Best game I've ever played...?

dethred · 2012-10-21, 02:17 AM

Not to ruin the festival of negativity, but after spending a quick 7 hours of my life without even realizing it had passed, I have come to the conclusion that this is probably the best game I've ever played.

Finally had the chance to run with an outfit, and then with some random squads, and the foundation of the game is just astonishing. The sheer scale of the world, the massive battles, and diversity of combat is unlike any game I've ever played.

I love BF2 and BF2142 for their large maps and large scale combat, but this game puts them to shame. Our side was trapped in our base, and after numerous attempts to break out by massive flights of Galaxies, everyone get in a ground vehicle and formed the largest FPS fighting force I'd ever seen. Must have been at least a few hundred people moving together capping bases.

Within about 30 minutes we had retaken almost half the continent. A little later, our entire squad got on the ATVs and flanked a hilltop base that had been under attack for the better part of an hour. We were able set down a base and allow our forces and a few Sunderers to park in the main entrance for spawning. The indoor battle lasted another 30 minutes and we finally took the base.

I've never played a video game quite like it. The lighting effects and the sun light coupled with the other visuals make it extremely engrossing! We even had to turn off our headlights on the ATVs during our attack to avoid being detected. I've never seen anything like it.

I agree that there are some rough edges, but the base game is second to none. You have battles inside the bases which fulfill any desire for a close-range battle, then the outside stuff to satisfy open-world combat.

My only concerns:

Resources seem to be irrelevant (and thus holding territory is almost as irrelevant).

Some players require probably 30+ bullets to kill, which under any circumstances is ridiculous.

The interface for the squad menus, player/leader board, etc are all incomplete.

There needs to be a way of spawning on the squad leader. This will keep the squad together as a unit, and worked extremely well in other games in the past.

Either way, I almost feel like I stole something from the devs for playing something so great for 7 hours without yet paying for it.

Mox · 2012-10-21, 02:26 AM

Nice to hear that bf players enjoy the game. The question is if you will still enjoy the game when the next bf is released. For sure a lot of ps1 vets wont enjoy the game simply because the casual bf player was more important and the game was designed for their needs.

dethred · 2012-10-21, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Mox

Nice to hear that bf players enjoy the game. The question is if you will still enjoy the game when the next bf is released. For sure a lot of ps1 vets wont enjoy the game simply because the casual bf player was more important and the game was designed for their needs.

Isn't that precious? To throw a pie in your face, I happen to think this game has more depth and potential longevity than BF2 ever had, which is why I already enjoy it more. I hate the direction that BF3 took, having chosen a COD-clone approach, and I've totally written off the series. I know of dozens of people with the same situation. Sorry, guy, but your precious Planetside series is about to be overrun with hundreds of thousands of people who enjoy an FPS game on a large scale with tactics and teamwork at its core. If that's worrisome to you, then just WOW. Bitter is the best and only word.

From what I saw last night, the amount of teamwork and immersion could not be topped.

Rose tinted glasses can lead to blindness.

I've never seen such negativity for such an excellent game. Its quite frankly getting annoying. The first reply in this thread basically says it all in regards to how ridiculous these arguments are. "Oh no, you like ____ game and also like PS2, so that's proof that this game isn't as good as PS1".

1.) There's everything from people complaining their moderate systems can't handle a dedicated PC game with thousands of participants with huge battles and excellent graphics. Who would have thought a modern game pushing the performance envelope will make slightly dated mid-level PCs display their shortcomings.

2.) There are veterans who are complaining that there is no depth to the game... From what I can tell, it looks like the developers made a tradeoff between the meta game and actual decent combat. I've come from playing competitively in BF2 and 2142 (again, I hated BF3 and detest COD), and this game provides a much better experience in terms of teamwork and immersion. If you don't eventually get your complexity aspect, then either take off the rose-tinted glasses or simply play PS1.

I know its a terrible choice to have to deal with what you're being provided for FREE, or going back to your old game and playing that for FREE.

I also understand the need for constructive criticism, but this crap is just silly. The sheer absolutism of this negativity is counter-productive towards making changes. Tell me this, how is a Developer going to look at this forum and see anything but a general "We want an exact remake of PS1 with better graphics but don't want to have to spend more than $150 on a graphics card"? Most of you probably have at least one valid criticism, but when you flood the forums with the negativity its self-defeating.

I saw the same thing with BF3 forums from BF2 veterans (I was one of the complainers), and it didn't work at all. Worse off, just like BF3, this game will probably have a MUCH larger player base which will serve to invalidate all your criticisms in the eyes of the developers.

ringring · 2012-10-21, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by dethred

2.) There are veterans who are complaining that there is no depth to the game... From what I can tell, it looks like the developers made a tradeoff between the meta game and actual decent combat. I've come from playing competitively in BF2 and 2142 (again, I hated BF3 and detest COD), and this game provides a much better experience in terms of teamwork and immersion. If you don't eventually get your complexity aspect, then either take off the rose-tinted glasses or simply play PS1.

.

Erm, not quite.

The Devs decided to go into beta without the meta-game. Fair enough, one thing at a time. Now, however Smed and Higby have said they're going to add in a meta-game which sounds suspiciously like what we've been asking for.

So, I'm happy enough. Of course the meta-game will need to be tested out and it will get better as more and more continents are added.

If we were vocal in beta and we were, when we were shown the FPS on Indar and was told this is the new Planetside it should have been no surprise. Planetside was always *not* a perpetual 3-way and it seemed at one time that was what we were going to be given (on 3 continents).

But things have changed and perhaps that's been because of the feedback that has been provided.

One thing that Higby said yesterday in an interview at SOE Live summed it up for me - to paraphrase - Planetside is not about a small skirmish here or there and is not about a battle here are there, it's about a War. That's it exactly, PS is a global war between 3 teams across multiple continents. We knew that from the start but the game mechanics didn't support it too well, we thought.

You've said what makes you annoyed. Well there's something that gets to me too, it's when people say (effectively) shut up! Stop complaining! Stop being negative!

I'm not negative but I won't stop saying what is wrong and how the game feels as a player. The reason is - guess what? This is a beta. We're supposed to provide feedback and the most important feedback we can provide is not about bugs, tho that's important and it's not about balance, it's about how the game feels and how the game plays out.

So, I am glad you enjoyed your session, it really did remind me of the first time I played Planetside. GG

Figment · 2012-10-21, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by dethred

Isn't that precious? To throw a pie in your face, I happen to think this game has more depth and potential longevity than BF2 ever had, which is why I already enjoy it more. I hate the direction that BF3 took, having chosen a COD-clone approach, and I've totally written off the series. I know of dozens of people with the same situation. Sorry, guy, but your precious Planetside series is about to be overrun with hundreds of thousands of people who enjoy an FPS game on a large scale with tactics and teamwork at its core. If that's worrisome to you, then just WOW. Bitter is the best and only word.

Ehrm... What are you talking about here?

PlanetSide (1) == tens of thousands of people who enjoy an FPS game on a large scale with tactics and teamwork at its core. We tend to find PS2 shallow on that level.

Why? Because it has become more like BF series, which is even more shallow in comparison. So we're not really concerned about the new people flowing in, we're concerned with the game not being tactical enough, instead it being too zerg oriented (numbers equals win =/= teamwork equals win!).

Since you did not play PS1, I don't really get why you're trying to talk in a degenerative way of PS players, since you have no frame of reference to judge them on.

From what I saw last night, the amount of teamwork and immersion could not be topped.

Rose tinted glasses can lead to blindness.

I've never seen such negativity for such an excellent game. Its quite frankly getting annoying. The first reply in this thread basically says it all in regards to how ridiculous these arguments are. "Oh no, you like ____ game and also like PS2, so that's proof that this game isn't as good as PS1".

That's not what was said. You're putting words in Mox' mouth.

1.) There's everything from people complaining their moderate systems can't handle a dedicated PC game with thousands of participants with huge battles and excellent graphics. Who would have thought a modern game pushing the performance envelope will make slightly dated mid-level PCs display their shortcomings.

Depends on how you look at it: the devs stated they would make it run on a 5 year old PC, so the expectation level was created by the devs. If the devs said 1-2 year old PC, we'd not be having that discussion. But now, they set the standard where a Duo Core must be able to run it as the majority of PCs from that time era were Core2 Duo.

If it doesn't do that well, then you'll get complaints.

2.) There are veterans who are complaining that there is no depth to the game... From what I can tell, it looks like the developers made a tradeoff between the meta game and actual decent combat.

Uhm... Let me get this straight, are you saying that "more meta game == non-decent combat"? O.o' Where do you base that on? From experience: more meta game == better combat, more strategy, more tactics. Lowering the complexity of the game makes battles more straightforward, which benefits zerg-gameplay. Zerg-gameplay is a worse type of combat because it requires the least thought and allows the smarter players less room to compensate by playing smart and focused.

Don't get me wrong, zerg can be fun, but it's also relatively tiring and less satisfying to win a zergfight (unless you beat the zerg playing smart, but that's not possible in PS2 due to lack of crowd control options due to funneling and choke points not being options).

We're saying: combat is worse than it could be on several levels. Of course it's a billion times better than BattleField 3. PS1 was that as well.

I've come from playing competitively in BF2 and 2142 (again, I hated BF3 and detest COD), and this game provides a much better experience in terms of teamwork and immersion. If you don't eventually get your complexity aspect, then either take off the rose-tinted glasses or simply play PS1.

I know its a terrible choice to have to deal with what you're being provided for FREE, or going back to your old game and playing that for FREE.

Without pop, the actual content? How nice of you to provide the option between playing a game that is relatively shallow and ill-construed from the veteran point of view or stop playing altogether. And btw, you're the one currently wearing the rose-teinted glasses: PS2 fanboy goggles to be exact.

What makes you think you're invulnerable to the same critique you're trying to apply to PS1 veterans? You try to paint PS2 as the bestest ever, while we KNOW it could be the bestestestest ever if they just listened to us more. The game is becoming better over the past months, BECAUSE they listened to veterans and stepped away from some alpha concepts they refused to drop before, because they thought it streamlined the game. You're saying our improvements have made the game better, but since you don't realise that was our doing, we should just shut up and go away?

I also understand the need for constructive criticism, but this crap is just silly. The sheer absolutism of this negativity is counter-productive towards making changes. Tell me this, how is a Developer going to look at this forum and see anything but a general "We want an exact remake of PS1 with better graphics but don't want to have to spend more than $150 on a graphics card"? Most of you probably have at least one valid criticism, but when you flood the forums with the negativity its self-defeating.

How many people have you actually heard "an exact remake"? I'm sorry, but you'll hear 97% of critique go on about SPECIFIC sub-systems. Considering there's about a bazillion systems, of which a few thousand have been changed, YES, we're going to have A LOT of critique! What you don't get though, is all the things we HAVN'T critiqued, because there's either no point in mentioning them or because people take them for granted. It's not fair to say "oh it's mostly critique, so you're just bashing" or "you just want the old game". That's you being an utter narrowminded turd.

I saw the same thing with BF3 forums from BF2 veterans (I was one of the complainers), and it didn't work at all. Worse off, just like BF3, this game will probably have a MUCH larger player base which will serve to invalidate all your criticisms in the eyes of the developers.

True, but the problem is that numbers don't guarantee quality and numbers do not invalidate critique. New players to the genre have less experience and have less options to provide critique, so one should expect them to be rather accepting of "whatever is there". One, being a dev, should not mistake complacency and ignorance for having done the best they could. The best people to ask about what to change ARE PS1 vets, because we're more aware of the (dis)advantages of design options and alternatives than (with all due respect), people who only played small shooters like CoD, BF2/2142/3 or some other multiplayer games. People who played MAG would have better input than players from BF (even though MAG is completely different as well), simply because an upscaled shooter and a game with three factions works completely different.

One of the big differences is acquisition and numerical leverage. What works for a 32 vs 32 game, will not necessarily work in a 650 vs 650 vs 650 game. What works in a 150 vs 150 vs 150 game, is much better comparable.

When the players with the latter experience are negative, they might be on to something that the 32 vs 32 players will be oblivious to until they gained what, 2 years of experience playing the new game. And I'm not saying that to sound denegrating or insulting, the amount of dimensions you have to have a proper grasp on are simply far greater for a PS game and often involve things you never would consider in a smaller scale game.

In a smaller game, group behaviour is different. In a smaller game, balance is different. In a smaller game, the interaction between two players is different. In a smaller game, the power distance between two groups of players is different. Where in BF on a 64 player map, 4 vs 1 would mean at most 32 vs 8, 4 vs 1 in a bigger scaled game can mean 160 vs 40, or 600 vs 150. The power of leverage behaves quite different at those populations and having the exact same type of open maps has severe consequences. I don't expect you to realise that.

I don't expect you to for example have ever argued or have to convince with 50 other people on the next course of action and which map to invade from where, what route and how, or predicting and preparing for an invasion elsewhere. I cannot expect you to have ever needed to come to a concensus for the battleplan of an entire empire and therefore I cannot expect you to know what kind of conditions, psychology, diplomacy, situations and time pressure there is and how the system must be able to deal with and support that type of command. Especially when there's a huge difference between large and small outfits and therefore the amount of influence they might have.

I don't expect you to for example have witnessed fights where 15 people held off a hundred people for 10 minutes till reinforcements arrived, secured a base or even pushed them back, but the way PS2 is designed, you won't ever see that. As such, I cannot expect you to have an opinion of that and therefore also not see any problems. Unfortunately, what I can expect is you not understanding that those who DO have that experience, see why the current game is "flawed". Upon which you conclude that we're just whining, simply because you're missing out on a lot of information.

And I can go on like that. In short, you lack the experience to make proper judgment. That includes you lacking the experience to be able to say if we're whining. :/

Lastly, if a completely new BF3 player with just some months tops of experience in the entire BF series (and all gained in BF3), yet a BF3 fanboy nonetheless, told you you were just whining and BF3 is the greatest game ever and the best of the series and you should go back to BF2 (or BF1942) if you didn't like it... What would you say?

FortySe7en · 2012-10-21, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by Mox

Nice to hear that bf players enjoy the game. The question is if you will still enjoy the game when the next bf is released. For sure a lot of ps1 vets wont enjoy the game simply because the casual bf player was more important and the game was designed for their needs.

I wish I could figure out a way to purify the tears of this whiny player base, I'd make millions selling it as bottled water.

I'm a PS1 vet from 2003 - 2010. I absolutely love PS2. I know about 400 other vets who do as well, so there are plenty more out there.

The casual BF player was kept in mind because 1000's of the same players won't be logged in for 24 hours at a time. This isn't WoW or everquest, games that take 5-7 hours a day to keep up, and 8-10 hours a day to be AMAZING. Because it is free to play, it will be like League of Legends. People will hop on for 2-3 hours, log off, and come back the next day and play. (Just like in the CoD, BF, and MOHAA series).

Shooters are designed for people to log on, kill some stuff for a few hours, and then log off. Being a part of the FPS scene for a long time, I can definitely tell you that I hate having to do anything but twitch. Its bad enough they are adding a quest system into an FPS (what the hell?) but to try and make it anything other than a good shooter is stupid. There doesn't need to be inventory, there doesn't need to be walls, there doesn't need to be a lot of things in this game other than a sheer desire to log in, shoot some people in the face, and meet some cool people along the way. However, they are adding what they can to keep the PS1 vets happy, while keeping this game true to REAL FPS roots. (ie, hitboxes, TTK, and an aresenal of weapons).

Its absolutely genius the way they are marketing this. I cannot wait for them to open this up to more players.

P.S. - Saying this game is like battlefield and just another shooter is a pointless argument. I've played CS Series, Quake Series, UT series, Doom Series, BF series, MOHAA series, Wolfenstein Series, and multiple other FPS titles. In all these games the basic idea is the same, but all those games are unique in their own way which made them absolutely amazing to play / still play. Planetside may be a basic shooter like BF, but it has enough unique elements to draw in a crowd.

Fear The Amish · 2012-10-21, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by FortySe7en

I wish I could figure out a way to purify the tears of this whiny player base, I'd make millions selling it as bottled water.

I'm a PS1 vet from 2003 - 2010. I absolutely love PS2. I know about 400 other vets who do as well, so there are plenty more out there.

The casual BF player was kept in mind because 1000's of the same players won't be logged in for 24 hours at a time. This isn't WoW or everquest, games that take 5-7 hours a day to keep up, and 8-10 hours a day to be AMAZING. Because it is free to play, it will be like League of Legends. People will hop on for 2-3 hours, log off, and come back the next day and play. (Just like in the CoD, BF, and MOHAA series).

Shooters are designed for people to log on, kill some stuff for a few hours, and then log off. Being a part of the FPS scene for a long time, I can definitely tell you that I hate having to do anything but twitch. Its bad enough they are adding a quest system into an FPS (what the hell?) but to try and make it anything other than a good shooter is stupid. There doesn't need to be inventory, there doesn't need to be walls, there doesn't need to be a lot of things in this game other than a sheer desire to log in, shoot some people in the face, and meet some cool people along the way. However, they are adding what they can to keep the PS1 vets happy, while keeping this game true to REAL FPS roots. (ie, hitboxes, TTK, and an aresenal of weapons).

Its absolutely genius the way they are marketing this. I cannot wait for them to open this up to more players.

P.S. - Saying this game is like battlefield and just another shooter is a pointless argument. I've played CS Series, Quake Series, UT series, Doom Series, BF series, MOHAA series, Wolfenstein Series, and multiple other FPS titles. In all these games the basic idea is the same, but all those games are unique in their own way which made them absolutely amazing to play / still play.

Couldn't agree with you more, and honestly if we loose some of these whiny ass PS1 vets who want a 2 minute TTK to make up for bad reflex's nothing of value will be lost.

ringring · 2012-10-21, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by dethred

The indoor battle lasted another 30 minutes and we finally took the base.

I've never played a video game quite like it. The lighting effects and the sun light coupled with the other visuals make it extremely engrossing! We even had to turn off our headlights on the ATVs during our attack to avoid being detected. I've never seen anything like it.

I agree that there are some rough edges, but the base game is second to none. You have battles inside the bases which fulfill any desire for a close-range battle, then the outside stuff to satisfy open-world combat.

My only concerns:

Resources seem to be irrelevant (and thus holding territory is almost as irrelevant).

Some players require probably 30+ bullets to kill, which under any circumstances is ridiculous.

The interface for the squad menus, player/leader board, etc are all incomplete.

There needs to be a way of spawning on the squad leader. This will keep the squad together as a unit, and worked extremely well in other games in the past.

Either way, I almost feel like I stole something from the devs for playing something so great for 7 hours without yet paying for it.

This is nice to hear but you'll have to cut us PS1 veterans a little slack.
The scale isn't that new to us. Yea, 2000 people per continent is higher than the 600 people per continent that we knew, but we've all already been through the 'jaw drops' moment and the 'look at all those people' thing.

To your specific points;
Yep resources do feel pretty much irrelevant .... I'm not sure that this is a bad thing. However, resources aren't/shouldn't be reason to fight - they simply enable you to fight. The reason stuff is all in the meta-game which we have been banging on about from the start - this is coming soon.

30 bullets to kill? If this was not a max then I don't know I haven't experienced something like that.

The interface/map etc, does need a lot of fixing ... but I imagine that's in the works.

There is a way to spawn on squad leader, the squad beacon which has to be certed into. However, this shouldn't be the primary mode of keeping the squad together, you need an AMS sunderer. In Planetside looking after your spawn points is absolutely necessary - conversely destroying your opponent's squad point is also just as necessary. The one's who are most successful at that will win.

Figment · 2012-10-21, 05:04 AM

@Dethred:

At its core, I think most players will agree the game scores decent.

The thing is, most PlanetSide veterans see more than rough edges, because we've played a similar game with refined edges in certain departments.

We make big deals about things that may seem trivial to others, but we know the impact of.

So it's not so much that the game won't be decent in its own right, it's more that we know it could be a lot better. And that's not nostalgia speaking, it's simply having experience and therefore knowing how well certain alternative systems would work in this context, while also having experience with this and BF systems and knowing they're simply not the optimal choice, layout or need work.

All our "negativity" is constructive critique, because we're typically not bashing, we're saying how it can be improved. When people are disappointed, it's because to many of us, such things are considered "basic" and "no brainers". When they're not in, or changed for the sake of changing (particularly if an inferior change is made), we become both confused and baffled and probably disappointed because it does not fit our expectations. And that's the case for loads of (sub-)systems.

But again, that doesn't mean it won't be more epic than any say... BF game you played even if through sheer scale alone. Typically if you played a large scale shooter, small scale shooters start to bore you.

Meecrob · 2012-10-21, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

All our "negativity" is constructive critique,

Haha, that made me chuckle sorry, no offense.

Bittermen · 2012-10-21, 11:12 AM

The reason I barely post on these forums anymore is the huge amount of negativity.

The game is fun and it's getting better.

The release date is too soon yes... But this is a F2P title it's never going to stop being changed/optimized/updated and the game has come leaps and bounds from august. I for one just want the game to be released so I don't have to worry about character wipes and I can start spending my SC bucks.

Monarch · 2012-10-21, 01:15 PM

I have actually stopped going to the forums at the official PS2 site anymore. The negativity is simply overwhelming and often unfounded.

Carver · 2012-10-21, 01:27 PM

I like the game a lot. It's not perfect but it's a lot of fun, especially when you are rolling with a good squad.

I'm sure there are tons of people that agree. They sure don't seem to post in forums, but somebody is filling up those servers. I guess they are too busy having fun playing the game. But it's nice to see a topic that isn't: "This game will fail because it isn't an exact copy of Planetside 1 with better graphics."

Captain1nsaneo · 2012-10-21, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by dethred

...festival of negativity...

I love this turn of phrase. Absolutely love it.
I agree that the general tone is negative. Right now though you're eating a Taco without cheese. It's a great Taco! And you can't understand why people are complaining about how these great Tacos don't have any cheese. You don't need cheese! This Taco is wonderful as is! You won't understand until you have a Taco with cheese.
The original Planetside is coming up on 10 years. You know what's younger than Planetside? Modern Warfare. Halo only beats PS by 2 years. Everything that you named as what you thoroughly enjoyed from PS2 has been in PS1 (except the headlights, [yes even the graphics were good]) and as much as it seems that we're blowing smoke out our bums we're really talking about how great cheese is and how we wish we had some cheese.
Because in the end, we want you to have a Taco with cheese too.

Originally Posted by Monarch

I have actually stopped going to the forums at the official PS2 site anymore. The negativity is simply overwhelming and often unfounded.

Quite so! Quite so! I prefer PSU because about 25% of the posts are longer than my thumb and cause me to think.

As to casuals, they'll come for what's currently on offer, that's not a problem. The problem is what happens after they've finished the appetizer?

ringring · 2012-10-21, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

... snip ...Because in the end, we want you to have a Taco with cheese too.

Well said .... I wish I had the words... although maybe my problem is I've never eaten a taco.