IMO KillCam killing the Game

[Tool]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Honestly I think quite a bit of the reason people are so passionate about this issue is they are upset about the current state of gaming.

Gaming as we know it has become very cookie cutter. Most games especially FPS's are made for people with very short attention spans. Many people remember PlanetSide and other games where you didn't have to grind for X hours to get X weapon unlock for your weapon. You could come in the game and have the same weapon as anyone else on the field. Gaming was more based on skill than time as it is now.

They (we) want more from PlanetSide 2 than to be a cookie cutter FPS within a larger world. Sure it will be a large persistent MMO and not a round by round shooter. Where do we make the tradeoff? We are already going to be able to spawn as MAX Units (or whatever class we are) without having to hit equipment terminals. That already takes out a big piece of some of the different strategies you could use to bring an enemy's base down.

I don't blame people for being worried and passionate about an issue like this. I am willing to wait and see - but I'll admit I have a little fear underneath it all as well. I want a game that brings me back to where I was back then rather than a game I will burn out on in a month because it's the same as other games.

And that is the tightrope that the developers have to walk.

Big developers usually follow the money > innovation thought process. The buisness aspect is always present regardless of hopes or goals. A necessary evil for the industry to continue but often leaves it stagnant and repetitive.

If you don't try to innovate you often fail. However if you don't play on accepted successes, you generally fail harder and with worse consequences.

Like you said, balance is a big part.

[ThGlump]

Great summary Hamma. Thats why there is that much uproar with any mechanics taken from "modern" shooters.
We know what we want. Better game that was planetside1. Devs see way to make game better in incorporating mechanics from BF/COD while keeping planetside core mechanics. And thats what bugs ps1 vets, and then we yell about it

We are old grumpy folks, remembering good old games, fighting against younglings whose knows only modern games, over game mechanics. Sadly we will be overpopulated by them, so even if we yell all day, they will make game for them.

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by Hamma

We are already going to be able to spawn as MAX Units (or whatever class we are) without having to hit equipment terminals. That already takes out a big piece of some of the different strategies you could use to bring an enemy's base down.

Saying nothing about the ability to acctually blow up the spawn tubes:
You're really saying that removing helpless spawning is a bad thing? The shittiest thing in the world is spawning just to die with no hope. Reguardless of the game being a persistent world or round based.

We are old grumpy folks, remembering good old games, fighting against younglings whose knows only modern games, over game mechanics. Sadly we will be overpopulated by them, so even if we yell all day, they will make game for them.

This is a complete misscharacterization of the of posters on this forum that want gunplay to be substantially different from PS1.
You think my 2003 join date on a Planetside forum is because I've only ever played COD and BF?..fuck I've never played COD. PS1 was the very first online FPS I ever played.
You want me to bottle your views in a little jar:
Grumpy old PS1 vets that don't want to have anything work differently than it does now, simply because they can't be assed to learn something new.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Sure, but my point is that a game some PS1 vets want may not be a commercially successful formula or popular with the current FPS crowd.

And what isn't what the PS1 vets want, is by definition a commercial succes?

And what if neither what the PS2 devs want or PS1 vets want is a commercial succes?

If we all know what's a commercial succes in advance, why are we discussing here? Sorry, but did you ask the masses what a succesful formula is? What if all these games were a succes DESPITE of a couple bad formulas in it?


Just saying, if you have an argument that cuts three ways and no evidence to back it up because it's basically moot, especially if it's an alternative to something that already worked pretty damn well, no need to bring it up. And please, don't make the (FPS) game industry into a new Hollywood. EA is doing that already.



But is anyone here saying PS1 failed because they lacked some minor features that "modern" FPS games have? (Read definition of "modern FPS" as: "game franchises that have remained almost unchanged as they've been selling the exact same games for the last 10 years in new graphics and on occasion with some new multiplayer maps next to a new single player campaign").

So if it had a proper killcam that showed your death and basically gave you a negative last impression because they rubbed in that you got killed would have actually made you want to play again? xD

So if we got killcams for EVERY SINGLE TIME you got spawncamped FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE KILLER, ... that'd been a good thing, how?

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Hamma

We are already going to be able to spawn as MAX Units (or whatever class we are) without having to hit equipment terminals. That already takes out a big piece of some of the different strategies you could use to bring an enemy's base down.

No offense, Hamma, (because I have tons of respect for you) but that may be one of the most inconsequential and petty things to be apprehensive about that I've ever heard voiced about the game.

It does speak to a larger issue that I see voiced very frequently, and this kill cam debate is another perfect example of it. Some people, in my opinion, are making gigantic mountains of himalayan scale out of tiny ant hills. I read about all these things that are going to "ruin" the game like kill cams, and tank pilots controling main guns, and lack of vehicle enter/exit animations, and classes, and the inventory, etc. etc. I just think their effects are being vastly overstated.

When you have a game like Planetside 2 that is on this massive of a scale with a persistant world, it is such a giant paradigm shift to all other "cookie cutter" type games that even features like the more controversial ones discussed here won't really make a hill of beans when you look at the whole picture.

(I may be totally wrong and something I think is minor may have the effect of breaking the game. Also, on the flip side of the coin, there may be something minor that we've seen that we think is totally awesome that will not make the game any better at all, like the level of graphical detail.)

TL;DR I think we have a tendency to lose sight of the forest for the trees.

[Hamma]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Saying nothing about the ability to acctually blow up the spawn tubes:
You're really saying that removing helpless spawning is a bad thing? The shittiest thing in the world is spawning just to die with no hope. Reguardless of the game being a persistent world or round based.

It was just an example of the many changes we have seen thus far and one that could be used as a tactic in PlanetSide 1 (I was thinking of destroying the equipment terms). There are plenty of other ways to spawn and die with no hope even with this mechanic removed

Originally Posted by Raymac

No offense, Hamma, (because I have tons of respect for you) but that may be one of the most inconsequential and petty things to be apprehensive about that I've ever heard voiced about the game.

Again just an example of one of the changes made to appeal to the masses. Is it bad? Maybe.. maybe not. It's certainly not on the forefront of my mind.

I do agree though saying one feature is "Killing the game" is stupid If anything it will be a combination of changes.

My post was just to describe the passion folks have for the debate - they are tired of the status quo of gaming. I was using a few examples to back up my post is all.

Substitute any change in my post and it's the same.

EDIT:

For all the negatives there are plenty of positives. A better territory control system, a better command (mission) system, and a better flight model. People have a tenancy to focus on the negative no matter how inconsequential. Actually that's a good idea for a new thread..

[Infektion]

NO KILL CAM!!! !.... I REPEAT!!!! NOOOOOO KILL CAM!!!!!!

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Again just an example of one of the changes made to appeal to the masses. Is it bad? Maybe.. maybe not. It's certainly not on the forefront of my mind.

I do agree though saying one feature is "Killing the game" is stupid If anything it will be a combination of changes.

My post was just to describe the passion folks have for the debate - they are tired of the status quo of gaming. I was using a few examples to back up my post is all.

Substitute any change in my post and it's the same.

Yeah, I realize I was kinda cherry picking a side point you were making and not really your main thesis which I actually very much agree with. Planetside is very much a unique game so there are many inherant risks when you blaze a trail. Some common features they are incorporating, some they are going completely off the reservation. This will also mean that some things will be a hit and some things will be a miss.

There's nothing wrong with having trepidation about something we are so passionate about. In most games, it doesn't really matter to gamers if they fail or not because there will be a similar game coming out soon enough. With Planetside, we have waited 8 years for this and who knows how long before we see something similar. That's why the stakes and the passion are so high for us fans.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by Raymac

When you have a game like Planetside 2 that is on this massive of a scale with a persistant world, it is such a giant paradigm shift to all other "cookie cutter" type games that even features like the more controversial ones discussed here won't really make a hill of beans when you look at the whole picture.

I know I said earlier that being unique gives you some room to play around with new concepts, but it doesn't give you license to go crazy with ideas. Just like it doesn't give you license to carbon copy the rest of the game.

Look at SWTOR as an example. Their big thing is voice acting and story, the rest of the game is a carbon copy of WoW in a different setting. Server population has been dropping steadily, people are already asking for mergers and the forums are full of disappointed fans. The fact that there was zero innovation over WoW in the actual gameplay is something I've heard criticized over and over again when talking to people about it.

Besides, at the end of the day these aren't optional features we're talking about. They're the core gameplay mechanics that you'll be using constantly, and those definitely can make all the difference in your enjoyment of the game.

[ShowNoMercy]

They are increasing the TTK, and while some may be ok with the idea of trying to find a camper only to be killed repeatedly and think it is "challenging" and/or "fun", your average player will not. Best you can hope for is a hardcore server, but don't call it a game breaker you can always skip it. The noobs need tools like this to reduce the learning curve.

[SuperMorto]

simples............

Kill cam "on" takes longer to re spawn but you get to see where killer was,

Kill cam "off" takes less time, but you see nothing, and then carry on playing the game like a hero rather than a zero.

Job sorted!

[Tool]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

I know I said earlier that being unique gives you some room to play around with new concepts, but it doesn't give you license to go crazy with ideas. Just like it doesn't give you license to carbon copy the rest of the game.

Look at SWTOR as an example. Their big thing is voice acting and story, the rest of the game is a carbon copy of WoW in a different setting. Server population has been dropping steadily, people are already asking for mergers and the forums are full of disappointed fans. The fact that there was zero innovation over WoW in the actual gameplay is something I've heard criticized over and over again when talking to people about it.

Besides, at the end of the day these aren't optional features we're talking about. They're the core gameplay mechanics that you'll be using constantly, and those definitely can make all the difference in your enjoyment of the game.

Very well said, a very few new gimmicks on top of what players have already played to death the past 10 years or more isn't going to have much of a future. The formula for mmorpgs was perfected with wow, the only positive step forward is either another genre in mmos or some true innovation.

I honestly believe Sony and smedly both see this and set in motion a series of goals to create a unique mmo and a prospective future for ps2. Their comments about future sandbox elements gives me hope for an interesting future.

A new coat of paint over the old planetside wouldn't lead to the success some expect without changing the formula. Its a challenge for Sony and it seems they took it seriously.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Again just an example of one of the changes made to appeal to the masses. Is it bad? Maybe.. maybe not. It's certainly not on the forefront of my mind.

If people said way back that RTS games would never work for the masses, because all people played in terms of arcade combat games was *insert random game* Operation Wolf...

Yeaaah.


"For the masses" arguments are NEVER. EVER. well argued reasons to do something, often more of an excuse to do something you know is 'wrong' in the eyes of "experts" on the matter (can be scientists or engineers, but can often be fans of anything). Basically "fans" are being put aside with things like "these stupid nerds, what do they know and hey they are probably the minority compared to the masses. No the masses, they are the new awesomesauce".



Anyone recognise themselves here?



"The masses" like and buy pretty much everything as long as it is pitched well to them and they understand or relate to it (or in some cases: don't understand at all, so it must be good - but that needs a special sales pitch). Usualy when someone says "we changed it to appeal to the masses" it means they changed it without any really good argument and usualy to fit their own plans or that of a specific target group.

Why do you think a lot of low speed jet aircraft didn't use turboprops, but jet propulsion? Because "it's seen as more modern by the masses", never mind that it's less fuel efficient below around 500 kph. It may be seen as more modern because a certain tech is used, but that does not guarantee a better product. Not even if products of the same kind sold better (to a different market?). It just means you need to improve your pitch.

If you are a consumer who is okay with such arguments... eh. Second grade products can be enjoyable too. Doesn't mean sometimes you don't need something new either, but have it be selected on merits, not on really superficial arguments.

[Lord Cosine]

Originally Posted by Figment

However, it also gave you a short time to look at the radar map for three specific things and to make a decision: respawn here/now, or wait for that medic nearby? Would it be worth respawning here or should I go somewhere else? The third of course is that you could look at where all the dots are moving without having to worry about getting shot or having to go there instantly. As such, it definitely helped you plan your next move.

I think this is a great point. Adv.Medics had a hard enough time rezzing zerg.
I remember hearing those sad medic emotes "Adv. Med please for the love of god don't tap, I beg you PLEASE!" If a player's camera was watching an enemy player they would hit their respawn button as soon as possible and rarely give the adv.medic a chance to reach them.

Additionally if ps2 uses a kill cam that follows your killer then it could muck with Gal Drops/Max Crashes because it would also give away the movement of the entire group. The dead man at the backdoor of a facility would know that the troops decided to target Gen or Tubes or CC.

Extra additionally there is no feedback that you are being observed. In ps1 if you saw a corpse you knew that someone was watching. There is no in game feedback to tell when a kill cam has stopped transmitting your location. You can't break line of sight to that corpse to protect your next movements, instead you would have to sit on their corpse humping them for Xseconds before moving on.

[Shogun]

i would hope IF killcam has to be ingame, it would just be a replay of the last shot and not a realtime transmission of what the killer does after the shot!

i was fine with the corpsecam of ps1 because it was predictable. corpse on ground means spy danger.

and about the question why we are so negative about some things...
the positive things are mostly great and we see no need to start many posts about them. but negative things may be changed, if the devs know about them. i guess most problems are no gamebreakers, but every small problem that is solved doesnt sum up with the others any more. and the smallest problems seem to be the ones that are most easily changed. putting in an off switch for the killcam for example would not take much effort in coding.
so we all fight on the fronts we see the biggest chance to succeed first.