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

[morf]

If you can't wrap your head around a better argument than this you need to get up off your ass, put on your hearing aid, and go back to rolling silverware at your local Denny's.

Please try to articulate specifically how a change would harm the game. We know it isn't Planetside anymore, it's Planetside 2.

This PSA brought to you by Morf.

[DviddLeff]

Agreed.

Planetside is about massive combat, an equal footing between new and old players with a blend of infantry, vehicles and aircraft.

Everything else can change yet those unique aspects define Planetside, not that it doesn't have head shots and long TTK.

[Rbstr]

I approve this message.

[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.

[Logit]

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.

Well said.

[IceyCold]

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.

A major difference is Starcraft / C&C / AoE are strategy games, which have not changed much in years at all. Doom 1 and 2 were both created in the same era of shooters so they did not need to change much. And The GTA series did change DRAMATICLY from GTA 2 to GTA 3, funny that you would choose that as an argument point since GTA did not become as widely successful till it completely changed its mechanics from a top down game to a 3d one.

What one must remember is 8 years ago Planetside played quite a bit like many of the other shooters of its day in base mechanics; but now 8 years later the FPS genre has made huge advances and in order to be successful Planetside 2 must do the same.

I keep hearing that being like the Battlefield series is a bad thing, but honestly I thought that BF2142 was an amazingly well made shooter and anyone who was ever in a clan in that game knows that the level of tactical skill used changes the game a lot. I do not want Planetside 2 to be a carbon copy of any current shooter game, and I highly doubt it will be; but it would be absolutely stupid for the Dev team to not look to the current juggernauts of the FPS genre to see how PS2 can be made better.

[morf]

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

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.

But that wouldn't be debate anymore.

When they switched Grand Theft Auto from top down to the current view did you say "but that wouldn't be GTA anymore"?!

It's a copout argument for a frustrated, cheeto-fingered 12 year old having a temper tantrum at the keyboard because he can't articulate his own position. If you're going to argue something, back it up with some sort of reason.

Sorry guys but every time I see this argument the image of the crying baby with caption "DO NOT WANT" comes to mind.

[Volw]

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.

We are looking at 8 years, so you should compare Red Alert (1) with Red Alert 3 - plenty of changes there. Also, mind RTS games didn't change that much over the years.

San Andreas was still called GTA3: San Andreas. Also again, not 8 years difference.

PlanetSide needs A LOT of fresh air. I'm not saying turning it into CoD or Battlefield, but getting it closer to what customers will play - it also means fixing all of the design mistakes PS1 had.

So far, most of the design changes are not dramatic and are fairly reasonable - yet a lot of people seem to nitpick every single thing and claim it's going to kill planetside. It won't. Sure some vets are/will be unhappy but that's the nature of change.

[2coolforu]

Originally Posted by IceyCold

A major difference is Starcraft / C&C / AoE are strategy games, which have not changed much in years at all. Doom 1 and 2 were both created in the same era of shooters so they did not need to change much. And The GTA series did change DRAMATICLY from GTA 2 to GTA 3, funny that you would choose that as an argument point since GTA did not become as widely successful till it completely changed its mechanics from a top down game to a 3d one.

What one must remember is 8 years ago Planetside played quite a bit like many of the other shooters of its day in base mechanics; but now 8 years later the FPS genre has made huge advances and in order to be successful Planetside 2 must do the same.

I keep hearing that being like the Battlefield series is a bad thing, but honestly I thought that BF2142 was an amazingly well made shooter and anyone who was ever in a clan in that game knows that the level of tactical skill used changes the game a lot. I do not want Planetside 2 to be a carbon copy of any current shooter game, and I highly doubt it will be; but it would be absolutely stupid for the Dev team to not look to the current juggernauts of the FPS genre to see how PS2 can be made better.

Right, 8 years, care to enlighten me on the year of release of Starcraft and the year of release of Starcraft 2? Or the year of release of Battlefield 1942 and the planned release of Battlefield 3?

You also give special pleading to the RTS genre, "It hasn't changed in years" Bull Fucking Shit. Have you played Sim City? Or how about Total war, World in Conflict? End War... There are plenty of strategy games that broke the 'build a base. Spam 20 tanks. Kill enemy" layout, however what you are trying to avoid saying is that C&C stayed like C&C because that's what a fan expected, just like Total War stayed similar despite switching time periods and even weaponry (muskets) because that's the play style of the genre.

Imagine the uproar that would have happened if Starcraft 2 actually got release as a Dawn of War style game, where you had to capture resource points around the map? And your argument that GTA switched from top down to 3D is equally irrelevant; Starcraft switched from a top down 2D game to a 3D game where you can actually change your view point, zoom in and rotate your screen, it's totally different. In Command and Conquer 95 we had a 2d game with sprites.

I'm also not saying that taking tidbits from Battlefield is a bad thing, it's a great game. However we should consider how different Planetside is, it's larger scale and has more inherent teamwork and often a different style of fighting to the Battlefield games. The role of a medic in Planetside is different to the role of a medic in Battlefield, a Battlefield medic revives people to stop their points going down, a Planetside medic heals someone simply for teamworks sake and keeping your squad healthy and alive - it's a matter of convenience. There are many different situations and a far more diverse selection of roles and playstyles in Planetside than there are in Battlefield, Planetside's shooting mechanics left a lot to be desired so bring in better ones but don't forget the differences we have to account for.

What Planetside had as a game, and now as a series was large scale persistent battles where you could have 500 people shooting at each other, dogfighting with each other or healing each other, with nearly every vehicle people had to work together and this is a difference compared to Battlefield. In Battlefield you can easily get along on your own, you can killwhore a Jet VERY easily or you can man a tank on your own and heal it yourself. You can be a one man army if you wish and there is no reason to squad up beyond having a mobile spawn point to get you into the action quicker, this isn't what we want to see in Planetside. The entire reason Planetside died was because a vehicle was introduced that trumped teamwork entirely and could fill all roles with one pilot, that vehicle was called a BFR and it resulted in Werner having about 4000 players online during the Bending to about 400 afterwords.

And yeah, go ahead with the ad hominems "Everyone who disagrees with me is a fat 12 year old ass nerd", that is exactly the argument that brings the picture of a crying baby to me.

Bear in mind that I've agreed with almost everything the devs have added, I think territory control is cool, the iron sights look awesome, more specialized roles - hell yeah, headshots are needed. I'm just debating the fine details of what has been added, in fact the only things I really disagree with is the possible advantages old players would have on newbies and the removal of sanctuaries so go ahead and make ad hominems and straw men.

[IceyCold]

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

Right, 8 years, care to enlighten me on the year of release of Starcraft and the year of release of Starcraft 2? Or the year of release of Battlefield 1942 and the planned release of Battlefield 3?

I imagine you are quite capable of doing that yourself, I don't know why you'd want me to do it for you?

You also give special pleading to the RTS genre, "It hasn't changed in years" Bull Fucking Shit. Have you played Sim City? Or how about Total war, World in Conflict? End War... There are plenty of strategy games that broke the 'build a base. Spam 20 tanks. Kill enemy" layout, however what you are trying to avoid saying is that C&C stayed like C&C because that's what a fan expected, just like Total War stayed similar despite switching time periods and even weaponry (muskets) because that's the play style of the genre.

Soooo your argument is there are different TYPES of games in a said genre (which in my orignial comment I never once said there wasn't) But the face of RTS games has not changed much in recent years. C&C stayed like C&C because most of the early C&C games were simply reskinned games on the same engine. Why fix what isn't broken?

Imagine the uproar that would have happened if Starcraft 2 actually got release as a Dawn of War style game, where you had to capture resource points around the map? And your argument that GTA switched from top down to 3D is equally irrelevant; Starcraft switched from a top down 2D game to a 3D game where you can actually change your view point, zoom in and rotate your screen, it's totally different. In Command and Conquer 95 we had a 2d game with sprites.

In both DoW and Starcraft you conquer resource points, the difference only lies in that in SC you have to mine the resources manually, and DoW its just a point that feeds you resources. As to your second point you are now agreeing that success came with changes to the game? So why are you mad PS2 is changing? I am confused. Unless of course you missed that the change from 2d to 3d was aesthetic in one game (Starcraft) and completely changed the control mechanics in the other(GTA).

I'm also not saying that taking tidbits from Battlefield is a bad thing, it's a great game. However we should consider how different Planetside is, it's larger scale and has more inherent teamwork and often a different style of fighting to the Battlefield games. The role of a medic in Planetside is different to the role of a medic in Battlefield, a Battlefield medic revives people to stop their points going down, a Planetside medic heals someone simply for teamworks sake and keeping your squad healthy and alive - it's a matter of convenience. There are many different situations and a far more diverse selection of roles and playstyles in Planetside than there are in Battlefield, Planetside's shooting mechanics left a lot to be desired so bring in better ones but don't forget the differences we have to account for.

This point is silly. In both BF and PS a medics job is EXACTLY the same; keep your team alive so you can take control of the objective. The ticker in BF1942 / BF2 / BF2142 goes down based on how many points on the map you control, unless we are talking about the RUSH game type in BFBC2? Your saying the role of a gamewide class is changed by one of many gametypes in said game? Once again, I do not want Planetside to BE Battlefield, but it should learn from it.

What Planetside had as a game, and now as a series was large scale persistent battles where you could have 500 people shooting at each other, dogfighting with each other or healing each other, with nearly every vehicle people had to work together and this is a difference compared to Battlefield. In Battlefield you can easily get along on your own, you can killwhore a Jet VERY easily or you can man a tank on your own and heal it yourself. You can be a one man army if you wish and there is no reason to squad up beyond having a mobile spawn point to get you into the action quicker, this isn't what we want to see in Planetside. The entire reason Planetside died was because a vehicle was introduced that trumped teamwork entirely and could fill all roles with one pilot, that vehicle was called a BFR and it resulted in Werner having about 4000 players online during the Bending to about 400 afterwords.

Now THIS point my friend is a GREAT one and I hope more than anything that the Devs keep this in mind. I do NOT want any one man main battle tanks, under any circumstances. Planetside was never about the one man army and I hope they keep it that way, because honestly this point here is a major reason Planetside was what it was. On this point I completely agree.

And yeah, go ahead with the ad hominems "Everyone who disagrees with me is a fat 12 year old ass nerd", that is exactly the argument that brings the picture of a crying baby to me.

I can not say I disagree with this.

Bear in mind that I've agreed with almost everything the devs have added, I think territory control is cool, the iron sights look awesome, more specialized roles - hell yeah, headshots are needed. I'm just debating the fine details of what has been added, in fact the only things I really disagree with is the possible advantages old players would have on newbies and the removal of sanctuaries so go ahead and make ad hominems and straw men.

I will agree that there are a few decisions the Devs had made that I dont agree with, but I think my biggest concern on all this is that people are jumping the gun just a bit to sing songs of doom.

[tjmonk15]

Is it just me, or are people putting more effort in rebuttals in this discussion then most people put in the discussions about PS2 when they don't like a feature?

I 100% agree with the OP, and assuming I understand him what I think he means (And what I believe) is this:

Saying a feature is bad is fine, saying it won't be PlanetSide anymore is fine. What the issue is is that most people stop there. They say this feature sucks or will be unfair or will kill PlanetSide 2 and then nothing.

What they need to do instead is say WHY they feel that way. Saying head shots are bad and then backing it up saying they will be bad BECAUSE.... is what will give the discussion a chance of being useful/meaningful/etc.

This is what (I think) the OP means.

-Monk

[Bags]

Well of course the argument "BUT IT WON'T BE PS ANY MORE" is weak, but I don't think anyone is using it.

[Hamma]

As a community we need to avoid the pitfalls of other communities who were in the same position. We need to be open minded about PlanetSide 2 and realize there will be many differences between the two. Some may be worse, but in the end the tradeoff of getting to play a modern PlanetSide is an awesome thought.

People need to also put their brain in Sandbox mode and research some sandbox games and MMOs to mine some thoughts about how to improve PlanetSide 2 even more than what we already know. There is a MASSIVE amout of possibility we have only just touched the tip of the iceberg.

[tjmonk15]

Well put Hamma, as usual

Oh, and /agree

-Monk

[Vancha]

I agree this excuse is perhaps being overused as people struggle to come to terms with how different PS2 will be, but at the same time I think it's meaning is quite obvious.

Planetside 2 was not a realistic shooter. It was too far in the UT/Quake/Tribes direction to be in BF or CoD territory. At the same time, it was too slow and too tactical to be in UT and Quake territory either. In occupied a middle ground that was largely unique to FPS games (and still is).

I wholeheartedly accept that Planetside 2 will be very different to it's predecessor, but at the same time I can understand that when people say "But that wouldn't be Planetside", it's probably to do with PS2 becoming a "type" of shooter instead of holding that unique hybridization that Planetside had.