Planetside NEXT on PC and ... ps3

Exano · 2010-02-03, 11:06 PM

Playing mag has seriously got me thinking. What if they launched Planetside Next on PC and Ps3? The PS3 certainly has the capacity, and the control scheme could easily be mapped out in a similar fashion.

The way MAG played it seemed like a planetside-esque game. They have huge maps, a "cert" system, and the like, putting it into an open world doesnt seem like such a far stretch. Any thoughts?

DviddLeff · 2010-02-04, 11:52 AM

I hope that very soon we see PC, PS3 and 360 games all playing in the same online space.

Furret · 2010-02-04, 11:02 PM

Two things:
1) It'd be great if they could put PlanetSide on consoles (most likely PS3 since this is Sony we're talking about) if only to get more people to know about the game. Personally, I think Planetside is a little to in-depth for the number of buttons you have on the controller, but it'd be interesting to see it happen.

2) I'm not sure if there's a difference in the abilities of a console gamer and a PC gamer. Personally, when i play COD online on my PS3, I'm raging (with my below 1.00 KDR) at the screen going "AAAUGHH IF ONLY I COULD PLUG IN MY MOUSE AND KEYBOARD", because i know if i had the mouse, i'd aim much better, and generally feel more at home. Maybe it's just a matter of what you got used to when you started gaming, but I feel that a PC gamer has much more control over their aim, and would therefore have a slight advantage over a console gamer (If they were matched against each other).

Exano · 2010-02-05, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Furret

Two things:
1) It'd be great if they could put PlanetSide on consoles (most likely PS3 since this is Sony we're talking about) if only to get more people to know about the game. Personally, I think Planetside is a little to in-depth for the number of buttons you have on the controller, but it'd be interesting to see it happen.

2) I'm not sure if there's a difference in the abilities of a console gamer and a PC gamer. Personally, when i play COD online on my PS3, I'm raging (with my below 1.00 KDR) at the screen going "AAAUGHH IF ONLY I COULD PLUG IN MY MOUSE AND KEYBOARD", because i know if i had the mouse, i'd aim much better, and generally feel more at home. Maybe it's just a matter of what you got used to when you started gaming, but I feel that a PC gamer has much more control over their aim, and would therefore have a slight advantage over a console gamer (If they were matched against each other).

#1) I was thinking that myself too, but after sitting down with a game like mag, I don't really see why not. The shoulder buttons switch weapons, joystick moves / aims (Also clicking the joystick brings out your knife), that leaves us with one joystick button, four face buttons, four d-pad buttons and then anything that relates to the interface part of the game would either need to change or be used with the back/start buttons.

#2) Other games on PS3 have mouse and keyboard support, and I totally agree with you on this point to a certain extent, joysticks are definatly not for everybody and I definatly do prefer a mouse. OR (This is what I wouldn't like to see) They could handle it like shadowrun, with PC and 360 players playing together, and just make it so the accuracy of the guns is a bit lower than pinpoint for everyone.

Sifer2 · 2010-02-07, 07:04 PM

If your a PC gamer mainly you shouldn't ask for this. When ever a project is not PC exclusive it means massive changes to the game to cater to the console platform. The game will be dumbed down in general. An these changes will affect the PC version cause publishers don't spend more money on PC versions of the game they just port.

Also just because MAG ran on PS3 does not mean a Planetside game as we know it could. MAG games take place on individual maps. It's essentially just Battlefield with more players. Planetside is massive continents with multiple bases. Whether the PS3 could handle that an still have graphics anywhere near MAG level is unknown.

Furret · 2010-02-08, 12:08 PM

So what if planetside was run LIKE individual maps.
Your character can only be on one continent at a time, so for all the game has to worry about, you're on that map, playing in that battle. When you switch to a new continent, you're effectively switching games.

Its a pretty simple concept to understand, but it's hard as hell to explain, so i'm not sure if i'm getting it accross.

MAG
was run where one game has a certain number of players, but there would be more than one game running at a time.

PlanetSide
could be run where one game server (Called Ishundar), is running a game mode where there's no time limit, kill limit, or anything, and its just a massive battle that people join in, fight, then leave. If you want to go to the battle on Hossin, you simply leave the game server Ishundar and go to the game server Hossin, where another infinite time limit, infinite kill game is being run.
The servers would have to talk to each other a bit, but people would never have to be on Hossin and Ishundar at the same time.

Anyone understand that?

Sifer2 · 2010-02-08, 07:04 PM

I understand that what your saying would basically be inferior to the system we already have. Since your basically saying you want to give up the persistent world in favor of just having maps like literally every other FPS in existence.

Back in the early days of Planetside I seem to remember it was possible to fly from continent to continent wasn't it? Instead of needing the warp gates? That's what I expect from Planetside 2. Not a bigger game of Battlefield.

Furret · 2010-02-09, 09:45 AM

Hmm...
I'm not sure what you mean by the system being inferior, it would be the exact same as PlanetSide, except instead of the warp gates leading to another part of a map on the same server, they just lead to a different map on a different server. The only relations one map has with another anyway, is when you look at the map, so it wouldn't affect the game too much.

Unless:
You could fly between continents. I didn't start playing PlanetSide until late 2005 or early 2006, so I know nothing of the early days ('01?) and the glory days ('03-'04?). I came in and BFR's were standard, though they were definitely a bad idea. Anyway, enough reminiscing

my idea wouldn't work at all with flying between continents. And I do think that needs to be re-established in PSNext.

DviddLeff · 2010-02-09, 11:51 AM

You could never fly between continents.

As it is PS is played on separate servers, as the continents each have their own so I believe.

Few things to consider:

Global Agenda has 16 players per map, but each map is linked via hexes and influences those around it (someone this is classed as an MMO).

Dust 514, the console MMOFPS in the EVE universe is going to be tied into EVE, where the console gamers are the grunts controlling the planets, while the EVE players control space itself, each working together to help the other to succeed.

I do not see why anything in PS would not work on a console, except perhaps the text chat system.

Furret · 2010-02-09, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

You could never fly between continents.
Dust 514, the console MMOFPS in the EVE universe is going to be tied into EVE, where the console gamers are the grunts controlling the planets, while the EVE players control space itself, each working together to help the other to succeed.

Nothing to do with you Dvidd, but thats a fucking awesome idea =D

And when you think about the reasons why you couldn't put it on console, the text chat system hardly comes to mind =p.

Though it is a valid point.

Possible Solutions
-A 'chat button' that would bring up a keyboard where you type in your message, and then choose which chat you want to send it.

-A button equivalent for the tab key in PS, where you'd use the R/L stick to control a mouse/pointer of some sort to go to a chat window, select which chat, and then type in your message.

-Voice chat (Most likely a bad idea, especially if you're going to have tons of people in one battle.)
[Possible Solutions]
~You only hear people in your immediate area, your squad, your squad leader, your platoon, your platoon leader, and the highest ranking commanders.
~Generally, you'll hear the voice chat of people around you. If a squad member talks, the volume of general voice chat is taken down to a level that is barely audible, while you hear your squad member clearly. If a platoon member then decides to say something at the same time, you hear the platoon member clearly, the squad member softly, and the general voice chat is muted. Then Squad leader, Platoon leader, and highest ranking commanders would follow that pattern.
~However, it would have to be set so that if the High Command, platoon member, and general voice were all talking, it wouldn't have them talking at the same time, while lowering the volume/muting the ones in between, it would have to lower the volume of the next highest 'voice activation level (VAL)' that is being used.
~This system would have to be customizable, so that you could set the priorities, and mute things entirely. For instance, you're in a squad, and also working with a friend who is in a different squad, but doesn't want to merge squads or make a platoon. You also don't want to hear the meaningless chit-chat between random empire members, and the High Command's wife is on her period, so he's pissed off as well. You simply set the High Command and general chat on mute, then (from the bottom up) [Name of Friend], Squad, Squad leader. Obviously, for this to work, you'd have to be able to have specific people count as a VAL. You would also be able to set two or three groups at the same VAL.
~The last flaw I can think of would be when players don't have microphones. They would have no way of communicating with other players unless there was a text chat system in place. Therefore, voice chat would only be a convenience instead of a solution.

Now after all that, I still haven't really solved the problem raised in the previous reply.

Which was what exactly? =p

DviddLeff · 2010-02-09, 04:17 PM

Remember that these days you can plug a keyboard into a console using USB; just requires the game to support it.

What about PS would require dumbing down to make it work on a console?

Furret · 2010-02-09, 05:32 PM

HAH! I knew you should be able to plug a keyboard in.
So then yeah.
For text chat at least, you should just plug a keyboard in and type like that.

Sifer2 · 2010-02-09, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

Remember that these days you can plug a keyboard into a console using USB; just requires the game to support it.

What about PS would require dumbing down to make it work on a console?

Well for one the current gen consoles are already a fair bit behind current PC technology available. So if you put it on PS3 or 360 you gimp it out of the gate an insure it probably wont be taking advantage of new technology to put the most massive numbers of players on screen possible. That is unless the PC version is different. Which usually just doesn't happen cause its easier for them to build at low console levels an just port.

Secondly a Gamepad it isn't a Keyboard an Mouse. Multiplat games almost without exception are made with the Gamepad in mind since trying to play a really fast paced type PC shooter with a Gamepad is frustrating an difficult. You will get weapons that are far easier to aim an probably movement speeds far slower so auto aim has no trouble keeping up.

Thirdly you will probably get slower patches an support. Consoles have a certification process to go through an more limited hard drive space 360 especially. If its only PS3 it might not be as much an issue but if its 360 too yeah the patching will be severely gimped. Honestly man I just don't know what to tell you except there is generally a reason there are hundreds of MMO's on PC an few on consoles. It doesn't fit the platform too well.

Furret · 2010-02-11, 11:03 AM

Perhaps they could make it for the next generation of consoles? And advertise it when the new consoles first come out. Everyone would be looking for games, since there wouldn't be many on the console, so they'd see planetside and think "Looks like fun, I'll buy it" Then they play it and they're hooked.
And Sony is bound to make a computer and try and sell it as a PlayStation 4 or something, so PSN could work for PS4, and we'd just have to see what happens with Xbox 720.

No those arent the real names, but you guys understand

Exano · 2010-02-13, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by Sifer2

Well for one the current gen consoles are already a fair bit behind current PC technology available. So if you put it on PS3 or 360 you gimp it out of the gate an insure it probably wont be taking advantage of new technology to put the most massive numbers of players on screen possible. That is unless the PC version is different. Which usually just doesn't happen cause its easier for them to build at low console levels an just port.

Secondly a Gamepad it isn't a Keyboard an Mouse. Multiplat games almost without exception are made with the Gamepad in mind since trying to play a really fast paced type PC shooter with a Gamepad is frustrating an difficult. You will get weapons that are far easier to aim an probably movement speeds far slower so auto aim has no trouble keeping up.

Thirdly you will probably get slower patches an support. Consoles have a certification process to go through an more limited hard drive space 360 especially. If its only PS3 it might not be as much an issue but if its 360 too yeah the patching will be severely gimped. Honestly man I just don't know what to tell you except there is generally a reason there are hundreds of MMO's on PC an few on consoles. It doesn't fit the platform too well.

#1) Alright, lets tackle these one at a time =D Are current gen consoles far behind modern PC's? Take a look at the PS3's specs...theyre pretty nice. Just because a game is on a console doesn't mean it has to be gimped off the bat, i'm no sure what your inferring. The graphics might be toned down a bit on the console rather than the PC, but is that a real big deal? The players on the screen is more how the online play is handeled...with the amount of players in MAG Sony proved they could provide very stable servers with multiple thousands of people at a given time. I'm sure it wouldn't be a stretch to push it further. Population locks were in the original PS, too..but population locks were for two reasons. #1 was lag, but #2 was zerging. Putting the highest possible amount of people on the screen at one time sounds incredible, but in practice they all have guns, they're all shooting, and its insane chaos with pretty much insta death. Just because we can doesnt mean we will, unless base fights are conducted very differently.

#2) Thats not true, at all. There is support for any USB Keyboard/Mouse by the PS3, but its up to the game to allow it. Just because a game has joypad controls doesn't gimp it for PC or vice versa. Its just a different way to play the game. I give you MAG, absolutely no auto-aim. PS has not and will not have auto aim, for PC or for console, I don't see why it would at least.

#3)Sony = SoE. Microsoft's Xbox Live component doesnt provide support for more than 24(? Its higher than 20, below 30) players, its not the console that can't handle it, its Microsoft's service. On any multi platform game that is shared (IE PC players playing with the PS3 players) the patches will be the same for either. There are also hundreds of MMO's and very few MMOFPS's...I don't know what to tell you man :P But if there is an MMO that will work on a console, an MMOFPS is just about as good as it'll get.