Are DICE Getting worried about planetside 2.. - Page 7

Stardouser · 2012-07-13, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Pella

1: The Input i would give, Would be purely balance and gameflow. A classic example would be the "Noob tube/C4". Yes its realistic in terms of the military use it. But does the game actually need it? Does it fit in planetside's 2 style? Also the weight and feel of weapons is a big thing for me.

2: Yes, As i mentioned before the majority of PS1 vets have played FPS excessively / competitively and gained allot of knowledge of what works and what doesn't. Whisenhunt was hired for a reason. To bring that FPS knowledge to SOE.

I think that's the key. Does it fit in Planetside 2? And, who decides what PS2's style should be? Does PS2's style have to be the exact same as PS1? If not, then inevitably, the answer to the question "does this fit in PS2" will, for many issues, be yes, even if it would have been no for PS1.

I've often thought that some things would lend themselves to custom ruleset servers. I'm sure you know what this means but for those reading who don't, it means, for example, that if SOE was going to turn friendly fire off, a PS1 ruleset server would have it on, it would have dedicated tank gunners required, and all that stuff.

The problem is that any time someone suggests varied ruleset servers, people scream "community splitting". But there are two basic facts:

1. Even if it is community splitting, servers of both ruleset types will get populated, and it won't actually affect anything. Why should anyone care as long as the 2000 player continent/6000 player server they are personally on, gets fully populated?

2. If there are no varied ruleset servers, then the gameplay decisions have to be the same for everyone, and, as you point out, the gameplay will be decided on what makes SOE the most money.

So, instead of fighting on principle against "community splitting", why not rally to ask SOE to have a separate server type that is PS1 vet configured to the maximum extent possible? You might even find that some people are willing to try it and be converted. Wouldn't that be better than rejecting this idea citing "community splitting", knowing that having only one ruleset will force SOE to make that ruleset geared toward the most money? You might even find that new players to PS2 who are playing PS2 before they play other online shooters(and are thus not biased in favor of any specific game style) might choose to start out on the vet ruleset server.

And also, a lot of people on this forum say "it's an MMO!" as a response to certain ideas. Well, MMOs are well known for having varied ruleset servers. SOE is no stranger to this, EQ has had all manner of PvP servers, a server where all the gear is tradeable, they even, for a while there, had a server where death was permanent.

Hamma · 2012-07-13, 11:33 AM

Additionally Klockan is comparing apples to oranges. When Battlefield first started there wasn't a massive community around it posting thread every second. PlanetSide was largely unknown.. PlanetSide 2 will change that.

Shogun · 2012-07-13, 11:39 AM

basti nailed it!

sure, this will only happen if planetside 2 is a success and soe breaks with its tradition to screw up their best games after some time.
but ps2 has the best dev team ever and this time they really put some thought into future plans for the game! (5 year plan anyone?)

also the marketing problem of part 1 seems to be history as well.( count the nominates and awards ps2 already won even before beta started!)

so the chance is very high for ps2 to become a very successful game and therefore the title of wow killer and battlefield killer is well within reach!

Klockan · 2012-07-13, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by basti

Let me tell you a bit about hype, so you understand how stuff works, rather than typing random letters that somehow form words:

No game gets hyped by itself. No game ever managed to be hyped just because it is THE game.
In fact, only sequels get hyped. THe original Battlefield 1942 didnt really take off, the original Call of duty was just one shooter of many. Yet, whenever those games get a new installation of themself out, everything goes to shit and nothing else is important anymore. Why? Because of two simple facts:
1. The still existing playerbase, as well as the devs, go out and tell everyone.
2. Everyone who ever played that game forgot all the bad memorys and just goes OMIGOD A NEW BF/COD/WUTEVER HYPE HYPE HYPE.

Then, as said, everything goes to shit.

Now, with a game like planetside, this obviously cant happen that easily. For once, planetsides Playerbase is much smaller than that of the original BF or COD. Then, we have a rather difficult problem to solve: explaining planetside.

In all my years of a PS player, every single damn time i tried to explain to someone that there are 133 vs 133 vs 133 players on a map in a persistent battle, people went "whut?", and asked me questions what i mean, like how long they fight, what the goal is, when the round ends (you wont believe how often i got that one), what i mean with 133vs133vs133, how much can fit on one server, etc.
People simply cant understand the concept of Planetside. Its so absolutly absurd and unrealistic in a gamers mind that they completly block out. You simply cannot explain it quickly, you always need to spend hours upon hours to make sure the dude figures out whats really going on.

We tried to fix that for Planetside 1, and had some success. It was called the "Guerilla marketing campaing", and it did help a bit.
As for Planetside 2, this can only be fixed by waiting for beta, grabbing loads of footage from massive battles, and spamming such videos into everyones face.
Onces thats done, BF will be rather dead.

So yes, Dice is worried, in fact they are shitting their pants, because they know they have absolutly nothing to offer to the actual Battlefield Fans that enjoy the big maps.

The Moment Planetside 2 opens to the public, means Open Beta, all hell will break loose, and Games like COD, BF and whatever other PC shooter out there will loose a large chunk of their playerbase.
And im not telling you that as a PS Fanboy, but as a Gamer who played a craplot of Multiplayer FPS.

I didn't say that PS2 wont get big, I just said that the hype around it isn't big which is true and thus I don't really think that the BF guys are worried yet. They probably think that the game will be a fluke or so.

Sabot · 2012-07-13, 11:54 AM

Basti tellin' it like it is!

VaderShake · 2012-07-13, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Hamma

Additionally Klockan is comparing apples to oranges. When Battlefield first started there wasn't a massive community around it posting thread every second. PlanetSide was largely unknown.. PlanetSide 2 will change that.

Hamma,

1942 took off when the DC Mod came out and eveyone screamed from the rooftops about it and was posting videos of how awesome it was.

Here is a personal example of why Basti is dead on.

I found out about PS2 (Never knew about PS1)

I shared it with the 12 regular BF guys I play with across the USA .

Now about 20 people locally are waiting to camp in my basement because I have a beta key.

My nephew and his friend are at my house right now weed whacking, cleaning up my yard, and painting my garage door talking about PlanetSide 2 because I showed them a video of it this morining, he's text me a dozen times about it in the last 4 hours.

PS2 is winning advocates with it's openess by the devs and the awesomeness of it's ambition and I will promote the heck out of it any way I can to ensure success.

Klockan · 2012-07-13, 12:12 PM

Many games have a bigger following than PS2 before they are released, even if they aren't AAA titles. Path of exile for example saw way more community hype than PS2, almost none have even heard of PS2. So I don't think that the BF makers are afraid because as of now the game is very unknown.

infected · 2012-07-13, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by TAA

For years PC game design has been stunted by the hardware limitations of consoles. The new generation of consoles will be a huge leap up for game design - it will set the new minimum level for the vast majority of PC games to come out for years after that. PC games always have been and always will be superior to consoles. Unfortunately the reality is that most games are designed with consoles in mind, not for the PC primarily. I am looking forward to the next generation of consoles. No I am not going to buy one. I am going to upgrade my computer instead.

sure, multiplatform games for pc have been lazy console ports.. a new console won't change that. even when consoles get 1080p and dx11, they will still be lazy ports, because publishers like quick deadlines and developers are all bought and paid for and do what they're told. until publishers give the developers more time to polish games, the better hardware won't matter. you can't make an amazing game in 2 years, unless you consider it an amazing franchise.. where 1/2 the work was already done because the sequel is almost cut and paste identical to the previous... console versions of games will still suck, and publishers will continue to feed the console kids garbage because they do not complain because they do not know any better.

and they will have to continue to be ports because pc will still be better than the next console. the next gen console wants to run 1080 at some weak FoV at 30-60 fps. well pc's can run higher res and higher FoV at more than double that fps. no contest. the ports to pc will still suck, ignoring all that the pc can offer, yes, even over the new consoles. because it takes time to make a game, and publishers these days don't give the proper amount of time.

we've had 1080 and beyond for years now. we've had dx11. it will be another year and a half before consoles get bare bones dx11 1080. that is what you call "already 4 years behind" not "next gen".

and that's not a big leap forward, that's because they know there is no way they can cost effectively leap forward... because they don't like to take risks. they like to play it safe. consoles can't gain an advantage over pc any longer.

instead, consoles have chosen to go another direction to try to remain relevant... the more time passes the more the consoles try to be more like a replacement to cable tv service, and less a true game platform.

Gonefshn · 2012-07-13, 12:39 PM

I agree with Basti to an extent however I think there are some points being missed.

COD and BF both have rounds, which obviously is what could make them "inferior" experiences in scale and huge war. However being persistant doesn't make PS2 better on a factual basis.

I am the biggest advocate for Planetside and the persistant game, I believe it to be the best thing that has ever happened to gaming for sure. Still, It can't be ignored that there will always be a market for arena shooters.

People will always love that end of game leaderboard that summarizes the last 10-45 minute match and shoves your ownage (or lack thereof) in the other players faces. Planetside 2 will not have that sort of in your face bragging rights leaderboard. Sure you can see visually in the game that people are doing well but tons of competitive gamers will always want to play a match not a persistant game.

BF definitely has more to worry about than COD because you can argue that PS2 will satisfy more fully the feel that BF fans are looking for. COD has nothing to worry about though. Literally nothing. It isn't even remotely close to a Planetside type of game.

Don't forget too. Console gaming is HUGE and isn't going anywhere. The push for cloud gaming and integration with your entertainment system on your TV is only going to make console gaming more and more accesible.

Planetside 2 will surely be HUGE and upset the gaming world by showing people a new style of game. I am sure it will be immitated and praised for innovation but I don't think established franchises like BF and COD and Halo that are round based games have anything to fear.

Canadian Vanu · 2012-07-13, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Accuser

What they mean is that the FPS games currently being produced (CoD, BF3 especially) are set up to be compatible with current consoles and PC performance. The next gen of consoles will allow developers to dramatically expand what they can do with their new releases, since the new consoles can handle it.

Put simply: BF3 on console can only handle 32 player matches, whereas PC can handle Planetside 2. The next gen of consoles will be able to handle Planetside 2... You do the math.

And then people upgrade their computers for a game that has even higher requirements for ps2, and consoles take another 5 years to catch up in what time pc has done in a matter of months.

Endrid · 2012-07-13, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin D Lee

BF3 is and will still be the better game for E-Sports / Tournaments due to the ability to limit team sizes. They have nothing to fear from PS2 in that regard. As for casual players... yeah they may come over. Remember PS2 won't have the destruction the BF3 engine offers.

BF3 does NOT cater to those that want Esports. The competitive scene has been dying a slow death since it started and it's mostly because key features were not included (spectator, battlerecorder, match making).

I was REALLY excited for this game and it let me and others down in that regard. Dice should be worried if they're not. I made a platoon in bf3 just for people that are going to go to planetside, and it capped out in about a week.

https://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf...5241331570304/

Top Sgt · 2012-07-13, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin D Lee

PS2's Engine can't do what BF3's Engine can. More players does not make PS2 the better game by default.

fanboys I swear...

yeah fanboys I'll tell you

This is coming from a late 30's Gamer who has owned and played every BF game and mod ever created since the begenning!:

Frostbite 2 actually can't do what Forgelight can do.

1. Support 6000 players on one server

2-Use server side hit detection when BF degressed back to client side hit detection and lied to the public calling it "hybrid". The PC version is a console port period uses Console hit detection networking.

3-FB2 engine still suffers from terrible netcoding to this day..including a new and upcoming much smaller game using it besides dice & BF3.. it's a super bandwidth heavy engine by nature.

4- destruction is way ovverated..unless your 12 years old you get past the destruction crap quickly.. it's great you can blow a hole in a wall but what good is that when you go in that hole and shoot a guy in his back from 10m firing an entire mag into him and it only registers 2 or 3 bullets actually causing damage to him? he then reacts turns around and drops you with a pistol with ease.. You look at scoreboard and realize he in that server with a 300+ ping and with it being client side.. it actually helps him...

Destruction in a game does not make it better mr fanboy when the rest of the gameplay is severely lacking!.

yeah dice is worried. but at the same time they and EA only care about the Console market & money anyways

PC market has been an afterthought to them since bf2142..long time now.

Sephirex · 2012-07-13, 01:37 PM

I was personally disappointed with the destruction in BF3, and found it a step down from BC2. Either way, it struck me as more of a novelty than a game changer.

rTekku · 2012-07-13, 01:39 PM

FB2 is a horrible engine. I'm not sure why this Kevin D Lee person is trying to hype it up as this amazing engine that can do anything.

The destruction is horrible. The funniest thing though is how everytime they release a new expansion pack, they always release some type of advertisement that includes something about the destruction.

For B2K, they advertised "Enhanced destruction" and the destruction was really no different.

For Close Quarters, they advertised "HD destruction". Seriously? What in the heck is HD destruction...? Glass flying everywhere?

MrBloodworth · 2012-07-13, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by rTekku

FB2 is a horrible engine.