Planetside 2 is a major disappointment

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Mox

The problem is atm that ps2 is nothing really special. It is just another online shooter.
Ps1 on the other hand was really special at its time. So let us think about what were the unique selling propositions of ps1. I would say the following three major points:

1) the massive scale of battles
2) the persistence of the world
3) mmo style character development

Now we have to ask what is wrong with ps2 regarding these aspects scince we agree that these Aspects have still a potential to make ps2 successfull game.

This is very close to what I would say are the big 3 draws to both PS1 and PS2. I would agree with the first two points, but I would change the 3rd to be "Character Customization" - its nothing new to gaming now but it was for shooters back then. The ability to change your gear, change your specializations (certs), and your additional perks (implants) was quite big.

I believe PS2 captured these three as well.

The massive battles are there. The battle flow needs tuning and sorting out (something I've been thinking about tons lately). Its by no means a finished product, but that's something we all can help improve by giving constructive criticism.

The persistent world is there. There's a lot more to the persistent world than continent locking. It also means a persistent community. Most shooters don't have that except for some regulars who might play on a particular server. It also means more meaningful victory since there isn't a reset button every fifteen minutes undoing anything and everything you've done. It means more variety in the battle landscape. It means more freedom to go and do what you want. It is a giant playground where you can control ownership. There's a bigger picture game that is now possible that no other game has. There's a lot to build on here but it requires a good foundation first and it isn't what makes PlanetSide fun for the typical gamer. It is something that gives it longevity though, but I would consider it a lower priority than consistently creating good fights.

Massive + Persistent also means you can do whatever you want, any time, with however many friends you want. Doing stuff with friends in other games is a pain. Trying to get all your buddies onto the same team in a BF3 match is a pain, only to have one get auto-balanced, and you can only have a few people at a time. The game is a lot more social and that's a powerful aspect of PS2 that I believe is often neglected by fans.

For PS2 they correctly captured the Customization aspect, but took some different approaches with it to help make it more intuitive and modern to games. That decision is something some vets are upset about by changing gear to classes. I think it was the correct decision seeing as the PS1 cert system didn't scale and the idea of specialization evaporated. Also in modern games being able to change out your playstyle, drastically instantly is a good thing to keep players interested in the game. PS1 used to take the better part of a week to re-cert your character into a different role. Stuff like that doesn't pass the smell test in modern games. The cert gain over time progression but it plays nicely into the customization. It also allows player specialization and allows players to do any role, drive any vehicle, but be better and have more options in the ones they choose.

1) in the last months of beta there were just a few battles that can be called massive or epic. Most time they were medium sized skirmish battle or no battles at all (ghost captures). The problem is that the pkayers are still spread over the whole continent. Therefore ps2 need the proper mechanics to lead the players to the epic battles.

I agree with this and I think it's one of the most important issues to tackle, way more important than cross continent warfare and the bigger global game. People will come to PS2 for the massive, not the metagame. If they don't get that soon after logging in they won't be hooked. PS2 dies. It can live without a deep metagame for a while. It can't live without consistent massive fights. Need some better funneling, better indicators on where the fight is, more smooth battles between outposts, and instant action that works. Matt's post last night covered 3 of those. They get it.

2) The persistence of the world of ps2 is a fact. Nevertheless persistence is meaningless atm since there are no metagame elements in the game atm. Futhermore intercontinental warefare is important to make the persistence meaningfull.

I disagree with this statement. Persistence as illustrated above has a lot more value than simply the intercontinental game. I think the game can live without that in the short term. Longer term it needs to be there, absolutely agree, and Matt outlined a plan to get there in his post last night. He clearly stated that the inter-continental epic conquest is where they want to take the game. One thing they will have in the short term is continental lock benefits. That's a big step closer to the rich metagame we all want. I think it's important to note that in order for the meta game to be meaningful the on-continent fighting needs to be solid, flow better, and consistently create big fights. Without that nobody will play the game long enough to see the rich metagame.

3) regarding charakter development ps2 already do a.good job imo.

Yeah it's doing a good job there. Lots of customization. Would be nice with more/better implant options and working loadouts, but there's a lot of good customization in there.


I don't think the game is all that far off the mark currently and its definitely going in the right direction. What it needs is vets and hardcore fans to help nail the core of the game.

What doesn't help is making a stink about things that dont' matter all that much in the grand scheme of things, or about things that were removed for a good reason.

Personally I'd like more feedback on the flow mechanics of the game. I dont' see that all that much from any forums. Usually it's in the form of complaining and I have to decipher the meaning into the actual problem.