Planetside 2 is a major disappointment

[Marinealver]

Originally Posted by Rat

I think the more continents we see the more its going to feel like planetside...the meta game really hasnt been fleshed out yet.

You will only get 3. Smede said only 3 for launch.

Planetside 1 at launch seems so much more complete game than Planetside 2 will feel.

Things have that Planetside 2 has over Planetside 1.

Graphics (there would be no excues to have worse)
Infantry Weapon Selection (allot more infantry weapons)
Vehicle Customization
No subscription.

However things Planetside 1 has better than Planetside 2.
More Vehicles (and that is excluding the sundies alts and the difrent ATVS and ANT and AMS)
More places to fight (and that is not includign battleislands and caverns.
Better Base design
Better ballance between MAXs Infantry and ground and air vehicles.

To be honest Planetside has a much better design than Planetside 2.

[artifice]

I am someone that played Planetside 1 through beta and quit early on. I think SOE is going in the right direction for Planetside 2. It is simply a better game. I prefer a class based system and I don't need inventory for a FPS. My only concerns are over its f2p model.

[Reachdemon]

wait what? i thought this game is suppose to be fun

[Levente]

ps1 has Better Base design? seriously? ur clearly blind my friend

[Babyfark McGeez]

Originally Posted by maradine

Sound tactics are sound. You're not going to find "take ground and then allow the enemy to regroup" in most field manuals.

You also won't find "leave that military base near the front empty - we will just move back when it's being attacked" in a field manual.
Or "move inside their empty base and park 4 tanks near their barracks to slaughter everyone who wakes up and comes outside".

Aslong as defending a base not immedietely under assault gives absolutely no benefits at all and thus captured bases near the big battles barely ever get a defense team i actually DO think the defender needs some time to be able to regroup.

[Valcron]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Says one who survived the curve. Those that didnt arent here to tell us about it.

Malorn and other's where do you guys get that Planetside 1 was this deep technically hard game to understand? I am not inferring that PS1 was easy, but it's WAY OVERSTATED here about it's complexity. Stop running with this thought, it's wrong.

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Figment

Inclined to disagree. The fundamental gameplay supporting systems such as hacking as an infil (awareness that you can even hack enemy turrets), where you can change gear at an AMS, what different types of grenade do, etc. Those are far more important than explaining what goes boom: you need to know what something is, before you consider saving up for specialisations or specific certs.

Strategy is something that in principle needs to be learned through experience, but it is definitely important to inform new players on how to read a map, where to go and where to expect enemies. A strategy tutorial on map reading wouldn't be a bad thing: they should learn what the influence indicators are, what the different map status mean, what flashing hex groups mean, that you can click on them for more info, etc. How to set waypoints (and what are the cert demands for that etc), how to use voice chat, voice macros and different chat options. All of those are far more important to tutor than how to throw a rock or pull a trigger. It is however important to teach players how to use special abilities and change firemodes and of course how certification can change these things.

There's a lot of things that should have easy to reach tutorials for new players. "Mini" sounds to me like "Go to the map, use instant action, go git 'm soldier!".

The shop, cert info, etc even the menus should have their own explanatory tutorial(s).

None of that's wrong - I guess where we disagree is what was implied by "mini". I'm taking a more optimistic approach, I suppose. We won't know until it's staring us in the face (or waist?).

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Babyfark McGeez

Aslong as defending a base not immedietely under assault gives absolutely no benefits at all and thus captured bases near the big battles barely ever get a defense team i actually DO think the defender needs some time to be able to regroup.

Being allowed to mount a defense is rather important to a fight.


Retreat is something you do when you're beaten or about to get beaten. If being beaten equals the enemy arriving on the field of battle, then why call it an outpost or base at all? Just put down a flag and get it over with: nothing to hold, nothing to fall back from, just a marker on the map.

That's basically what a lot of outposts are right now.

[stamkin]

Planetside 2 is a major disappointment!!!!!!!!

[dethred]

Not quite sure if I've ever seen so much whinging Over something that you can play without spending a dime.

Maybe its just me, but I only complain after I've spent money and feel ripped off. You get to decide how much, if any, you will spend on this game. If you hate it after 5 minutes... you can cut loose and problem solved.

I made the mistake of buying BF3, albeit for a reduced price, and I feel as If they stole the money right from my pocket. After playing this game for a few hours I can see that its got some major advantages over most other game development cycles. The devs are involved in the community, they are willing to change problems with enough input. This is a dedicated PC FPS... when was the last time we've had one of those?

If you loved PS1 and its higher complexity and depth, the I can sympathize. I was a massive BF2 and 2142 fan, and I HATED DICE for what they did with the franchise. That being said, this is not a completely watered down COD clone trying to sell 100 Million copies to knuckle draggers and pre-teens. That alone is worthy of a commendation

If you are that disappointed with this game in its development phase, then I recommend finding a better alternative. Good luck in your search.

[Stipan]

Later I'm going to play that game. In my opinion it looks pretty good and all the one who played it are saying it is a good game.

[Ace]

They should make a poll on FB or on their forums.
And ask Vets to vote how many of them currently like PS2 and who don't.
I am leaning towards the majority disliking it for the obvious reasons.

I know people like me get flamed for not letting things go.
But hell i can live with that.
I can't live with the fact that SOE aka Higby and Smed are ignoring the things Vets say about PS2.
At least that's what it looks like, they claim to be listening to them.
Though i am not sure to what extend, does not look like a lot if you ask me.
Or just to the thing they want to.

From the many vets i know from PS1 outfit and even enemies i knew well.
Not many of them plan on playing, that says something to me.

[artifice]

Originally Posted by Ace

They should make a poll on FB or on their forums.
And ask Vets to vote how many of them currently like PS2 and who don't.
I am leaning towards the majority disliking it for the obvious reasons.

I know people like me get flamed for not letting things go.
But hell i can live with that.
I can't live with the fact that SOE aka Higby and Smed are ignoring the things Vets say about PS2.
At least that's what it looks like, they claim to be listening to them.
Though i am not sure to what extend, does not look like a lot if you ask me.
Or just to the thing they want to.

From the many vets i know from PS1 outfit and even enemies i knew well.
Not many of them plan on playing, that says something to me.

It says something to me as well, nostalgia is a poison that can ruin modern games.

[texico]

Originally Posted by artifice

It says something to me as well, nostalgia is a poison that can ruin modern games.

So can copying the staple regardless of whether the mechanics are improvements and regardless of whether they're applicable to an MMO, chucking key mechanics that made the original so unique and attractive, and users trying to force a perception that the vets here are just bitching for nostalgia when in fact most of them have presented pretty sound arguments/advice.

[GTGD]

I've been really disappointed as well. The culprit has been the devs having a different vision than the vets.

At first the vets thought PS2 was going to be a remake of PS1 with better graphics. Then they heard they were getting a true remake. They expected Planetside with modern FPS elements.

The devs wanted to make a radically different experience. They wanted it to feel like Planetside, but they wanted to "evolve" the franchise. But what they've been creating is a modern FPS with Planetside elements, and it was instantly apparent.

The deviation from Planetside was so drastic. The class system, materials, driving gunners, removal of the AMS, uncapturable footholds, the ticket system, lack of vehicle entrance/exit animations, resources, much faster TTK, fewer continents and facility types. All of these things have changed the feel of the game so much.

ADS and some of the other new changes definitely changed the feel of the game, and although it takes some getting used to...whatever. It's the normal evolution of the FPS genre. I don't understand why they decided to take 2 steps back in terms of game design though. Pretty much all the mechanics in PS1 were ahead of it's time (ahead of today as well IMO). The major tweaks that needed to be done were opening bases up a little more so it wasn't just a door spamming clusterfuck, making towers more dynamic, updating the netcode to broadband standards, and better physics.

Some of these things have been put in already, if not slated to be included. That's great, and I hope the trend continues.