Reading original PS1 reviews, you can't help but wondering...

[Rolfski]

...if the reviewers will find PS2 an improvement over its original.

As different as this game is from PS1, the original 2003 reviews show some surprising similarities to what you can expect from PS2. Which makes me wonder how they will rate this game compared to PS1. Some snippets from 2003 reviews:

Gamespot (7.9)
"Basically, you'll encounter a surprising amount of inactivity--especially for a game that's supposed to be a fast-paced first-person shooter--as you wait for everyone to assemble"

IGN (7.7)
"After playing quite a few hours, I'm just uninterested about what happens next. I leave the game when my side has three continents almost locked up and then come back two hours later to see that all three are gone and one of them is someone else's completely. It's a frustrating, hopeless, and altogether meaningless struggle."

Eurogamer (7)
"For a persistent world, it's just not very persistent, and the lack of anything to explore or do beyond shooting wildly at the enemy and swapping bases once a day begins to grate after a while. It would be nice to envisage winning someday."

Most of the reviewers seem to have the same positives and negatives with PS1 that will probably apply to PS2 with a few notable exceptions, the biggest one probably being that PS1 appeared to be a lot more buggy and less stable at launch.
Anyway, PS1 received a solid 8.1 at Metacritic and I expect PS2 in its current state to score around the same, maybe slightly higher.

[Beerbeer]

Well, I can understand some of those reviews from their limited perspective, but for me it was ALL about fighting people you know; the grudge matches, the famous names, the small things that turn into great moments, sabotaging clan assaults, making people rage quit, which only happen after you play for a while.

Hopefully, there are enough changes to entice people to stick around long enough to develop these great things, that can only happen in this great environment.

[sylphaen]

Reviewers would spend what... 2 hours max into a game ? Or an afternoon if they do not have too much stuff to test or more interesting things to do ?

Take a game tester who has no prior knowledge/bias about Chess or Go and make him test those. I do not give much hope to the rating they'd give out.

[Beerbeer]

When I played cod, I always went to the same server, because I knew everyone. You knew who the good people were and it was fun trying to kill them.

Here, it's like that non-stop and everywhere, but it takes a while to develop that, to make a name for yourself and clan and to know who to be wary of and who you can laugh at (although it will take less time here this time around for ps1 vets).

That's why I stopped playing cod when they dumped dedicated servers and why planetside was and is so appealing to me.

Hopefully the new people can stick around long enough to feel that magic.

[Littleman]

While the "there is no goal" complaints will see no end, and in an online MMO, never should there be an end where the credits roll, the main strength of PS2 isn't the pursuit of global conquest, it's the war stories you can tell your friends when you finish playing for the day. I can't name another game where victory DOES matter, and I made it happen because I did X and that gave us the opening to punch through our enemies line, or held Y against the odds, sometimes alone, sometimes with a small handful of others, or that last second generator save as it beeps rapidly seconds before it goes up in smoke, keeping our enemies from the SCU and allowing my team to resecure the base. Or how about that time where I stormed over a sand dune in my little lightning and through a hail of cannon fire, wriggled my way to the flanks of the Vanguard line, give them nothing but really $#!%%& options regarding whom to shoot, and collapsing their front (I still can't believe none of them hit me, RIP old turning speed cert.) Or that time when I had a whole flock of scythes chasing my lightning across the sea bed, and I was putting them down with an AP turret all while swerving out of the way of rockets and bullets.

It's these moments that will make one truly appreciate the game, which is why many recommend joining an outfit that likes to play together, like a squad or platoon as often as possible. Outfits aren't for me, I'm far too asocial and prone to wanting to do what I want to do when I want to, but they do increase an individuals odds of fighting with a squad, and squad play does tend to bring with it even more, what I like to call, "Planetside moments" simply because miracles can be done with a well organized squad or platoon.

The game can never truly end. SOE will eventually get around to fleshing out a strategic meta game, they can add more mechanics to attacking a base, but it can never have an end. However, what these additions do provide are more potential Planetside moments, and really, when anything gets implemented, it should be designed with Planetside moment potential in mind. Trying to "win" the war just gives one direction and a reason to keep fighting

To put it another way: Everyone wants to be the hero for their empire. This game is the only game that will really give you all of the opportunities to experience what it's like to be that hero.

[Fear The Amish]

funny thing is those reviewers are garbage. PC gamer which is what i swear by if i remember right was very favorable to PS1 and they are really into the game.

[Sifer2]

It's not garbage, and in fact I remember agreeing with that a lot. In PS1 early on you could max out BR rank in like a few weeks play. Then there was nothing left to do but trade bases. Sadly not much has changed in PS2 except it will take an impossibly long time to max out your character.

Basically the FPS players who are used to that type of play the same map every day for years gameplay, and find that fun will still be satisfied. But the MMO crowd who expects progression will not. Fortunately it sounds like this time around SOE is more ambitious, and has better plans for this game long term. Their only competition really is Dust 514, and it doesn't compare at all in the gameplay side of things. If SOE can just match it in terms of Metagame they wont need to fear anyone except maybe Blizzard.

[Ghoest9]

Those reviews were way off the mark.

The game had big problems - connectivity and hacks.
But is you were feeling left out of the the action it was because of you.

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by Rolfski

...if the reviewers will find PS2 an improvement over its original.

As different as this game is from PS1, the original 2003 reviews show some surprising similarities to what you can expect from PS2. Which makes me wonder how they will rate this game compared to PS1. Some snippets from 2003 reviews:

Gamespot (7.9)
"Basically, you'll encounter a surprising amount of inactivity--especially for a game that's supposed to be a fast-paced first-person shooter--as you wait for everyone to assemble"

IGN (7.7)
"After playing quite a few hours, I'm just uninterested about what happens next. I leave the game when my side has three continents almost locked up and then come back two hours later to see that all three are gone and one of them is someone else's completely. It's a frustrating, hopeless, and altogether meaningless struggle."

Eurogamer (7)
"For a persistent world, it's just not very persistent, and the lack of anything to explore or do beyond shooting wildly at the enemy and swapping bases once a day begins to grate after a while. It would be nice to envisage winning someday."

Most of the reviewers seem to have the same positives and negatives with PS1 that will probably apply to PS2 with a few notable exceptions, the biggest one probably being that PS1 appeared to be a lot more buggy and less stable at launch.
Anyway, PS1 received a solid 8.1 at Metacritic and I expect PS2 in its current state to score around the same, maybe slightly higher.

Hey about fricking time people get bored of the same old wow-clones and the same old COD-clones and the same old BF2-clones. I got bored of them at Everquest 1, Quake 1, and BF1942. About time the rest of the world catches up.

[Dreamcast]

The only reviews I saw, I think was Gamepro's and Xplay or whatever it was called back then.

Both said it was good I think.


The concept blow away my mind, sounded like battlefield on steroids.

[Rolfski]

I just cited a few quotes from popular review sites that will review PS2 again. I was surprised how well PS1 was received back in the days, especially by the less popular sites, many of which don't exist anymore.
I was always under the impression it received the same mediocre reviews that Eve Online did in 2003.

[ringring]

To me it seems lie 'they just didn't get it', which in a sense is not surprising seeing there had been nothing like it previously.

It should be different for PS2 though.

And PS1 was unstable until well after launch. There was the famous white texture bug and the equally famous term bug.

And the times when you're loaded up in a gal ready to assault somewhere where time is critical and your gal pilot crashes when you warp to the continent. Annoying.

[Spoof]

Gaming falls into two broad philosophies: participation and completion.

Completionists want finality and closure. Been there, done that, got the achievements, beat the bosses, phat loot, I win.

Participants enjoy the game for what it is, and if the game were ever to end it would be a tragedy.

Planetside will always fit into the participation category... much to the ignorance of most reviewers and like-minded players of 'rounds based shooters'. The persistent nature of PS is dynamism, not closure.

So the ground you won yesterday has been lost already? Go and win it back and bloody well enjoy doing it again and again and again....

[Piper]

Originally Posted by ringring

To me it seems lie 'they just didn't get it', which in a sense is not surprising seeing there had been nothing like it previously.

It should be different for PS2 though.

And PS1 was unstable until well after launch. There was the famous white texture bug and the equally famous term bug.

And the times when you're loaded up in a gal ready to assault somewhere where time is critical and your gal pilot crashes when you warp to the continent. Annoying.

Pretty much yup. Don't think they could have "not got it" anymore reading those. Ps1 was the last big and good team game made I thought? It was like DaoC without the annoying/crap PvE grind just to get PvPing.

It wasn't about a bunch of individuals just sharing an E-space collecting pixel crud on a virtual account, it wasn't about fluff, it wasn't about whacking poor AI routine monsters over their head...

..it was about competition, co-operation and camaraderie. Same things that team sports are all about?

Trying to just play better at a variety of scales, the individual, the squad the outfit or the empire, and then rubbing your opponents nose in it if/when you did so. Call me crazy if you like but that's what gaming is and it is what Ps1 provided, if Ps2 sorts its meta-game out it might do the same one day.

[Mavvvy]

Originally Posted by Spoof

Gaming falls into two broad philosophies: participation and completion.

Completionists want finality and closure. Been there, done that, got the achievements, beat the bosses, phat loot, I win.

Participants enjoy the game for what it is, and if the game were ever to end it would be a tragedy.

Planetside will always fit into the participation category... much to the ignorance of most reviewers and like-minded players of 'rounds based shooters'. The persistent nature of PS is dynamism, not closure.

So the ground you won yesterday has been lost already? Go and win it back and bloody well enjoy doing it again and again and again....

Yeah its funny that they acknowledge persistence in the game, and then listing an example of such they complain about it.