A few things that Matt Higby needs to realize - Page 2

Levente · 2012-05-29, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Cod and the bf franchise are doing something right since they have millions of players.

yes they do something right: Lies and some more Lies. Thats how BF3 hype campaign started,DICE promised the BF community that maps are gonna be big in BF3 but yet they are almost the same size as a cod map. Not only that, but they removed all the teamplay tools that worked very good in BF2. Result? result is a shit frustrating game that i cannot play for more then 10 minutes. of coruse theres a whole list of more problems but i dont want to make a list.

Stardouser · 2012-05-29, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by RadarX

I have to disagree with you on modern elements however. I would say it's just me but I know so many others that talk about the BF1942 and Quake glory days. We appreciate the fact we can just jump in and pick up an FPS.

I don't understand how anyone can claim that older games were harder to jump into. It's just not true. What has changed is that it's easier to jump into the game and get kills against enemies because of things like killcam and 3D spotting that show you exactly where to go and where to place your aiming sight. But those things don't make the game easier to play, they just fill the new games with Skill Gap Compensators that make it easier to win against others with more experience than you, freeing you of any responsibility to gain that experience for yourself. In a lot of ways, BF3 at least, is more complex, with all the vehicle customizations, 20 different attachments per weapon, etc.

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Cod and the bf franchise are doing something right since they have millions of players.

Sales =/= quality or innovation. Both of those games have significant brand loyalty, as well as marketing campaigns. They're definitely doing something right on the marketing part.

They also, as I say, are implementing Skill Gap Compensators in their games so that everyone can get a killstreak now and then without even learning how to be competitive. Hopefully Planetside 2 is planning to allow player skill to be a bit less manipulated than that.

Originally Posted by Kran De Loy

If the Squad Spawn timer is actually long enough to allow the whole squad to get killed before you can drop back in on top of a buddy then why not just run from a nearby Tower or Galaxy?

Besides the whole problem is that everyone would be laboring under the same condition.

Because that Galaxy shouldn't be sitting 10 feet outside the base as happened with PS1. Or, since I only played recently, can you assure me that in the highly populated days of PS1, that attackers were actually forced to deploy AMS farther away? But then, that makes it boring. That is why what I described is a balance of spawning into the combat and getting repulsed completely back to your Galaxy.

Jinxsey · 2012-05-29, 09:07 AM

Suggesting something sounds like bad game design, without identifying specific issues (film grain effects? kill-streak rewards?) is of limited value.

Any good beta tester will tell you, identify specific issues, identify specific causes, make sure they are repeatable and then call it a problem.

Old games = better, new games = crap, just sounds like nostalgia talking.

Homefront failed because it had sloppy writing, unballanced killstreak rewards, tiny overly cluttered maps and weapons copy-pasted from a dozzen other shooters it was directly competeing with. It did nothing new, and did the old stuff worse. This dosen't tell you that new shooters are rubbish, it tells you that if you don't do something different, or do it better, you're going to fail. Planetside has always been about big maps, big teams and persistent play.

From all the vids I've seen so far, PS2 looks like PS1 with BF3 visuals, that dosen't make me sweat, that makes me grin, because you know what I like about modern FPS games? They're slick and they're gorgeous.

SGTalon · 2012-05-29, 09:08 AM

I think people are making a big deal about "Not being like BF3 or COD"

There is a reason those games have evolved into a similar gameplay feel, they are becoming more realistic.

When you get down to the point where the games have homogenized into a similar mechanic it is because that is the right way to do it.

Personally i don't have a problem with the actual gameplay and mechanics of BF3/COD. The guns feel right, travel times feel right, overall effects feel right.

Where BF3 and COD lacked was in the things that PS2 is going to deliver on. The round is not going to end, the map is not walled in by arbitrary limits, and the teamwork is going to be required rather than a surprise.

The last thing we want to do is turn the game into an EVE like situation where half the people that try it think it is too complicated to dive into it.

I think that the meta game and development of good tactics are what is going to bring the longevity and complexity into the game for those that want it.

If there is a large percentage of people that are just there for the zerg/meatgrinder, i think that is great, that leaves the important stuff up to guys like us that are there for the bigger picture. We don't have to be part of the meatgrinder that is distracting most of the people from what is really happening.

I have always said that a BF2/3 style game with the Planetside theory of big would be the ultimate game, and it looks like this one is going to be a winner to me.

Xaine · 2012-05-29, 09:09 AM

Fine, but if we wanted to play CoD or Battlefield, we'd be posting on Cod or Battlefield-universe.com.

Making a game more like CoD or Battlefield isn't what i want. If i wanted to play them, i'd play them. I'm here because of Planetside 1.

Now, those titles being so huge, SoE are going to try and emulate what makes them good. Thats fine, as long as you keep it firmly Planetside, which they are doing.

Gandhi · 2012-05-29, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Cod and the bf franchise are doing something right since they have millions of players.

Those games only have to convince you to buy them once to make them successful, which is pretty easy with a huge, aggressive marketing campaign and a lot of brand recognition. Even SWTOR sold over a million copies despite some huge problems, now look at it.

A F2P game has to convince people to put money into it on a constant basis, it's a whole other ballgame. It's far more dependent on replayability and general satisfaction of the community.

Stardouser · 2012-05-29, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Gandhi

On the other hand you'll end up with situations where you're killing the same group of guys 3, 4, 5, 6 times before you can finally remove them from one area of your base. Or entire squads showing up out of nowhere because a single infiltrator slipped in, which isn't hard to do. Or even squads suiciding just to travel quickly to another part of the battlefield after pulling some of your guys away to deal with them. And the whole concept makes Galaxy hotdrops somewhat redundant, when you can just have your leader bail out of a Mossie and then spawn on him.

I think you can make a case for both systems, so I hope we get to try them both in the beta.

I can get behind that! Trying both might even lead to some genius coming up with a better way than anyone has heretofore considered.

MrBloodworth · 2012-05-29, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Squad spawning should be the primary respawn method

No. It should be removed. AMS's should be brought back.

Stardouser · 2012-05-29, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

No. It should be removed. AMS's should be brought back.

I described my vision of how quickly people should get back into the battle. Why don't you describe yours? Where would you expect your AMS to be placed, how long is your expected respawn timer system and then the average runback time to the fight/to your squad?

I'm not asking for statements of faith in SOE to do it right, or anything like that; I mean, what is your vision for this?

Coreldan · 2012-05-29, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Xaine

Fine, but if we wanted to play CoD or Battlefield, we'd be posting on Cod or Battlefield-universe.com.

Making a game more like CoD or Battlefield isn't what i want. If i wanted to play them, i'd play them. I'm here because of Planetside 1.

Now, those titles being so huge, SoE are going to try and emulate what makes them good. Thats fine, as long as you keep it firmly Planetside, which they are doing.

But one has to remember that for PS2 to be succesful, it has to attract a FUCKING CRAPLOAD MORE of players than Planetside ever did. Planetside's "commercial failure" comes down to many things, a big part being that most people never even heard about the game, but also many others.

Even if they make all ex-PS players happy but at the same time fail to attract the outsiders, the game already commercially failed.

I'm not saying to take anything and everything from BF3. So far I'm liking the most things. It's also funny that most of the stuff people complain about BF3 are optional server settings. I havn't seen a 3D spot marker in BF3 after my first session.

PS's gunplay was already close of outdated when it came out. If you really think the antique kinda gunplay of PS is what makes Planetside so great for you, I almost feel sorry for you

Immigrant · 2012-05-29, 09:30 AM

First game I played was Wolfenstein so I can't be counted as new to FPS genre yet however I find most new FPS game elements good (I haven't played that much of them tbh, cod4 was the most recent of the before mentioned COD and BF series and I liked it's SP campaign very much). Only thing I would ask is not to make this game too fast (like Tribes i.e.).

KTNApollo · 2012-05-29, 09:35 AM

Let the developers make the game. When beta starts we can tell them what is unbalanced with the game, or what is buggy, but we are not designers. We do not know how to make a better game than they do, or else we'd all be employed as game designers.

Kipper · 2012-05-29, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by RadarX

How do you make a complex and accessible game?

Easy to play, hard to master.... I think you get it right when someone with no experience of your game can get straight in there and start using vehicles and shooting at stuff without anyone having to tell that how to do it, or without some lengthy (usually tedious) tutorial.

But, the more you play it - and for a good while (as long as possible), you should keep on getting eureka moments when you work out that something you're doing is or isn't right, which makes you better - not at twitching (some of us, myself included, will always fail at that) - but at making decisions over what class/vehicle to bring, how to equip it, what to do with it to make it even more effective.

Personally, I like it when a game gives me the tools to get better, but doesn't try to make me better artificially by explicitly telling me how to play them. If I want an experience on rails, I'll watch a movie. A game should be about writing your own script as you go.

A ludicrous example - don't have a popup saying "this looks like a good sniping spot, snipers should go here and do X and Y to get kills". Rather, I want to discover which spots are good and what I need to do by experiencing it or hearing about it from friends experiences.

Anyway, this way, you're accessible because a 5 minute player can get loaded in into a battle and just wants to play a shooter without having to jump through hoops or understand the complexities, but the 5 year player who has taken the time to understand everything else the game has to offer can continue to get new things from it.

Stardouser · 2012-05-29, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

I'm not saying to take anything and everything from BF3. So far I'm liking the most things. It's also funny that most of the stuff people complain about BF3 are optional server settings. I havn't seen a 3D spot marker in BF3 after my first session.

Do you play Hardcore? My experience with BF3 is that servers who turn 3D spotting off individually, die from lack of population. To explain for those who don't know, BF3 has 3 search modes in the server browser: Normal, Hardcore, and Custom. Hardcore turns off killcam, 3D spotting etc but it also turns off the HUD, and lowers player health. If you individually turn off 3D spotting or killcam your server goes into the Custom settings and you do not receive any quickmatches(aka, Play Now or Instant Action). My experience is that most people either look for hardcore servers if that's what they want, or they just leave it on normal, and custom servers die.

The point of all that is - if you are avoiding 3D spot by playing on Hardcore, that's not a solution that I can accept because the lowered health on Hardcore also lowers TTK. HArdcore is a prepacked mode with many changes; yes it may not have 3D Spot or killcam but that doesn't mean it's worth it.

Why is this relevant to PS2? I have no doubt that even as we speak, the decision whether or not to have 3D spotting or similar things is raging. It's not needed, but if SOE thinks it is I would prefer they just have a few "Casual" or "New Player Friendly" servers that have this, instead of inflicting it on the entire population.

Meecrob · 2012-05-29, 09:40 AM

Let me play devil's advocate here. I really don't understand all the hate CoD and BF3 are getting so much hate from the community. Let me be clear im not some CoD kiddy, i've played FPS's since Wolfenstein 3D and pretty much everyone of them in between, so i think i have plenty of experience.

CoD and BF3 made great strides when it comes to gun mechanics and fluidity of play. BF2 infantry gunplay, in my opinion, was horrible. (Take note when i say "in my opinion"). I do admit the CoD franchise lost its way after MW2 and they are now just cranking out sequels. But tbh if you look at CoD as an arcade shooter instead of a tactical shooter it kinda makes sense. I think the new CoD's are closer to Unreal Tournament then say counter strike.

I own BF3 and have played it for like 250 hours now. I love everything when it comes to gun mechanics and vehicle mechanics. I do agree it's sad that they cut a couple of the more 'tactical' elements. (like commander mode, atillery strikes etc.) but i do think its a huge step up in the before mentioned mechanics.

Now...when it comes to PS2. How i see it is that they have taken all of the best features of the modern fps and combined this with the more tactical aspects of the past. So i see this as win/win.

In closing i'de like to say, remember that this is your opinion. Many of these posts seem to state that the current changes are horrible as a fact. But do realise that some people think differently about it.