a beautiful example of missing the forest for the trees, here we see a pristine example of a straw man.

I never said that. If you intend to use my words, the 'quote' button at the end of my posts should suffice.

I don't care if Battlefield sold 50 million copies. Hell, as long as we're having fun with numbers, let's say it sold 100 million. Not that any of it matters, because all that proves is that 100 million people wanted to play Battlefield. And the nice thing is, if those people want to play Battlefield, there's a game for it. It's called Battlefield. You may have heard of it; it sold 100 million copies.

My concern (note here how I'm citing opinion) is that when you provide a product that is "almost like X but with a twist" then you're setting yourself up for, if not a disaster, than a slow, lingering failure. You may capture some initial attention from people saying "dude, try out PS2; it's just like the BF we know and love, but it's in SPACE with LASERS!" but your actual retention is going to be the biggest issue. What keeps those players from just wandering back to the genuine article when the differences between the two start becoming intolerable for those who rely on the type of gameplay match-based military shooters provide? Planetside is VERY different, and I have a hard time believing SOE stands to steal any market share from the Coddlefield universe.

So what are we left with? Well, we have the people like me who will buy into anything with Planetside written on it. Only, I stopped playing the Coddlefield games for a very good reason; quite a few of those reasons are rearing their ugly heads in these Q&A sessions and gameplay demos. I haven't touched it, so I have no direct experience to ground my feelings, but I can tell you that it has me feeling grim.

What you're targeting, when you model your game after another, is a very specific crowd of people. Folks who are into huge global sci-fi shooters like Planetside, and gritty military match-based shooters like Coddlefield. My feeling is that SOE is overestimating the amount of overlap there really is, there.

All that said, I am also bemoaning the trend in game development we are seeing with every new release of games being steadily dumbed down. Compare the newest Deus Ex to the first. Compare the newest Elder Scrolls to Morrowind. Compare ME3 to ME1. In every sense you see that the newer properties are sacrificing complexity for a more glossy, streamlined experience that while instantly more gratifying, seems to carry generally less impact than the older titles.

Or maybe you welcome the new age of 'shinier, simpler, less complexity'. In which case you and I are of completely different breeds, will probably never come to an agreement, and I weep for the death of what I once loved.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

He disagrees with me, but has yet to really present any compelling evidence that what I am asserting is simply not true. He is instead establishing straw man arguments (such as that PS2 is a direct copy of BF3, and that PS1 is perfect, and numerous other things I've never said) and trying to mire the conversation into a pedantic deconstruction of every single individual element because, and this is important, he either cannot or will not proffer a point of view that I or my fellow skeptics may find compelling. He has tried, in the past, and it didn't take, so now we're on Step 2: Quibble About The Little Things.

Just as you've not presented any compelling evidence that your case is true. When I refute(and agree with a few of) your claims of specific examples you brought up you dismiss my claims, insult me, and say I'm missing your point.

The only point you've established so far is that you do not like which game they are copying. You tried to spin that as claiming they are copying too much, period, but you use specific examples from PS1 to state how things should be, which renders that argument invalid, and making it clear you don't care if they copy, so long as they copy from the correct game.

[Marsgrim]

Originally Posted by Raymac

What more "newness" are you looking for?
-The game will support 2-3 times as many more players fighting at once.
-It will have a MUCH higher level of detail in graphics.
-The terrain itself is being designed with far more detail and care.
-The bases are completely different from the single cookie cutter base that PS1 had. (let's face it, all the bases were the same exact thing with only minor variations to the floor plan, otherwise a tech plant was identical to an amp station)
-There will be actual customization of both guns and vehicles in both function and form.
-We will fight over and capture territory instead of just bases which means we will actually use the whole map instead of just the immediate area around the bases.
- and much much more as the infomercials like to say.

I'm wondering, honestly, what were you looking for? From what I see, they are taking the core elements of PS1 (massive numbers, combined arms, 3 factions, large maps) and turning it up to 11 with a graphics quality that makes my jaw drop.

EDIT: Ya ninja'd me a bit with your last post but I think this one still applies to my curiousity behind your overall concerns.

I'm not an advocate of the break down posts and argue single points because Sheppy has already pointed out that this never actually addresses the argument, it just becomes a diversion.

What I will say is this, number of players, graphics, terrain design and minor cosmetic modifications to weapons (fire more for less damage or less for more) does not make for a more satisfying game experience. Game play and game experience is far more important than graphics and crafted terrain and the myriad of other small concerns.