Best game I've ever played...?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by dethred

Isn't that precious? To throw a pie in your face, I happen to think this game has more depth and potential longevity than BF2 ever had, which is why I already enjoy it more. I hate the direction that BF3 took, having chosen a COD-clone approach, and I've totally written off the series. I know of dozens of people with the same situation. Sorry, guy, but your precious Planetside series is about to be overrun with hundreds of thousands of people who enjoy an FPS game on a large scale with tactics and teamwork at its core. If that's worrisome to you, then just WOW. Bitter is the best and only word.

Ehrm... What are you talking about here?

PlanetSide (1) == tens of thousands of people who enjoy an FPS game on a large scale with tactics and teamwork at its core. We tend to find PS2 shallow on that level.

Why? Because it has become more like BF series, which is even more shallow in comparison. So we're not really concerned about the new people flowing in, we're concerned with the game not being tactical enough, instead it being too zerg oriented (numbers equals win =/= teamwork equals win!).

Since you did not play PS1, I don't really get why you're trying to talk in a degenerative way of PS players, since you have no frame of reference to judge them on.

From what I saw last night, the amount of teamwork and immersion could not be topped.

Rose tinted glasses can lead to blindness.

I've never seen such negativity for such an excellent game. Its quite frankly getting annoying. The first reply in this thread basically says it all in regards to how ridiculous these arguments are. "Oh no, you like ____ game and also like PS2, so that's proof that this game isn't as good as PS1".

That's not what was said. You're putting words in Mox' mouth.

1.) There's everything from people complaining their moderate systems can't handle a dedicated PC game with thousands of participants with huge battles and excellent graphics. Who would have thought a modern game pushing the performance envelope will make slightly dated mid-level PCs display their shortcomings.

Depends on how you look at it: the devs stated they would make it run on a 5 year old PC, so the expectation level was created by the devs. If the devs said 1-2 year old PC, we'd not be having that discussion. But now, they set the standard where a Duo Core must be able to run it as the majority of PCs from that time era were Core2 Duo.

If it doesn't do that well, then you'll get complaints.

2.) There are veterans who are complaining that there is no depth to the game... From what I can tell, it looks like the developers made a tradeoff between the meta game and actual decent combat.

Uhm... Let me get this straight, are you saying that "more meta game == non-decent combat"? O.o' Where do you base that on? From experience: more meta game == better combat, more strategy, more tactics. Lowering the complexity of the game makes battles more straightforward, which benefits zerg-gameplay. Zerg-gameplay is a worse type of combat because it requires the least thought and allows the smarter players less room to compensate by playing smart and focused.

Don't get me wrong, zerg can be fun, but it's also relatively tiring and less satisfying to win a zergfight (unless you beat the zerg playing smart, but that's not possible in PS2 due to lack of crowd control options due to funneling and choke points not being options).

We're saying: combat is worse than it could be on several levels. Of course it's a billion times better than BattleField 3. PS1 was that as well.

I've come from playing competitively in BF2 and 2142 (again, I hated BF3 and detest COD), and this game provides a much better experience in terms of teamwork and immersion. If you don't eventually get your complexity aspect, then either take off the rose-tinted glasses or simply play PS1.

I know its a terrible choice to have to deal with what you're being provided for FREE, or going back to your old game and playing that for FREE.

Without pop, the actual content? How nice of you to provide the option between playing a game that is relatively shallow and ill-construed from the veteran point of view or stop playing altogether. And btw, you're the one currently wearing the rose-teinted glasses: PS2 fanboy goggles to be exact.

What makes you think you're invulnerable to the same critique you're trying to apply to PS1 veterans? You try to paint PS2 as the bestest ever, while we KNOW it could be the bestestestest ever if they just listened to us more. The game is becoming better over the past months, BECAUSE they listened to veterans and stepped away from some alpha concepts they refused to drop before, because they thought it streamlined the game. You're saying our improvements have made the game better, but since you don't realise that was our doing, we should just shut up and go away?

I also understand the need for constructive criticism, but this crap is just silly. The sheer absolutism of this negativity is counter-productive towards making changes. Tell me this, how is a Developer going to look at this forum and see anything but a general "We want an exact remake of PS1 with better graphics but don't want to have to spend more than $150 on a graphics card"? Most of you probably have at least one valid criticism, but when you flood the forums with the negativity its self-defeating.

How many people have you actually heard "an exact remake"? I'm sorry, but you'll hear 97% of critique go on about SPECIFIC sub-systems. Considering there's about a bazillion systems, of which a few thousand have been changed, YES, we're going to have A LOT of critique! What you don't get though, is all the things we HAVN'T critiqued, because there's either no point in mentioning them or because people take them for granted. It's not fair to say "oh it's mostly critique, so you're just bashing" or "you just want the old game". That's you being an utter narrowminded turd.

I saw the same thing with BF3 forums from BF2 veterans (I was one of the complainers), and it didn't work at all. Worse off, just like BF3, this game will probably have a MUCH larger player base which will serve to invalidate all your criticisms in the eyes of the developers.

True, but the problem is that numbers don't guarantee quality and numbers do not invalidate critique. New players to the genre have less experience and have less options to provide critique, so one should expect them to be rather accepting of "whatever is there". One, being a dev, should not mistake complacency and ignorance for having done the best they could. The best people to ask about what to change ARE PS1 vets, because we're more aware of the (dis)advantages of design options and alternatives than (with all due respect), people who only played small shooters like CoD, BF2/2142/3 or some other multiplayer games. People who played MAG would have better input than players from BF (even though MAG is completely different as well), simply because an upscaled shooter and a game with three factions works completely different.

One of the big differences is acquisition and numerical leverage. What works for a 32 vs 32 game, will not necessarily work in a 650 vs 650 vs 650 game. What works in a 150 vs 150 vs 150 game, is much better comparable.

When the players with the latter experience are negative, they might be on to something that the 32 vs 32 players will be oblivious to until they gained what, 2 years of experience playing the new game. And I'm not saying that to sound denegrating or insulting, the amount of dimensions you have to have a proper grasp on are simply far greater for a PS game and often involve things you never would consider in a smaller scale game.

In a smaller game, group behaviour is different. In a smaller game, balance is different. In a smaller game, the interaction between two players is different. In a smaller game, the power distance between two groups of players is different. Where in BF on a 64 player map, 4 vs 1 would mean at most 32 vs 8, 4 vs 1 in a bigger scaled game can mean 160 vs 40, or 600 vs 150. The power of leverage behaves quite different at those populations and having the exact same type of open maps has severe consequences. I don't expect you to realise that.

I don't expect you to for example have ever argued or have to convince with 50 other people on the next course of action and which map to invade from where, what route and how, or predicting and preparing for an invasion elsewhere. I cannot expect you to have ever needed to come to a concensus for the battleplan of an entire empire and therefore I cannot expect you to know what kind of conditions, psychology, diplomacy, situations and time pressure there is and how the system must be able to deal with and support that type of command. Especially when there's a huge difference between large and small outfits and therefore the amount of influence they might have.

I don't expect you to for example have witnessed fights where 15 people held off a hundred people for 10 minutes till reinforcements arrived, secured a base or even pushed them back, but the way PS2 is designed, you won't ever see that. As such, I cannot expect you to have an opinion of that and therefore also not see any problems. Unfortunately, what I can expect is you not understanding that those who DO have that experience, see why the current game is "flawed". Upon which you conclude that we're just whining, simply because you're missing out on a lot of information.

And I can go on like that. In short, you lack the experience to make proper judgment. That includes you lacking the experience to be able to say if we're whining. :/


Lastly, if a completely new BF3 player with just some months tops of experience in the entire BF series (and all gained in BF3), yet a BF3 fanboy nonetheless, told you you were just whining and BF3 is the greatest game ever and the best of the series and you should go back to BF2 (or BF1942) if you didn't like it... What would you say?