"But that wouldnt be Planetside any more..."

[Forsaken One]

read the edit I made before your post Mr.Tool I dumbed it down for you.

[Tool]

Originally Posted by Gwartham

Wonder why people try to inject intelligence into the debate.

Met smart twitch gamers and planetside players who were complete smacktards.

I don't know either honestly, as if I gave some reason to draw my intelligence to question on an internet gaming forum lol.

It's usually just a cop out when people have a counter-point made against them or are criticized and they get upset. Which doesn't matter to me as I'll try to continue the discussion with people who have valid opinions.

[Rarntogo]

Originally Posted by Tool

I don't know either honestly, as if I gave some reason to draw my intelligence to question on an internet gaming forum lol.

It's usually just a cop out when people have a counter-point made against them or are criticized and they get upset. Which doesn't matter to me as I'll try to continue the discussion with people who have valid opinions.

I may be picking a fight here, which is not my intention. However... by continuing your discussion with people that have valid opinions, do you mean only those that agree with your opinion have valid opinions? Because, from here, that's what it looks like. IMHO... thats not what forums are about.

[Tool]

If it appears that way it certainly isn't my intention. When people start giving opinions on why things such as locational damage shouldn't exist in Planetside, I'll try to counter, which is shown in many of my posts. Ex. Bags whom I've had a bit of back and forth with.

I don't want these next few posts to degrade into a personal discussion though so I'll just leave things at that.

[Hamma]

Yea guys lets tone it down, no need for personal attacks just discuss the topic at hand.

[Ravanos]

damn when did battlefield become such a bad thing to emulate lol. i for one would love to see SOE "borrow" many elements of the battlefield series and make them work in a massive fight.

i have always seen planetside built on a few principals ...

massive fights
more options not more power
a new player can kill a vet if the new player is better
perfectly blending infantry and vehicles
teamplay required

as long as they keep to those principals it will be the planetside i know and loved. other than that i hope they DO take some of the mechanics from recent good FPS games.

[SwiftRanger]

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

How much changed between Starcraft and Starcraft 2 or C&C Tiberian Dawn and C&C 3, Doom 1 and 2,Age of Empires and AoE 2, Grand Theft Auto 3 and San Andreas? Obviously we want a fresh game that is new but what we don't want is something that resembles Call of Duty or Battlefield too much , or that strays from the ideals of Planetside. The game was original and new and one-of-a-kind and the gameplay it brought was great, the statement 'that wouldn't be Planetside anymore' is generally used when a feature seems to lack the teamwork and wide-scale that made the original such a good and fresh game.

What we don't want is Call of Battlefield: Future Warfare 2, what we do want is 'Planetside 2'. A game that builds upon the greatness of the original and adds in new features that build the experience without making a game too far away from the original to be recognized.

StarCraft was a runaway success for various reasons, PlanetSide wasn't. SCII is enjoyable but it is also stuck in the past gameplay- and UI-wise. I don't care if it's successful, it doesn't make my RTS-fanatic heart beat any faster. SupCom, WiC and DoW II did though.

Honestly, PlanetSide is the FPS with the most potential ever but it rarely furfills that potential. After all those years, with no development on it, an ageing UI/engine and with such a small player base the great moments decrease even further.

Battlefield (and especially CoD) are always taking the easy way out and have a lot to learn from the massive warfare stuff PS first offered. Unlocks alone fail to make a decent example of persistence. That being said, I wouldn't object if PS2 finetuned some details either. Whether those are coming from another shooter (don't think CoD or BF were always the first with their features) or even from another genre, I don't care, as long as it's fluid, as long as we can feel motivated to keep coming back and as long as we still get huge battles.

Last night I logged into PS after a very long time and I heard a platoon leader proclaim one of the current problems with PS: there are 1000 Darth Vaders and 1 Storm Trooper (which probably was me). The dearth of players and the hardcore that are still around make the game look like it's full of ego-boosting players. Which isn't PS, this is about total war and from the developer comments it seems PS2 still wants the game to be exactly that. For the record: I still experienced why I though PS was so good and also why I probably left. This could be so big if handled/supported right.

[Logit]

Originally Posted by KornDemon

PS: BF:BC2 is a good game. The maps are a bit crap, but otherwise it's good.

We don't want to play Battlefield.

If we did, I'm sure we would go buy it, and play that no?

Planetside was good because it was the pioneer in it's class, why conform to "standard" FPS' when PS wasn't one.

[Tool]

More people play Battlefield than Planetside and SOE is a buisness, not your buddy. What does that add up to?

The success of PS2 depends on the amount of players, not what a very minor niche group of gamers expect. Like or dislike it, doesn't matter, it's the logical point of view.

[Canaris]

I agree that the use of this term has gotten abit over used..... especially by Morf

It really should be reserved for that silly thread someone posted up about leaving out the Vanu Sovereignty and the like, we're all going to have dislikes about some direction and changes that will be made for Planetside and that's fine but debate it and leave the childish posts to the fun threads and not the development side.

[Forsaken One]

Originally Posted by SwiftRanger

look like it's full of ego-boosting players. Which isn't PS

I'd like to touch on this. The fact is Planetside is about War with mature players. most of the time when someone states they are better then everyone else its in jest. there is a lot of swearing (army people don't say fiddlesticks when shot.) lot of. "Yeah I'm the most badass because I just beat this" but with a overall "war moment" tone. aka its not as much ego as getting into the War.
Sometimes in War one player may even tell another player to "fuck off" that's healing him because of being in the war moment. Its again, not as much having a ego as a more "screw that and lets kick more enemies ass's" War moment.

Egos are more like what one would see in Twitch/self shooters that have less to do with teamwork. say CS/Halo/Quake. Less Ego in say games like CoD. then even less Ego in games like Battlefield. Then you have planetside, where Ego tends to take a full flip and turn into "hooah!" for the team.

[BlazingSun]

Originally Posted by Logit

We don't want to play Battlefield.

If we did, I'm sure we would go buy it, and play that no?

Planetside was good because it was the pioneer in it's class, why conform to "standard" FPS' when PS wasn't one.

Who said PS2 should (exactly) be like the Battlefield games? I don't think anyone did. I'm also not sure what made PS1 soooo special, apart from the massiv combat. They didn't reinvent the wheel. Surely we all want PS2 to be even better than the first game ... if that means borrowing a good idea or 2 from a game like Battlefield, I don't see a reason why that should not be done.

[Duffman]

I loved PS and I still love to play BC2 i think it is a great game. I dont want PS to be BC2 but they could pull a lot from it. I also cant wait for BF3. COD on the other hand I havent played since COD3:MW.

[Logit]

Originally Posted by KornDemon

Who said PS2 should (exactly) be like the Battlefield games? I don't think anyone did. I'm also not sure what made PS1 soooo special, apart from the massiv combat. They didn't reinvent the wheel. Surely we all want to be PS2 even better than the first game ... if that means borrowing a good idea or 2 from a game like Battlefield, I don't see a reason why that should not be done.

My main gripe is only this..stuff that works in small scale FPS', basically the entire FPS market, may not work in a grand scale such as PS2. I worry that they take too much from the games now, and incorporate it into a gaming environment that it's not going to have success in.

[Fews]

Not to throw more gas on the fire, but how has this worked out for the numerous games that have tried to emulate WoW in the RPG genre?
Frankly, the more I read the talking points and Q&A releases, the more I am moving away from the thought of playing this.

Planetside, was and is and always will be, the consummate army game. No other game had as many layers of gameplay, that tower you had to take in order to get a spawn point outside the tech plant that was needed in order to build more tanks that were lost at the last base, the AMS that comes into the SOI near the back door that finally allows a push into a heavily defended base, the small TR unit that went and flipped a base on Amerish that caused a 3 day war over it involving all sides – the goals weren’t about who you could shoot in the face or “look guyz, my K/D is awesomesausage!!lulz!” – it was about pushing Barney off their home continent.

Teams/Units were the most important point of the game, teams were responsible for pushing in a concerted effort to take continents, to push for that last base, to try and sanc-lock the one side while fighting off the other attempting to back into the territory you just took. These are what planetside is and was. The focus was on this part of the battle, not the BOOM HEADSHOT fire fights.

Look, I can log onto any number of FPS games and jump into a fire fight that ends in a few minutes to an hour and that’s it. Nothing gained, nothing lost – it’s the arcade feel of popping in your 25 cents worth of fun and walking away. In Planetside, things you did mattered on a larger scale. From what I read from the devs, they make PS2 out to be nothing more than a larger arena for a fire fight.

Some things that just turn me completely off…

Headshots… I have no words for this travesty. One-shot one-kill has never been fun aside from the 3 seconds of YAY on the shooter. Lest we forget the thousands of voices that cried out and were suddenly silenced by the triple-shot +1? Now I can accept the fact that snipers hitting someone in the cap and not outright killing them was highly unrealistic, but ffs, we are talking about a game that respawns your dead corpse, VS MAXs fly and shoot orbs, and the NC actually existed… if you can suspend reality for that stuff, you should probably be able to wrap your head around the fact that you need two and not one bullet to end someone. Speeding up TTK is one thing, but making it a bunny-hopping headhunting fest is a completely different beast.

No sanctuaries is HIGHLY disturbing to me given that one of the quintessential parts of PS was rolling out of sanc in huge numbers in organized fashion to take back a lost continent. Spawning on your squad? So the AMS is now out? Those were almost always key to advancing and if you didn’t bring one out, you were doomed; if it went and got itself discovered, it was a pigpile for the other side(s) to hit it so hard and fast that people cried out and men gnashed their teeth – because that was key to advancing the army. If you lost it, you probably lost the area – and that is HOW IT WAS SUPPOSED TO WORK. You lost, you go back to another farther base and you regrouped, or you lost the continent and you went back to sanc, no trophy, no bragging rights, no ‘you’ll get them next time, here’s an ice cream cone.’ You got called out for losing the continent, you probably got ripped apart on the forums as well… That was THE game… there were consequences and that is probably the biggest point.

Too many times I hear BF this and COD that. They are the gold standard of skirmish shooters and the mechanics are tailored to that style. The more I read about it, the more PS2 seems to be ham-fisting it into this game because “it’s the right business move” to pull players from those games. Why do more of the same only on a bigger map? Why make the game faster paced (in terms of gameplay and not the clunky graphics)? Oh because that is how things are done now? Says who? No one since PS has done what it did – and for that we have to consider it a failure and bring PS2 inline with every other shooter on the market? So that begs the question: other than a larger map and map population, why play this over anything else out there on the market? Why change key concepts of the original in favor of playing to other games?

For me, it was because the game Planetside 2 was supposed to stand out among them, and sadly everything I read about it makes it nothing more than a name amongst them – everyone I hear defending the clear departures from the PS of old seems to think it must measure up to par with other shooters on the market without any consideration of the concept of the game. The focus of the topics are always, make it faster, twitchier, head shots, but with more people on the screen to shoot and lost in all this is the core concept of what Planetside really is: a full on RTS with real players as the single units. Maybe I was hoping for a reskinned, updated netcoded Planetside because, quite frankly, the concept of the game still stands up as the most unique thing I ever played. Yeah, you can dismiss this as some long winded treatise from some aging gamer who captured lightning in a bottle some 8 years ago. I can accept that because I am, and there are a lot of us out here just waiting for someone to give us another chance and another bottle.