Planetside vs. Battlefield 1942 - Page 2

Adun · 2003-07-25, 11:39 PM

Trust me, you dont know what planetside is like until you play and 'feel' the game.

Planetside and BF1942 may seem alike, but theyre in completly different leagues. BF1942 is an multiplayer game comparable to half life or return to castle wolfenstine. Planetside is an online game comparible to everquest and other games like everquest, where graphics are shitty and stuff, Planetsides pretty much the king of its league. (its amazingly good for a game that works like this)

Theres alot less physics and movement than BF1942, things are also more flattend. Aircraft have a 'roof' instead of stalling when they get too high, they cant flip or anything, you dont really have free controll of aircraft. Theres alot more teamplay needed, about the only 2 dangerous veicles that dont need teamwork are the reaver jet and lightning tank.

The people are pretty much invincible compared to the solders in BF1942, you can drop off a tower and lose like 10 health. They also take like 3 rockets in the back of the head and still turn around and shoot ya. This is kind of a good thing since in big battles there will be a shitload of firepower going around to kill these tough solders.

So imagion what BF1942 would be like with crappy physics and in the future and with nearly invincible solders. (the crappy physics are crappy compared to BF1942 but great compared to everquest, which is made by the same company.) Although ive never been caught dead playing everquest, i think i got a good idea of what its like.

Thats it

Revolver · 2003-07-26, 01:50 AM

Well, sacrifices have to be made to accomodate large-scale battles

We can't have said battles if the damage is realistic and soldiers are dying after one or two hits. As for physics and aircraft, giving the aircraft a serious gimping helps with lag, as does a not as detailed physics engine.

You can't expect BF1942 quality in a MMOG

Bismarck · 2003-07-26, 02:52 AM

Ok, I played BF 42 for months, and months, and months. I loved it, and it was free. But...I bored of it eventually, it just didn't have enough....I don't know, not enough......umph.

Now I will tell you from the perspective of a PS/BF 42 player, PS beats Bf 42 in almost every single aspect. BF 42 can't even hold a candle to PS. Don't believe all that you read. This site has trolls galore, they don't play the game, they just sit here and whine about it.

Ignore Me · 2003-07-26, 05:32 AM

Honestly, before you pretend to know stuff about Planetside I'd suggest you buy the game. A lot of what you've said about Planetside seems pretty ignorant (un-educated, you've never played the game). Planetside and Battlefield 1942 are extremely different. Capturing a facility is a lot more complex than capturing a flag. Until you experience the gameplay for yourself, you won't understand.

Originally posted by ps11
If you've seen Patton or any other decent war movie the key strategy is trapping the enemy and not letting them escape. Something not possible in PS.

Play the game. Please. That's all.

ghost

Hertston · 2003-07-26, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by ps11
Besides, all PS is any is bliztkrieg, because when you die you just respawn. You don't feel like every life is important because it isn't. Heck just run in guns blazing; even if you die you'll be right back in the fray in about 5 min. If you've seen Patton or any other decent war movie the key strategy is trapping the enemy and not letting them escape. Something not possible in PS.

Trouble is m8, computer games aren't war, they are entertainment. And trapping an enemy is a lot more fun than being trapped. We've all done the Alamo tower defense bit, and it's fun for twenty minutes - but nobody wants to spend an evening "trapped" in a lost cause (and gaining bugger all XP).

What would you suggest as an alternative to respawning, people get locked out for half an hour if they die ? Or have to walk all the way from Sanc ? The game would be dead in a week.

The creative skill is in creating game situations where both sides have a chance to win, and everybody can get into the action quickly. Despite the game's faults, I think the dev team did pretty well on that.

Piith · 2003-07-26, 07:30 AM

here is just a lil section I copied from the overview of the game.

The tools of war are extensive in PlanetSide. The soldier has lots of choices to make, and a definite career path to follow. How you design your soldier and what path you follow is totally up to you. Using a combination of different Certifications, Implants, Armors, Weapons, and Air and Ground Vehicles as you learn them, you can mold your soldier to be unique and vital to the functioning and viability of your Outfit. You can have four different characters in this game, so if you feel the need to try other combinations, you have that chance. The roles required in PlanetSide for a successful Outfit are many. Ranging from the healing powers of the advanced medic, to the raging destructiveness of the MAX armors, the skills and abilities your character can present to your team can be wide and important. You can select the advanced engineer and repair a buddy�s armor or his tank, too! Or you can lay mines to greet the enemy who tries to step foot on your territory. All of these skills are required to meet the demands of gaining total domination over your sworn enemies.

Incompetent · 2003-07-26, 08:12 AM

This post reminds me of one i saw way back when, I can't remember who posted it but i'm going to write it as best as i can recall.

The guy was flying around in his reaver, killed a few guys, strafed a few bases, nothing special, at some point he picked up a skeeter and gets into a fairly long dogfight and ends up getting shot down at the ass end of nowhere. The skeeter pilot decided he would be better off making him walk and went off in search of new prey. So he's walking through the woods and he thinks he hears a noise, he looks up and sees a Galaxy fly by with a squadron of reavers on it's tail and he thinks, Poor Bastards, and watches them until they leave his view. The question of what happened ate at him until he made the post apparently, were they shot down before they reached their destination, did the make it to their LZ, did they reach a friendly base before they died?
__________________________________________________
That too me is what makes the game, and something battlefield can never have, the sense that something is really happening around you and that your at war, not some stupid cage match.

Navaron · 2003-07-26, 09:31 AM

You can't even compare the two. I love both games, but comparing them is like comparing a Porche and a Honda Valkyre - they're both amazing vehicles, but they are totally different.

SumYungGui · 2003-07-26, 01:05 PM

wanna know something that amazes me? planetside runs ok on my system. I need to sacrifice a little bit of eye candy by knocking off a few top-end graphical selections, but it still plays decently even in tremendous battles. battle field, a game limited at 64 people absolute maximum I believe, runs like a parapalegic with no wheel chair. I've had to totally stop playing the game because their code sucks so horribly. even with every single graphical/sound setting on it's lowest possible level the game's code and the last few patches have murdered performance. single to low double digit FPS in the middle of nowhere with nobody near me and not even moving.

additionally, if you guys think planetside has problems with netcode (which, granted, it does) go play that craptacular game. EA/DICE can go to hell.

Navaron · 2003-07-26, 02:25 PM

Now to be fair, some poor bastard is hosting that 64 player game. It's not like PS where they have uber servers and fat pipes to spare. Although, PS's netcode is an amazing acheivement I hope every game in the future steals.

Joe-Azlin · 2003-07-26, 03:13 PM

These games are too different too even have in the same forums so... lol

AcidCat · 2003-07-28, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by ps11
I personally don't see why Sony has to gouge everybody who just wants to get online for a little bit and shoot a couple folks living halfway across the country. .

If you just want to "get on line for a little bit and shoot folks" then yeah, there are plenty of other games like Battlefield that should suit you just fine.

Planetside is a different kind of game, one that demands more time and effort and teamwork, with its persistent world and RPG-like leveling, it is a different experience than your typical FPS.

Happy lil Elf · 2003-07-28, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by ps11
Granted I have never played Planetside before but I have seen pics and read a lot of you idiots posts about pretty much everything the game has to offer. I personally don't see why Sony has to gouge everybody who just wants to get online for a little bit and shoot a couple folks living halfway across the country. Another thing I question is why people are continuing to join this game like there's no tomorrow. Especially with Battlefield 1942 out there. It's free once you buy the game, has loads of weapons, maps, and tons of vehicles. They introduce expansions regularly and the next expansion: Battlefield Vietnam, looks to dominate as the past few have. I am not saying people are stupid to pay for what they enjoy playing, but for there to be another game out there that rivals (if not beats PS), it is stupid not to atleast try it.

The only thing funnier than that post would be if in creating it the author somehow died so we could nominate him/her/it for a Darwin award.

If you never played a game, you can't compare it to anything, no matter how much you've played the game you're comparing it to. It would be an idiotic statement for me to say I prefer how my car handles compared to a Mustang even though I've never driven a Mustang but hav driven my car extensively and heard people talking about their Mustangs.

P.S. Yes BF1942 is a good game. Is it anything like PS? Nope. Does it offer the same kind of gameplay PS offers? Again, nope.

Quaoar · 2003-08-06, 07:28 AM

Sorry for bumping an old topic but....

But I agree with poster... Why pay for a game which is comparable to several other games currently 'semi' free.

Some of you start to argue that PS is MUCH bigger, has a lot more players etc.

It DOESN'T.

If you play on one continent, no matter how many people are on the other continents and no matter how many continets there are it won't matter even a tincy-vincy-bit to you or for your teammates.
Tell me... Don't you guys realize that every continent is just the equal of a server for battlefield/Tribes/whatever in say GameSpy?
To access a server means that you have to go trough a lot of loading. But instead of Gamespy you have a Global View which does exactly the same as Gamespy: Tells you which server is currently full, which has players on it and what is currently going on!

The only thing added to PS lacking from say Tribes or Battlefield is the global chat, not like it's required tho, since the chat system is just abysmal.

And don't even start comparing PS vs. Battlefield and EQ/AC/UO to Never Winter Nights. In EQ/AC/UO the games are based on the need for players to be able to interact with the largest possible amount of other players to be able to have player driven economies and they work as 3D chat rooms.
Neither of these two factors are needed in PS. So what you are left with is one 3D start room (sanctuary) which combined with the Global View acts as a launch room for the different servers, just as Gamespy does.

Only thing need for battlefield/Tribes would be a IRC plugin (just like one created for AC) + some artifical 'global view' where you could map whatever graphical presentation of the current battles (on different servers) going on.
Then you could just have the dedicated servers for Battlefield serving whatever maps one master server tells them to use. That way you would have a distributed server system, controlled to specific scenarios by some overhead system. It would be pretty darn easy.

But I guess most of PS fanboys are just to FUD fed to realize this?! Just put together some limited servers and give them some sort of graphical launch interface. People will gladly pay $13 a month to play.

Ohh.... Compare D2 to PS! Both have global chat/launch interfaces, stores characters on global servers, only difference is that D2 probably have a million more players.......... And which game charges $13 a month?

I like PS. It's the next step from Tribes 2. But paying to play for a game which very limited ingame goals, limited servers, limited social interactions. -No way!

PS.
Please tell me the difference between capturing Solsar 3 times in in 3 days is so much different from capturing El Alamin 10 times in one day in Battlefield?
Every victory there is totally independent from whatever happens on any other server or continent in PS, so please... Please tell me!

Quaoar · 2003-08-06, 07:38 AM

It's not like Blizzard doesn't provide new content, patches or bug fixes even tho people don't pay a them cash every month. And it's not like Blizzard lost money on making D2.

So what's up with SOE and PS?
Why do the think they can charge $13 a month for nothing?

Ohh... Sorry me. I forgot people will gladly pay to beta test games now. Lets see... AO, SWG, AC-2, DAoC all were released with some serious flaws.
And still people gladly hand them money.

A last thing. PS will lack something which made Tribes or Battlefield the games they are, player made modifications!!!!!
Oh.. I forgot again. You -pay- SOE to make 'new content' for PS, a game just like battlefield/tribes, so it will probably be MUCH better than whatever the community could have possibly made by themselves.
As I seem to remember, most good game modifications were made by the companies themselves... Like Team Fortress, CTF for Quake, Desert Combat, Counter Strike....