Complexity of the Game

[Hyperz]

Originally Posted by NEWSKIS

Sadly they're trying to get the bf/cod communities into it so its not going to be as complex as the original.

This might be a bit offtopic but, BF vets wouldn't have any problem with PS2 being as complex as PS1. The guys playing BF3 are mostly CoD players, and those guys probably wouldn't like something like PS1. But then again they probably won't like PS2 either. The "real" BF community is pretty similar to that of PS1 as far as I can tell (I'm an ex BF vet and I LOVE PS1/2).

[Knotz]

I think the most annoying thing about these forums is the CoD/BF3 hate :/ fucking elitists :/

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by maddoggg

Dumbing down the game means:lowering TTK,weapon recoil and making everything more spamable and spray and pray tacking beeing a valid option,removing team work features and creating meatgrinder maps.

Eh... to be fair, all PS2 is getting is lower TTK's. Run and gun was more than a valid tactic in PS1 even in longer range fire fights as long as you fired in bursts. Sure the accuracy wasn't as good as being crouched, but it was still tight enough to score a good number of hits even at longer ranges.

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

Honestly, I mourn the loss of the inventory system even if I didn't play the original. That looks like an amazing mechanic.

Yes and no. The concept was cool, as it allowed us to ask how much ammo we can bring, medkits, a spare weapon, etc. In practice, most infantry donned heavy armor and attempted to fit in ammo and medkits, and near always packed a med tool, armor tool, and two weapons of their choosing, and occasionally a spare dumbfire bazooka. My bag rummaging days have taught me this is pretty much standard among infantry. The bazooka (devastator) being there was about the only real random element.

Free-form does not necessarily equal variety. People WILL find the most efficient path of least resistance when given the freedom to do so. It's why "customization" options in other MMO's typically get broken down to cookie cutter builds that are practically must haves. But generally, these options are strictly beneficial. It's also why Valve stuck to a linear path in Left4Dead instead of going open world like they had originally planned - play testers found a route they liked and ran it over and over anyway.

Weapon modifications in PS2 are a different beast though, since side grades tend to throw a wrench into the works and they effect the core of how a weapon works, not what weapons one brings with them, and everyone has a different opinion on how they want their rifle to feel when they pull the trigger.

As for teamwork aspects, I don't see how PS2 encourages solo play any more than Rexo/HA/AV/Med/Eng did in PS1...

[ThermalReaper]

Let's be honest, when was the last time you've seen someone not hate CoD when it's mentioned on a website? It's beating a dead horse.
"CoD sucks" "OMG WHAT A GOD"
EDIT: And thanks Littleman for explaining the inventory system. Still sounds awesome.

[basti]

Originally Posted by Deice

I had introduced many friends to Planetside in the past. Not many stayed… When asked about the game, most liked it but had said that it was overly complex and level progression was slow. Being a new player was difficult though it actually kept me going! Will this deter new players in Planetside 2 even being free to play? How much is too much? Waiting to see how the mission system pans out.

So what are you those guys playing these days? Pac Man?

Planetside wasnt complex at all, it was simple if you opened you eyes.

And i do hope PS2 is more complex. Needs to be!

[GreatMazinkaise]

Originally Posted by basti

So what are you those guys playing these days? Pac Man?

Planetside wasnt complex at all, it was simple if you opened you eyes.

And i do hope PS2 is more complex. Needs to be!

It can be, but only three continents at the start throttles the level of complexity that can be implemented quite a bit at the macro level.

[ThermalReaper]

What do you have against pac man basti? Huh?!

Anyways, I believe that we are giving modern gamers too little credit. But at the same time, a good chunk of them are people who are turned off by complexity. So how do we solve that? I think Toppopia had a good idea in which they should gradually increase the complexity by updates until they are used to it.

[diLLa]

The complexity of a game is not always determined by the game mechanics, but usually by it's players.

Quake is as simple as it can be, but I dare you tell me it's an easy game. The players playing it made it to one of the most mechanically complex games ever.

As long as players playing it keep optimizing their own strategy and gameplay, the overall complexity of the game should go up.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Knotz

I think the most annoying thing about these forums is the CoD/BF3 hate :/ fucking elitists :/

Aye, seems to be a running gag. A completely pointless one at that.

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

It can be, but only three continents at the start throttles the level of complexity that can be implemented quite a bit at the macro level.

Even with 10 continents, there's currently nothing to encourage conquering one continent over the other. No benefits and no inter-continental links.

*Shrug*

Not that the plan is for any one continent to ever be conquered, especially not right now with only 3. Heck, it seems like when we get access to beta having even so many as 2 will be a surprise.

[bullet]

I don't see how Planetside was complex. You gain battle rank (levels), certify in veh/armor/weapons/etc, and go fight with the rest of your colored faction that is shooting 2 other different colored guys.

The game was pretty simple, but the fact that there wasn't much in the way of interactive tutorials other than the little info panels that pop-up. The 2 most common problems I would see people facing were, "Wheres the fight?" and "How do I get there?". One was solved by instant action, but it didn't give you a definite direction/objective. The second was solved later by certs being lowered on the ATVs and the Harasser but still left you with the first problem of "Wheres the fight?".

[Astrok]

Originally Posted by NEWSKIS

Sadly they're trying to get the bf/cod communities into it so its not going to be as complex as the original.

I think u can't compare ps1 with ps2.

fps did change alot in the years.

[Jaegen]

I think people are not putting "complex" in the same category. PS1 was not that complex for the individual soldier, going around, blowing people up. The complexity came with the big picture work of outfits and commanders. Choosing what base to attack, defend, disable, etc. could be incredibly complex. To the individual soldier, it's just a base attack. To the commander, it's securing a key facility in a network, denying an opponent resources, or even creating a diversion from another plan. That's where I think PS1 was complex and I hope to see similar things in PS2.

[IgloGlass]

Honestly the first FPS I played seriously was CoD 4. I've never played BF but I'm extremely excited for PS2. Just because someone started of with other FPS games than Planetside does not mean that they aren't interested in a more complex form of games. The console players are an entirely different subject. They are the stereotypical CoD players at 12 years old whom only mind their K/D ratio. Holding any form of prejudice against "normal" FPS players on PC just seems ridicoulus to me.

[Littleman]

I didn't see much complexity in the old Planetside even at the outfit level. It was certainly more complex than the solo gig - which to be frank is what matters in a new blood's first impression - but the lattice system actually simplified a few things. Need to cut off their tank supply? Hit the tech plant and kill it's gen. Even if you can't take it, the enemy still has lost access to their heavy armor for the time being. It just demanded a fair amount of teamwork to hold that tiny little room for as long as possible.

And at any given point, there were at most 3 bases to choose to attack, and the zerg was hard to herd in the direction they didn't initially migrate towards.

PS2's hex system is fairly free form, flanks can happen and they matter. Resource denial is an actual strategy. Cutting the enemy off from the rest of their territories... actually we still need to see how well that works. However, admittedly there's no prize for conquering the continent entirely making the continent itself a tactical asset worth fighting over, but to be fair, we're only starting the game off with a planned 3 whole continents.

If the micro level of the game isn't hammered out and exciting from the start, the macro level will collapse right along with it.