Taking elements from modern shooters != "Dumbing down"

[Mechzz]

I don't mean to derail the thread, but what does it say about someone's programming/maths background when they use:
!= or =/= or <>

to mean "not equal to" ? For example, I use <> because that's how Microsoft does it.

[Fuse]

Originally Posted by Mechzz

I don't mean to derail the thread, but what does it say about someone's programming/maths background when they use:
!= or =/= or <>

to mean "not equal to" ? For example, I use <> because that's how Microsoft does it.

I learned it in introduction to symbolic logic, so it's not necessarily a programming or math background.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Waste of time this thread. If you're going to make accusations, at least be specific about the changes you've seen people label as "dumbing down".

This. You have to evaluate each feature and argue why it's a dumb down.

[Dreamcast]

Originally Posted by Mechzz

I agree PS1 was a simple game - armour up, grab a gun and go shoot the enemy dudes.

But, it was like chess. Sure, you learn quickly how to move the pieces individually but to get all your pieces to play together well takes a lot of practice and skill. That "game within a game" is what I think kept a lot of the PS1 vets, espcecially people interested in being a "commander" playing as long as they did - there was sometimes a genuine feeling of being part of something bigger in Planetside.

Any game is like chess...their is a lot of games where certain load outs and certain tactics must be known or hard to master in order to be good at the game....Even though they same quite simple like Planetside so I don't really see what makes Planetside so complex.

A new player could jump in and play...eventually he will learn that the game allows for players to be medic so they can heal themselves and be op.

[Serpent]

Originally Posted by Dreamcast

Any game is like chess...their is a lot of games where certain load outs and certain tactics must be known or hard to master in order to be good at the game....Even though they same quite simple like Planetside so I don't really see what makes Planetside so complex.

A new player could jump in and play...eventually he will learn that the game allows for players to be medic so they can heal themselves and be op.

This thread should be closed, it started with one point that someone had, and everyone else ignored it and basically posted whatever they felt would get their own points across... it's a mess.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Dreamcast

Any game is like chess...their is a lot of games where certain load outs and certain tactics must be known or hard to master in order to be good at the game....Even though they same quite simple like Planetside so I don't really see what makes Planetside so complex.

A new player could jump in and play...eventually he will learn that the game allows for players to be medic so they can heal themselves and be op.

You're right Dreamcast, absolutely right. Planetside isn't complex in that way, there's nothing you can't learn about loadouts and tactics by playing the game for a while.

All I'm saying is that some players (I was never one of them by the way) really enjoyed "commanding" their outfits, you know, saying let's take this base or that base. Or like Malorn, plotting the best way to capture the world. And doing that is a whole different "level" of the game that someone playing a sniper or a medic might not see apart from Squad Orders or CR5 chat. I'm not saying it's a "better" level of the game, it's not. But that command level is what floats some people's boats.

[roguy]

Originally Posted by lawnmower

you probably need to read up what dumbed down means.
also do you have source for it being simple?

Bad and simplistic vehicle physics: Flying cameras and stationary fighting for aircraft, ground vehicles could climb mountains and couldn't flip over.

Bad and simplistic gunplay: 1 hitbox (so no headshots), no bullet drop nor gunsway.

Non-existent gun and vehicle customisation.

Basic and primitive command system (compared to BF2).

Simple and bad map design: Base fights funneled hundreds of people into a tiny staircase (worse than BF3's Operation Metro....).

Those are just off the top of my head.

[Snipefrag]

I agree, its ridiculous some of the tripe people are coming out with, i mean did they ever play planetside 1? Just think of the amount of clunky things that made combat slightly annoying:

1) Having to hot swap weapons/grenades/utility items from your inventory
2) Third person view, giving defenders a massive edge
3) The way the camera would force you into third person view for a few seconds when you land after you bail on something and didn't pull your weapon in time
4) having to actually select grenades as a weapon before you could throw one..
5) the overly long reload times on lots of weapons, this being used as some sort of balance mechanic never sat well with me.
6) When healing from a terminal in a tower etc having to buy multiple load outs and mash your heal hot key until your full health or manually pick up a med kit and then click use on the UI
7) Not being able to despawn at tubes when someone is sitting in them, effectively being forced to TK people.
8) unrealistic sights on all the weapons
9) REXO soldiers not being able to jump over tower walls easily when other armor types have no problem
10) Being able to place motion detectors in places to effectively block doorways
11) TINY bottlenecks all over the place, towers and bases wedged 100 odd people into corridors wide enough for 2-3 people.. quarter of all kills were TK's !

These are just a few things i can think of off the top of my head, things that modern FPS games would never get away with. Taking from modern shooters pretty much means making the FPS gameplay mechanics run smoother than PS1.. No matter how much you loved planetside you cant say that the FPS elements in it were particularly smooth and fluid.

[MrBloodworth]

The above is not what anyone is talking about when they say PS is being "Dumbed down". No one with any sense that is, that's what is projected by some here in this very thread.

The problem with a number of usual suspects in this thread. Is they automatically try to simplify what someone is saying, so they can write it off as "Elitist" or "Bittervet". With zero sense of irony, they cant take the time to understand what some old time players are putting forth, so they simplify and demonize. Completely missing the point. Its a bit like reading a Wow forum.

Somewhere along the lines, they got the idea that they are the ones that need to be convinced, or hear this feedback. They are wrong.

[Nick]

Taking almost every element from BF3 and putting it into this game and calling it "Planetside 2" is certainly dumbing it down.

Auto repair on vehicles? What's next, I wonder?

[Reapter]

Originally Posted by Snipefrag

I agree, its ridiculous some of the tripe people are coming out with, i mean did they ever play planetside 1? Just think of the amount of clunky things that made combat slightly annoying:

These are just a few things i can think of off the top of my head, things that modern FPS games would never get away with. Taking from modern shooters pretty much means making the FPS gameplay mechanics run smoother than PS1.. No matter how much you loved planetside you cant say that the FPS elements in it were particularly smooth and fluid.

All of this is basically the same reason everyone I knew who played the game said its not a game you play for the combat, but just for the scale basically as a reasoning. Basically, most of its combat needed a ton of updating.

With this said, I imagine forums are very poor reflections of who the average player in a game will be and that SOE and others do studies for feedback etc... to see what most people prefer. Since lets be honest, if they listened mainly to the very few vets against any changes and wants a 1:1 clone of ps1 fully it probably wouldn't do nearly as well. This is why we see the magic of compromise between player types.

Originally Posted by Nick

Taking almost every element from BF3 and putting it into this game and calling it "Planetside 2" is certainly dumbing it down.

Auto repair on vehicles? What's next, I wonder?

That also is if you don't believe in side grades and specializations as I recall the auto repairs are trade off.

[Marinealver]

Originally Posted by Eyeklops

I get the feeling that some Planetside vets subconsciously blame COD/BF3 for "stealing" players away from PS1 and this internal blame has manifested into the "Anything COD/BF3 is evil" attitude. Please, please get over this. It's unhealthy.

COD & BF3 didn't take away any players as much as SOE drove them off and away. You find that those games tend to compeete more with HAL0 than planetside. But you got to admit there are allot of recycled ideas in planetside 2, and it is not just from those 2 games.

The main problem that was with Planetside back in the years is that they treated it like their stepchild with more development and attention on Everquest. When everquest had a patch or expansion it was fully flushed out with every detail and sidequest updated. When Planetside recieved an expansion it had gaps and didn't fit too well into the current metagame.

After that the newer content was more too little too late. SOE market was all about one of two things, Their Everquest (which had lost lots of revenue and subscriptions to Blizzard's MMO World of Warcraft), and their newest game which was supposed to generate more revenue. I remember sending an email to (now former) SOE developers and the response was to try out their new MMO Star Wars Galaxies (which we all know how well that turned out).

[roguy]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

The above is not what anyone is talking about when they say PS is being "Dumbed down". No one with any sense that is, that's what is projected by some here in this very thread.

So far in this forum I've seen "bittervets" say:

Ironsights are dumbing down PS.
Higher TTK is dumbing down PS.
Classes are dumbing down PS.
The UI is dumbing down PS.
Multiple base objectives are dumbing down PS.
Lack of 3rd person view is dumbing down PS.
Vehicles have been dumbed down in PS2.

All under the wonderful straw-man argument that is "COD and BF3 did it therefore it's bad".

[Eyeklops]

It's ok to see a piece of shit (some game mechanic), examine it (playtest), then determine that it really is a piece of shit for a good reason. It's ok to throw that piece of shit at the developer with a note about your logic on why it's a piece of shit with the hopes that they realize its shit.

It's not cool however, to see a piece of shit, and automatically throw it at the developer just because your not used to that shit with the only reason being "this is shit".

How do you even know what type of shit it really is until you fully examine it? There could be awesome berries in there that make the shit not as bad as you thought. Hell, maybe it's manure and what you see as shit will actually cultivate awesome fucking flowers (population) if you ever gave it a shot.

But no, you won't give it a shot because it's not "your" (PS1) shit. And we all know that "your" shit doesn't stink. Obviously "your" shit is the right way to go, just look at your flowers.

I wouldn't blame Higby if he made a "no beta for u" list of the people who have been needlessly dumping bucket after bucket of shit on him and PS2. I would probably fucking high-five him and his hair, then go examine his shit.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by roguy

So far in this forum I've seen "bittervets" say:

Ironsights are dumbing down PS.
Higher TTK is dumbing down PS.
Classes are dumbing down PS.
The UI is dumbing down PS.
Multiple base objectives are dumbing down PS.
Lack of 3rd person view is dumbing down PS.
Vehicles have been dumbed down in PS2.

All under the wonderful straw-man argument that is "COD and BF3 did it therefore it's bad".

Obviously everyone thinks that. Obviously. Boy, did you blow the lid off that one. Thanks guy!

Also, you may wish to reread what I wrote, there are some words in there that mean things.