The Reddit Q&A Makes Me Nervous

[TheSHiFT]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Every time you say "they're remaking Battlefield and slapping a Planetside paint job on it" you instantly lose any sort of credibility. It's having an opinion without having to actually think about it. It gives you an instant talking point with absolutely no substance.

How many mini-changuns are in Battlefield? What about tri-barreled shotguns? Does Battlefield have regenerative shields? Lasers? Planetside 2 is almost nothing like Battlefield. The only similarities in actual game play revolve around the fact that they're both shooters.

If you can't see how #2 has condensed some of the features from the original, made them more potent and important, perhaps you should check to make sure you aren't wearing the blinders. It certainly looks like there will be more interesting, compelling and diverse game play in the 3 base types they've announced than there ever was in the terrible bases in the original. Did we suddenly forget how shitty the bases were in Planetside? Why are we arguing for having more shit over slightly less excellence? Are you thinking about what you're saying?

The devs have mentioned, over and over again, that they will be adding more post launch. They want to release a tightly honed core game as fast as they can, and add more to it as time goes along. With the addition of ES-assault buggies we will nearly meet the vehicle count of the original. I don't understand this need to have a bunch of shallow one role vehicles that have almost no room for customization. Should the devs really add stuff just to have it? No.

I keep seeing the word 'innovative' being thrown around, that Planetside 2 will lack it. This is going to be a free to play, modern FPS, with resources, certs, levels, classes, and vehicles. Do you understand what the word innovation means?

So the presence of shotguns, miniguns, and shinny laser skins are your evidence that PS2 is nothing like BF? That their only similarity is their genre? Did you watch any of the game play videos that have been released? Have you read any of the interviews?

Most modern FPSs have resources of some type, they have certs of some type, they have classes of some type, and vehicles? You might as well say that modern FPSs have guns too. The only thing that is innovative about PS2 atm is its scale. Keep in mind, not every game needs to innovate to be successful or fun, refinement of the best the genre has to offer can be compelling enough.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by TheSHiFT

So the presence of shotguns, miniguns, and shinny laser skins are your evidence that PS2 is nothing like BF? That their only similarity is their genre? Did you watch any of the game play videos that have been released? Have you read any of the interviews?

Most modern FPSs have resources of some type, they have certs of some type, they have classes of some type, and vehicles? You might as well say that modern FPSs have guns too. The only thing that is innovative about PS2 atm is its scale. Keep in mind, not every game needs to innovate to be successful or fun, refinement of the best the genre has to offer can be compelling enough.

Shooters are generally the same as one another, you got it.

The video footage we've seen is hardly even the tip of the iceberg. We saw 3 or 4 weapons and only 1 class in action.

All the interviews I've seen have said "We're working on adding as much as we possibly can for launch, and will be adding a whole lot afterwards."

You are certainly right about innovation not being necessary for success for fun. See Blizzard games.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Do you understand what the word innovation means?

I do. I'm not sure you do, though.

Saying "there aren't any mini-chainguns in Battlefield" is missing the point entirely. Did you really think I was literallysaying that PS2 is BF3 with a new 'paint job'? If so, you have mistook me, and allow me to clarify for you.

The game mechanics are the same, or so similar as to be functionally so. That is to say, you could transition from one game to the next and find yourself in a similar environment. It's like Burger King vs. McDonalds. Different, but functionally identical.

The problem is, if you really don't like Burger King because you dislike fast food, McDonalds is not going to satisfy. Also, if you really like Burger King because you're craving a Whopper, then a Big Mac isn't going to satisfy. What Planetside 2 seems to be doing is shooting for the "I just want a fast-food burger and I don't care who its from" market.

The problem is that if you open a 'Burger Queen' or 'McDonnels' restaurant and try to sell similar products, all you're going to do is remind your customers that they're not actually in a Burger King. And maybe that will make them long for the authentic article, rather than the cheap knock-off you're peddling.

And it IS cheap; we can see that in the reduction of overall content and cut corners and so forth. As I said the only new thing on display that I can even think of is the SCYTHE (). Everything else has been reduced or condensed. And sure, you can take the party line that 'less is more' and that combining elements, reducing player freedom, reducing environment variability and so forth are good for the game; I'm just not going to believe you. And frankly, history is on my side.

As a final point, putting too much stock in that the devs might do sometime in the future is a risky prospect. Unless you're new to SOE games, you'll know to be leery of when SOE tries to improve an already-released product. It doesn't normally go very well; unless you were one of those people who started playing the original PS because they finally put giant robots in, and if that is the case, please uninstall the internet.

[Aurmanite]

So from now on you promise to write out actual discussion points like in the post above? If you say "It's Battlefield reskinned", that is what you mean.

If you don't like fast food (first person shooters), why are you running toward a super sized restaurant?

I dig the post release SOE tip, but you have to admit that the very last content addition to the original Planetside was pretty fantastic.

EDIT:

I forgot to mention how the original Planetside was the Burger Queen or McDonnels of the shooter world in 2003, lest we forget. It was not quite Tribes, not quite Unreal, not quite Battlefield. Even so, it was still a tasty burger

[Figment]

To continue on the "single platform vs multiple". With a bit of an "out there" analogy.

Bare with me here!


Okay.



Imagine if there was only one Transformer design ever made and all you got was repaints.

Okay, so maybe you can customize them a bit to look slightly different.



It's still the same basic thing.

Now click this link:
http://www.tfu.info/ID/blueplanes.htm

Now you already have three pages of just blue aircraft of both customized platforms (repaints/remolds), but also loads of completely new molds as well. Even if they are all jets, most feel completely different because they are fundamentally different in appearance, transformation, paint and character. In the end, the TF universe has hundreds and hundreds of robot designs of just aircraft. You honestly think it'd been as fun to collect 100 of the exact same robot?

Just look at the amount of Optimus Primes in the image below and the amount that actually exist: http://www.tfu.info/alpha/o.htm


All 'different', yet all more of the same?

Some actually differ fundamentally, most are just variations of the same concept. Is it fun to have several of the same kind? Sure. Is it enough though? Nah, it'd get boring quite fast. So is it more fun to have completely different molds and base concepts now and then as well? Yes, having choice on multiple levels (so not just weapon loadout or colour, but also frame and appearance).

Furthermore, what if you never liked that particular platform? Wouldn't you want to have something else you could choose instead?

Compare the above pics with the one below.



It's good for emersion, it's good for variety, it's good fun.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

So from now on you promise to write out actual discussion points like in the post above? If you say "It's Battlefield reskinned", that is what you mean.

If you don't like fast food (first person shooters), why are you running toward a super sized restaurant?

I dig the post release SOE tip, but you have to admit that the very last content addition to the original Planetside was pretty fantastic.

And when did that release arrive? Five, six years post-launch, well into the game's irrelevance? That does not exactly inspire confidence.

Also, if it helps you understand the analogy better, imagine for a moment that FPSes are fast-food, and that Battlefield is Burger King, CoD is McDonald's and Planetside 1 was taco bell. Fast food, sure, but different in many ways and possessing of its own particular flavor and style. Now, what if you heard they were opening a Taco Bell 2 down the road and, oh boy, you love Taco Bell! Only know, they're selling mostly burgers. But with taco meat inside!

It'll make you wish that a) they were actually burgers, or b) actually tacos. It never ends well when you try to half-ass an imitation to try and snatch customers away from the original.

And before you try to write up a screed 'discrediting' me, keep something in mind: I'm elaborating on my opinions. Unless you have new information at hand that I clearly am not aware of, or some evidence I have not been yet exposed to, nothing you can say will change my mind. You and I have been exposed to the exact same amount of information, and have come to two different conclusions. You can try as hard as you might to change my opinion, and you will fail, and waste both our time. Don't bother. I'm happy you're happy, and that you're quivering with excitement for the new game; I'm not. And this thread is called "The Reddit Q&A Makes Me Nervous". I would suggest starting a new thread called "The Reddit QA Made Me Excited" if that's all you want to express.

Now, if you have something new to contribute to the discussion, or some body of evidence I'm obviously lacking, please, expound on it.

[Aurmanite]

Why are you telling me how to post? That's ridiculous. People disagreeing and discussing a topic is why forums exist.

My opinion is already in this thread, I'm not going to type the same words over and over for each new poster that joins in. You have a lot of great points, some of which are hard to disagree with. Others not so much. I'm definitely not trying to change your opinion, I'm just pointing out that perhaps your opinion is lacking a frame of reference, specifically that shooters feel a certain way. All Burgers have buns and meat. That fact does not mean that they are carbon copies of one another.

My main beef is with the "It's a Battlefield clone" tripe. You're a smart fella and you have no problems saying things with substance. Do that more often, because I really enjoy it when you do.

From the very limited amount of game play we've seen how have you drawn a conclusion that it's cheap and watered down? We just got our first look at the game a month ago and it's still in alpha. I saw a game that looked like a first person shooter. I did not see a clone of any other game currently on the market, perhaps because I actually play these games and I am a fan of the genre.

I also want to add in my edit from my previous post:

The original Planetside was the very definition of 'tastes like chicken' in the FPS genre in '03. It was everything you're worried about for #2.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Sorry if I came off sounding condescending.

I'm not exactly sure when you got into the shooter scene, so its entirely possible that you don't know what shooters used to look like; however, the CoD/Battlefield style (or, as a friend of mine refers to them, 'Coddlefield') is a relatively new invention and stark in its uniqueness. It's a mish-mash of arcade-style glitter with the harsh and gritty 'real'ness of actual combat. It is NOT how all FPSes used to look; more to the point, it's actually a relatively seldom-used style until recently. Most people only think of that as what FPS is 'supposed' to look like because those two products dominate the market so much that new FPSes (PS2 being 'exhibit A' here) feel that they need to imitate them to be competitive.

However, it's a fallacy. As I've said before, when you imitate, all you do is shine a light on how much better the genuine article is at doing what you're trying to do. Planetside 2 looks to be trying to be a low-rent Battlefield, and I feel comfortable in phrasing it that way because SOE's Planetside budget probably looks like DICE's or Infinity Ward's lunch bill.

It's a sad commentary on the state of the industry that people see something that's clearly a ripoff of another game's style and say "Why, that looks like [genre]". No it doesn't. It looks like [game]. It's just that [game] has come to define [genre] because [game] made so much money that production companies are unwilling to take the risk on something new, because they feel they can't compete with [game].

I have a lot of problems with Coddlefield games. The 'class kits' makes gameplay boring. You're not allowed to be an engineer with a sniper rifle. No, don't talk to me how you can make it work and fill a niche we didn't even know existed; we are the almighty devs and we are telling you, if you try to carry a sniper rifle and an engineer's kit, you will catch on fire and die. No, don't talk to me about how useful it was to carry a lot of med juice in your heavy rexo suit so you could be something of a shock trooper/medic. We have shock troops OR medics and screw you if you don't like it.

It represents a sad trend; that gaming companies are terrified of risk. That all it takes is for one company to hit on a formula that works really well and sells a lot of copies, and then everyone feels like they need to imitate it to compete, when in fact the opposite is true. People who want Coddlefield will play Coddlefield. People who want to play Planetside will play Planetside.

'Plattlefield' is a game that contains lasting appeal for the Coddlefield players who don't like Coddlefield because there's no lasers or hover tanks and it isn't an MMO and... that's it. The people who were hoping for all of the things that made Planetside 1 special are going to find themselves disappointed to see that a great deal from the first game has been trimmed down, condensed, or cut altogether. Coddlefield players will be disappointed by all the EVE leveling and that its not Coddlefield and that there's only three environment types, etc.

It's game that looks designed to fail for the very reason so many others have. Too much imitation, not enough innovation. Another also-ran, another coulda-been. I'm not seeing anything presented that reeks of ingenuity or freshness. And the more we learn, the worse it looks.

Hence, why I'm nervous.

[sylphaen]

Just to summarize your point, too many compromises were made such that PS2 may not please everyone nor anyone ?

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

Just to summarize your point, too many compromises were made such that PS2 may not please everyone nor anyone ?

Oh you can rest assured that it will please some people. You can find a diehard crowd for literally any game. There are still people who wake up every morning and just know they're going to spend all day playing Vanguard. That does not, however, mean that Vanguard is a successful or popular or quality game.

What I'm saying is that it won't be any good, and will most likely fade quickly into obscurity. It doesn't offer enough newness or innovative ideas to set it apart from the crowd, and since a game that relies on scale needs population like an ocean needs water, this could be very bad indeed.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

It's game that looks designed to fail for the very reason so many others have. Too much imitation, not enough innovation. Another also-ran, another coulda-been. I'm not seeing anything presented that reeks of ingenuity or freshness. And the more we learn, the worse it looks.

Hence, why I'm nervous.

Its hilarious seeing this argument coming from you, when you've been arguing it should be more like PS1.

You don't care that its copying another game. You just don't like the game you seem to think its copying, and would prefer it to copy a different game.

The people who were hoping for all of the things that made Planetside 1 special are going to find themselves disappointed to see that a great deal from the first game has been trimmed down, condensed, or cut altogether.

People aren't some monolithic block that agree with what made PS1 special. Most people have many large issues with how PS1 handled things. The only thing everyone agrees on is the scale, scope, and combined arms gameplay. Those are/were central to the PS experience. Far, far more so than whatever mechanics happened to be used for the individual facets of gameplay.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Its hilarious seeing this argument coming from you, when you've been arguing it should be more like PS1.

You don't care that its copying another game. You just don't like the game you seem to think its copying, and would prefer it to copy a different game.

...no.

What I'm worried is that it's copying another game, instead of building on and adding to the previous game. More to the point, that it is doing the opposite of that. It's abandoning a great deal of what made PS1 unique and transplanting it with elements cribbed wholesale from other products, while at the same time reducing what made PS1 unique, rather than expanding.

I liked PS1, and I'd like to see them grow some of those concepts. Except they are shrinking them, and focusing on implementing elements from different games because, hey, they worked there, right? While ignoring why they worked there, and without giving critical consideration to why they won't work for Planetside.

I don't want a copy of PS1. I want PS2. I don't think Plattlefield 0.75 will be a successful product.

[Arius]

I guess I dont mind a few Battlefield like implementations, if it means more people will be playing, then thats a good thing.

... Unless they turn it into CoD...

[CutterJohn]

You can disapprove of their changes. I even disapprove of a few. But the only way you can say they've been blindly copying stuff is if you've paid zero attention to anything they've said in any of the interviews or QnAs.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

You can disapprove of their changes. I even disapprove of a few. But the only way you can say they've been blindly copying stuff is if you've paid zero attention to anything they've said in any of the interviews or QnAs.

These wouldn't happened to be the interviews where Higby can't go five minutes without saying "I play a lot of Battlefield and I was thinking, wouldn't it be cool if..." right?

The 'class kits', the lack of vehicle exit/entrance animations, the way the screen registers bullet hits, the numbers that pop up when you score a kill, the squad spawning, the focus on outdoor vs. indoor gameplay, the player indicators, the TTK, the pacing and speed of movement, the killcam, the weapon customization (do I have a laser pointer or a scope? OR BOTH?); all of these have been cribbed pretty much wholesale from Coddlefield.

The cert system that used to make PS really unique has been completely cut and replaced with the skills system from EVE. And who doesn't find EVE compelling? I'll tell you: 100% of the people not currently playing EVE.

What actually survived the transition from PS1 to PS2 is, far from being expanded, has been reduced and condensed. It's a step back in development, and would be less sad if it weren't so typical in the industry. Production companies all over the industry have spoken; we want less complexity, more lens flare. Fewer environments, more dynamic lighting. Fewer player options, crisper textures.

And then we wonder why fewer and fewer newer-generation games have the same charm and staying power of older titles. And I fear we will be wondering the same thing about PS2 when, twelve or sixteen months post-launch, it's already slipped into obscurity.