PS2 v. BF3......FIGHT!

[BlackJet]

Hokay, so you're all going to rage at the title, I know. I can hear it all now: "BF3 and PS2 are nothing alike!" "That’s like apples and oranges!" "64 people versus 2000! No contest!" Alright...feel better? Got it all out of your system? Cool, now the healing can begin

Anyhoo, derogatory remarks aside, I have played both games extensively now and I have many thoughts I'd like to share with the community. I feel both games have many similarities and differences that can be directly compared and analyzed, and hopefully some constructive conclusions can be made. None of my observations deal with metagame or overall battlefield congruency, so the difference in scale between the two games is not terribly important to the discussion. Also, don't take this rant as me hating on PS2, take it more as lessons it could learn from another good shooter.

First off, there's the gunplay. This is one of the areas I experience most, being mostly infantry in both games. I can say overall I find BF3's guns more agreeable than PS2's. There's a variety of factors in this decision, the biggest being ease of aim, which can in turn be divided into a few key mechanics. In BF3, I never find myself fighting the recoil of the guns, no matter how much kick they have. In PS2, it seems guns just have a more "jarring" animation to them when they recoil, which makes medium/long range follow-up shots quite a challenge. This also makes burst fire tricky, as I find myself trying to reacquire the target in between each burst, whereas in BF3 it just seems natural. I'm not sure what the overall cause of this difference is, but I think it's in how each game affects your camera due to recoil...maybe it's some other graphics issue, where fast movements cause the screen to blur or otherwise obscure the player's vision. The other big issue in aiming is time-to-kill (TTK). BF3, even on normal mode, has a much shorter time to kill, even without factoring in Heavy Assault shields. The reason I say this affects aim is that with a longer TTK, suddenly movement tricks are able to overcome the initial advantage of good aim, and gunfights get a little more arcadey. Time and again in PS2, I get the jump on someone, do about 75% of their health, then they sprint away or jump or jet pack away out of my sights and I have to try and reacquire them. Then it becomes a game of who can play arena style shooters better, each of us circling and jumping and knifing furiously to try and get that last bit of health. The result of tactical gunplay with a longer TTK is frustration all around, at least to me. Having no unit collision certainly doesn't help matters either, though I'll touch on that later. Oh...and don't get me started on bunny hoppers One more (less important) difference in the gunplay that mostly is just my own taste is the sounds. BF3 guns give a much more satisfying sound when firing. Maybe it's because they're space guns and lasers, but overall PS2 gun sounds are very...tinny and weak (recent exception being the new SMGs).

BF3 gunplay: satisfying (but could do without suppression...)
PS2 gunplay: mostly satisfying with multiple intermittent frustrations

Next I'd like to touch on vehicle gameplay. The first major thing that comes to mind is how each game deals with rough terrain. Both games have areas with incredibly bumpy hills, deserts, etc. And both games pretty much require that vehicles drive over it. In BF3, you can definitely feel the bumps and jumps, but your gun doesn't seem to suffer too much from it. It mostly stays on target, and I find myself able to hit targets while on the move, at least up to a certain range. In PS2, not only does the MBT main cannon resist movement (which actually causes me a bit of wrist pain trying to hone in on my targets), but the rough terrain causes the main cannon to shake all over the place. Also, vehicles seem to stick to the ground better in BF3, whereas in PS2, it's not uncommon for sunderers to flip over and flashes to spin out of control, seemingly on a whim. Maybe the devs had to make certain concessions in physics to make the game so massive, or maybe the vehicles are working as intended. All I know is tankplay is very undesirable to me in PS2 currently, and I wish it was otherwise. Air units are largely untouched by me in both games so I can't comment on either.

BF3 tankplay: Easy to control, good physics
PS2 tankplay: Taxing on the wrist, hard to aim, have to fight the terrain
BF3/PS2 planes: The Great Unknown...

Some additional observations:

-Graphics. BF3 is much more polished, and it came that way out of the box. Even several months after release, PS2 has way too many laughably blurry textures and so-so effects. Lighting is beautiful though.

-Frame rate. Now I know this one is mostly due to PS2's scale, but it's a constant annoyance to me and even crippling at times. I play BF3 at max with no issues, but I'm lucky if I can get 30 frames in PS2, 10 if I'm unlucky.

-Render distance. Also a sign of PS2's scale, but still annoying at times.

-Camo. Oh god the camo. If I see one more bloody joker with giraffe camo, I'll fly to Africa, slaughter and skin an actual giraffe, come to your house--I mean, er...it's really hard to tell who's who with the current camo's >>

-Unit collision. It needs to come back. I know T-Ray responded to this request by saying it'd be annoying having dimwitted allies stand in every doorway while you try to get through, but that's where they could take a lesson from Team Fortress 2. In that game, friendly units don't collide but enemies do. It makes perfect sense for clustered hallways and buildings, so it doesn't become a chore trying to jostle through the masses, but at the same time, you are a physical barrier to the enemy. And most notably for me, it'd make close range duels so much easier to sort out. No more knifing at the guy only to pass right through them, hitting the air behind them, or have them run through you and then have to try and spin around to fight back. No cheesy tactics like a MAX charging through a group of defenders to turn around and fire at their backs.

So! After much griping and complaining, I've reached the end of my rant! I don't know how many of my observations are intended by the devs, how much is in the works to be fixed, or if I've touched on something thus far unheard of. Really this is all just my personal preferences, and anyone may feel free to disagree! I know a lot of you feel Planetside 2 has nothing in common with other shooters and therefore shouldn't feel obligated to answer for any perceived differences between them. I feel that most of the gunplay and tankplay advantages I've pointed out in BF3 should hold true for most if not all shooters, unless the goal is extreme realism, or technical issues get in the way. If anyone has thoughts on any of these various ramblings, please comment! I will take all jibes, jabs, and ribbings in stride, and hopefully some of you can add additional constructive criticism in the process

TL: DR...Planetside 2 can take some hints from other games in the genre

[Pella]

Totally different game's.

And totally shit thread.

GG.

[BlackJet]

Originally Posted by Pella

Totally different game's.

I get the feeling you didn't read much past the title and intro...but either way to each their own I know there's apparently this huge hatred for BF3 and COD and everything else that's popular, I suppose because the community feels those games are dumbed down versions of this one, or maybe they feel threatened by them, as they're fairly successful. I try to look past prejudices though, and if you'd read the meat of the post, you'd find most of what I've mentioned is stuff to think about in any FPS, regardless of single or multiplayer, small or large scale, simple or complicated. I just chose to use BF3 mostly because I have experience with it more than most other shooters.

[Koadster]

Well if it was PS2 vs BF2/BF2142 you have a worthy arguement, BF3 is a total garbage game ruining the series.

[Vashyo]

Originally Posted by Koadster

Well if it was PS2 vs BF2/BF2142 you have a worthy arguement, BF3 is a total garbage game ruining the series.

Sadly for me, that applies to PS2, atm. Propably not as badly though.

[ChipMHazard]

Oh my, hehehe... There are most certainly those who would argue that Planetside 2 is exactly like Battlefield 3... Prepare for le shitstorm.

Besides just having opened the gates of hell themselves, I will still endeavour to make a constructive comment.

There's probably a good reason why BF3, in most cases, has a shorter TTK. Because it's a smaller game. Personally I would up the TTK in PS2 a bit since I feel like it's too low in big battles, makes sense more people shooting at you the faster you die. I feel that
infantry in general and certain vehicles go down to quick.
I like the gunplay in both games and it feels satisfying in both games, well except when they ramped the supression affect up way too high... I hate it when the game takes away my ability to aim. Planetside 2 also does this with the shaky cam.

I am not a fan of PS2s vehicle gameplay, least of all the physics that come into play when driving a turreted tank. Besides sometimes feeling like you're driving on ice, I detest not having turret stabilization.

Graphics... Comes with the territory when you make games as huge as PS2. You can't compare the performance between the two games, period. If DICE tried making maps the size of PS2 continents with as many players then well... Wouldn't run as well as PS2. I know that DICE has actually been able to field a lot more players than just 64 on their servers, I think it was 256.

You'll get used to the camo as in you'll get used to identifying enemies by their silhouettes and overall colour scheme, which isn't completely negated by camo afaik.

Unit collision? Meh, I don't know. One side of me wants it in and the other side of me knows what kinds of issues it would produce. I would be nice to have MAXs' that can block the enemy, but not so nice to have block your own spawn doors.

Planetside 2 has most certainly taken "hints" from other FPS' out there. Some will argue too much, some will argue just enough and some will argue not enough.

Originally Posted by Koadster

Well if it was PS2 vs BF2/BF2142 you have a worthy arguement, BF3 is a total garbage game ruining the series.

And... There's that. Bringing up Battlefield on a Planetside forum is like bringing a knife to a gun fight, not necessarily a good idea.

[BlackJet]

Originally Posted by Koadster

BF3 is a total garbage game ruining the series.

Well if you agree about the argument, but not the game, that's an agreement to me It sounds like you dislike the changes in the metagame or the DLC or maybe getting rid of commanders...I'm not sure, but in the aspects I mentioned in this post, I feel it did things right and Planetside 2 could take some tips.

[BlackJet]

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

Oh my, hehehe... There are most certainly those who would argue that Planetside 2 is exactly like Battlefield 3...

Well I wasn't going to go that far, but in some ways I totally agree. I'm not sure why everyone in the community wants to deny up and down any relation between the two games. They're both massive (relatively), multiplayer, multi-faceted (Air, Armor, Infantry...maybe Sea someday?...Hopefully? >>), tactical, have multiple classes (having very similar load-out structures, even), focus mainly on point capturing (albeit on vastly different scales), and give an overall "battlefield" experience. I think this goes back to people just being mad at the Battlefield series in general, disliking the direction they took with BF3? So it must be bad in every way, including having no similarities to any game they like? Just conjecture, but there it is

[Qwan]

I read the entire thread, I think BF3 and PS2 have similarity's but play in different ways. I mean lets face it, the only thing different about a BF3 and CoD players is that SOE is catering to BF3 and CoD players, but when the next new shinny FPS comes out, the BF3 and CoD players will stop playing PS2 and move on. Vets like myself and a score of others will continue to log in and play a game designed around attracting the BF3 and CoD crowd. So I think that the comparison of the two games is sence less. I think the forge light engine is awesome, I still dont like the cookie cut out classes but its digestible, and as the time goes by, and more content is added, ill start to see more of the PS i grew up with.

[BlackJet]

Originally Posted by Qwan

I read the entire thread, I think BF3 and PS2 have similarity's but play in different ways.

I fully understand the differences in gameplay between the two, and I'm not trying to say one should equal the other. I disagree that SOE made a game to attract BF3 and COD players though. Well, rather I disagree that they chose to specifically emulate those two games. It's more like they took the best aspects of current modern shooters (those two being the most prominent but not the only ones) and applied them to their world, because modern shooters have learned from their predecessors. They've been constantly improving the shooter formula since Wolfenstein 3D, and it would be kind of silly to try and go backwards. It would also be silly to try and make a different style of tactical shooter from scratch. I'm not sure what they could even come up with, but why would they want to? The formula is there, most prominently in the form of COD and BF3, and it's tried and true. If players gripe and groan about a particular shooter, it's usually not about the base mechanics, it's about the specifics ("this gun is OP!" "Akimbo so dumb!" "noobtubers!", etc.). So saying the gameplay is different between the two games is correct but also possibly misleading.

Bottom line, none of what I've covered suggests changing any base gameplay, only refining the mechanics so the players can better enjoy its goodness

[Satanam]

I don't think any game is "shit", people worked to make them and they just do it because they wanna get profit as everyone else. Anyway, I don't like some games as much as others, in this case BF3 is not better than PS2 for me. I can say PlanetSide 2, Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 are the best games I have at the moment, and I have a lot of it. I have COD (all of them), same as Crysis series, and Resident Evil series, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, and so on.
There are games that I like so much that I buy stuff like t-shirts, action figures (Crysis 2 Nanosuit and aliens, for example) and stuff, and the best part is my girlfriend likes it. She plays different games that I played too but I didn't like so much (like RaiderZ, for example).
Well, unfortunately I can't play as much as I wanted because I gotta work and go to college, but I really like games. That said, I can point some things on BF3 to explain why I didn't like it so much:
1. The first thing I felt when I played this game by the first time, was that I couldn't "feel" the character's weight. In PlanetSide 2, Crysis 2 and Crysis 3, it's notable;
2. People who's always trying to prove Battlefield 3 is a great game like it's The Ultimate Piece of Fun or something;
3. Singleplayer. I didn't feel so good while playing singleplayer version, it was a bit boring for me;
4. I didn't like aircraft battles, dogfighting is not one of the best parts of Battlefield 3.

I won't even reply if anyone quote my post to say something like "you're wrong in this part", it's just my opinion, so it's not impossible to be against other people's opinion.

[MrVicchio]

I love BF3, I played the heck out of it, heck my stats, pay attention to the C4 stat However, since they are two loves, I cannot have them fight, in fact I don't let PS2 and BF3 know about each other, that would be a fight I refuse to be caught in the middle of.

[thegreekboy]

Originally Posted by BlackJet

Well if you agree about the argument, but not the game, that's an agreement to me It sounds like you dislike the changes in the metagame or the DLC or maybe getting rid of commanders...I'm not sure, but in the aspects I mentioned in this post, I feel it did things right and Planetside 2 could take some tips.

Well.....um, regarding that, I have something for you to read

http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread.p...ty-amp-EA-DICE

[Ghoest9]

Id really rather compare it to 2142.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

Id really rather compare it to 2142.

Same here.