Best game I've ever played...? - Page 2

Figment · 2012-10-21, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by dethred

Isn't that precious? To throw a pie in your face, I happen to think this game has more depth and potential longevity than BF2 ever had, which is why I already enjoy it more. I hate the direction that BF3 took, having chosen a COD-clone approach, and I've totally written off the series. I know of dozens of people with the same situation. Sorry, guy, but your precious Planetside series is about to be overrun with hundreds of thousands of people who enjoy an FPS game on a large scale with tactics and teamwork at its core. If that's worrisome to you, then just WOW. Bitter is the best and only word.

Ehrm... What are you talking about here?

PlanetSide (1) == tens of thousands of people who enjoy an FPS game on a large scale with tactics and teamwork at its core. We tend to find PS2 shallow on that level.

Why? Because it has become more like BF series, which is even more shallow in comparison. So we're not really concerned about the new people flowing in, we're concerned with the game not being tactical enough, instead it being too zerg oriented (numbers equals win =/= teamwork equals win!).

Since you did not play PS1, I don't really get why you're trying to talk in a degenerative way of PS players, since you have no frame of reference to judge them on.

From what I saw last night, the amount of teamwork and immersion could not be topped.

Rose tinted glasses can lead to blindness.

I've never seen such negativity for such an excellent game. Its quite frankly getting annoying. The first reply in this thread basically says it all in regards to how ridiculous these arguments are. "Oh no, you like ____ game and also like PS2, so that's proof that this game isn't as good as PS1".

That's not what was said. You're putting words in Mox' mouth.

1.) There's everything from people complaining their moderate systems can't handle a dedicated PC game with thousands of participants with huge battles and excellent graphics. Who would have thought a modern game pushing the performance envelope will make slightly dated mid-level PCs display their shortcomings.

Depends on how you look at it: the devs stated they would make it run on a 5 year old PC, so the expectation level was created by the devs. If the devs said 1-2 year old PC, we'd not be having that discussion. But now, they set the standard where a Duo Core must be able to run it as the majority of PCs from that time era were Core2 Duo.

If it doesn't do that well, then you'll get complaints.

2.) There are veterans who are complaining that there is no depth to the game... From what I can tell, it looks like the developers made a tradeoff between the meta game and actual decent combat.

Uhm... Let me get this straight, are you saying that "more meta game == non-decent combat"? O.o' Where do you base that on? From experience: more meta game == better combat, more strategy, more tactics. Lowering the complexity of the game makes battles more straightforward, which benefits zerg-gameplay. Zerg-gameplay is a worse type of combat because it requires the least thought and allows the smarter players less room to compensate by playing smart and focused.

Don't get me wrong, zerg can be fun, but it's also relatively tiring and less satisfying to win a zergfight (unless you beat the zerg playing smart, but that's not possible in PS2 due to lack of crowd control options due to funneling and choke points not being options).

We're saying: combat is worse than it could be on several levels. Of course it's a billion times better than BattleField 3. PS1 was that as well.

I've come from playing competitively in BF2 and 2142 (again, I hated BF3 and detest COD), and this game provides a much better experience in terms of teamwork and immersion. If you don't eventually get your complexity aspect, then either take off the rose-tinted glasses or simply play PS1.

I know its a terrible choice to have to deal with what you're being provided for FREE, or going back to your old game and playing that for FREE.

Without pop, the actual content? How nice of you to provide the option between playing a game that is relatively shallow and ill-construed from the veteran point of view or stop playing altogether. And btw, you're the one currently wearing the rose-teinted glasses: PS2 fanboy goggles to be exact.

What makes you think you're invulnerable to the same critique you're trying to apply to PS1 veterans? You try to paint PS2 as the bestest ever, while we KNOW it could be the bestestestest ever if they just listened to us more. The game is becoming better over the past months, BECAUSE they listened to veterans and stepped away from some alpha concepts they refused to drop before, because they thought it streamlined the game. You're saying our improvements have made the game better, but since you don't realise that was our doing, we should just shut up and go away?

I also understand the need for constructive criticism, but this crap is just silly. The sheer absolutism of this negativity is counter-productive towards making changes. Tell me this, how is a Developer going to look at this forum and see anything but a general "We want an exact remake of PS1 with better graphics but don't want to have to spend more than $150 on a graphics card"? Most of you probably have at least one valid criticism, but when you flood the forums with the negativity its self-defeating.

How many people have you actually heard "an exact remake"? I'm sorry, but you'll hear 97% of critique go on about SPECIFIC sub-systems. Considering there's about a bazillion systems, of which a few thousand have been changed, YES, we're going to have A LOT of critique! What you don't get though, is all the things we HAVN'T critiqued, because there's either no point in mentioning them or because people take them for granted. It's not fair to say "oh it's mostly critique, so you're just bashing" or "you just want the old game". That's you being an utter narrowminded turd.

I saw the same thing with BF3 forums from BF2 veterans (I was one of the complainers), and it didn't work at all. Worse off, just like BF3, this game will probably have a MUCH larger player base which will serve to invalidate all your criticisms in the eyes of the developers.

True, but the problem is that numbers don't guarantee quality and numbers do not invalidate critique. New players to the genre have less experience and have less options to provide critique, so one should expect them to be rather accepting of "whatever is there". One, being a dev, should not mistake complacency and ignorance for having done the best they could. The best people to ask about what to change ARE PS1 vets, because we're more aware of the (dis)advantages of design options and alternatives than (with all due respect), people who only played small shooters like CoD, BF2/2142/3 or some other multiplayer games. People who played MAG would have better input than players from BF (even though MAG is completely different as well), simply because an upscaled shooter and a game with three factions works completely different.

One of the big differences is acquisition and numerical leverage. What works for a 32 vs 32 game, will not necessarily work in a 650 vs 650 vs 650 game. What works in a 150 vs 150 vs 150 game, is much better comparable.

When the players with the latter experience are negative, they might be on to something that the 32 vs 32 players will be oblivious to until they gained what, 2 years of experience playing the new game. And I'm not saying that to sound denegrating or insulting, the amount of dimensions you have to have a proper grasp on are simply far greater for a PS game and often involve things you never would consider in a smaller scale game.

In a smaller game, group behaviour is different. In a smaller game, balance is different. In a smaller game, the interaction between two players is different. In a smaller game, the power distance between two groups of players is different. Where in BF on a 64 player map, 4 vs 1 would mean at most 32 vs 8, 4 vs 1 in a bigger scaled game can mean 160 vs 40, or 600 vs 150. The power of leverage behaves quite different at those populations and having the exact same type of open maps has severe consequences. I don't expect you to realise that.

I don't expect you to for example have ever argued or have to convince with 50 other people on the next course of action and which map to invade from where, what route and how, or predicting and preparing for an invasion elsewhere. I cannot expect you to have ever needed to come to a concensus for the battleplan of an entire empire and therefore I cannot expect you to know what kind of conditions, psychology, diplomacy, situations and time pressure there is and how the system must be able to deal with and support that type of command. Especially when there's a huge difference between large and small outfits and therefore the amount of influence they might have.

I don't expect you to for example have witnessed fights where 15 people held off a hundred people for 10 minutes till reinforcements arrived, secured a base or even pushed them back, but the way PS2 is designed, you won't ever see that. As such, I cannot expect you to have an opinion of that and therefore also not see any problems. Unfortunately, what I can expect is you not understanding that those who DO have that experience, see why the current game is "flawed". Upon which you conclude that we're just whining, simply because you're missing out on a lot of information.

And I can go on like that. In short, you lack the experience to make proper judgment. That includes you lacking the experience to be able to say if we're whining. :/

Lastly, if a completely new BF3 player with just some months tops of experience in the entire BF series (and all gained in BF3), yet a BF3 fanboy nonetheless, told you you were just whining and BF3 is the greatest game ever and the best of the series and you should go back to BF2 (or BF1942) if you didn't like it... What would you say?

dethred · 2012-10-21, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

I love this turn of phrase. Absolutely love it.
I agree that the general tone is negative. Right now though you're eating a Taco without cheese. It's a great Taco! And you can't understand why people are complaining about how these great Tacos don't have any cheese. You don't need cheese! This Taco is wonderful as is! You won't understand until you have a Taco with cheese.
The original Planetside is coming up on 10 years. You know what's younger than Planetside? Modern Warfare. Halo only beats PS by 2 years. Everything that you named as what you thoroughly enjoyed from PS2 has been in PS1 (except the headlights, [yes even the graphics were good]) and as much as it seems that we're blowing smoke out our bums we're really talking about how great cheese is and how we wish we had some cheese.
Because in the end, we want you to have a Taco with cheese too.

The "General" tone is not negative, THE tone is negative. I post how I love this game and find it to be not only a replacement for Battlefield games (since the Franchise has collapsed into shit), but that this game is far better than any BF game I've ever played... and most of the replies continue on about how shitty the game is. Its unbelievable.

The problem, though, is that someone that came here to sign up for the game, and then read the forums, is getting the impression that the taco isn't filled with delicious ground beef. They're getting the impression that the Taco is filled with with Horse shit. Not just shit from a horse, but shit from a person that ate horse shit and taco bell "meat filling". You guys are about to throw out the taco just because it has no cheese. Most of us that are content with the direction wouldn't mind having some cheese, but the Taco is still great and we're not going to throw it out just because its missing an ingredient. (Also, part of the reason I never played PS1, aside from not having the cash at the time (college), was the horrible graphics and cumbersome FPS aspects.)

Quite so! Quite so! I prefer PSU because about 25% of the posts are longer than my thumb and cause me to think.

As to casuals, they'll come for what's currently on offer, that's not a problem. The problem is what happens after they've finished the appetizer?

Well, considering there are hundreds of thousands of people that were begging DICE for a real Battlefield game last year, they'll be interested in anything that they can find that fills the need. This isn't BF3, or some shallow FPS COD clone, and its designed to be a little more complex. People were playing BF2 by the tens of thousands over 5 years and several sequels after its release. These people simply want a decent FPS shooter with an open world and teamplay mechanic. These people (including myself and my gaming "squad") played for thousands of hours a piece. Planetside looks to be multiple times more engrossing and long-lasting.

And honestly, I don't think there can possibly be such a thing as casuals in this game. There are your hardcore gamers that are willing to learn the *relatively* complex world of Planetside, and there are your teenage or man-child quick fix gamers that buy the yearly iteration of COD and Madden because "everyone else does". No one that has a computer that can play this game fits into the casual gamer realm. That group of players simply doesn't exist, primarily due to the cost and intelligence it takes to assemble a computer (yeah COD fans can't even figure out something as simple as a PC's hardware).

Figment · 2012-10-21, 05:45 PM

You know dethred, our burden is being spoiled with knowledge of what can be (not just what could, because it's been done before). Hence we have set the bar there where we think is reasonable. That "reasonable" bar, is significantly higher and what's more, more detailed than for someone who would be new to the series, who just comes in browsing casually.

It's like walking into a store and asking the sales guy which tv is good and getting the one that they want to get rid of, or going in knowing what specs you want and knowing the differences between the brands and what the best buy is.

What we wouldn't give to be as naive and accepting, but having been there, that bar just isn't going to go away, is it? I'm not sure how well you can relate to that, but there's a big difference between going back to BF2, where you need a few dozen players for a viable instance and going back to PS1, where you need a few thousand subscribers for a viable server.

Fear The Amish · 2012-10-21, 06:52 PM

as a PS1 vet i have to say i am thoroughly enjoying PS2. Yes there are things i want to change but i feel that they are updating the game almost weekly, and i feel its heading in the correct direction. My biggest issue is the grumbly vet's that make the rest of us look bad with constant negativity that would only be happy with a reskin. Personally i think inventories are garbage and were only added because as an MMO were felt to be needed i prefer the class system. I think the Hex system is better then lattice because now it isn't who has the biggest zerg going down the pipe, and with the mission system coming it will work out better. Yes it has a ways to go but as a F2P title it will constantly be updating and changing and i am happy with that.

Redshift · 2012-10-21, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Fear The Amish

I think the Hex system is better then lattice because now it isn't who has the biggest zerg going down the pipe, and with the mission system coming it will work out better.

While i agree with you it is moving in the right direction, this part is just wrong. PS2 is all about the zerg, a small force can not hold out against a larger force anywhere near like you could in PS1. Although it's not the hex/lattice that causes it, it's because PS2 bases are terrible for defending.

Fear The Amish · 2012-10-21, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Redshift

While i agree with you it is moving in the right direction, this part is just wrong. PS2 is all about the zerg, a small force can not hold out against a larger force anywhere near like you could in PS1. Although it's not the hex/lattice that causes it, it's because PS2 bases are terrible for defending.

of course that comes from a TR as a VS i am outnumbered about 50% of the time to the stupidest dimension, so good tactics on our part is to take hex's surrounding the zerg forcing them to split up and then be devoured in detail. This game is NOT about the zerg its about large group tactics playing smart should always beat numbers.

FortySe7en · 2012-10-21, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by Mox

Nice to hear that bf players enjoy the game. The question is if you will still enjoy the game when the next bf is released. For sure a lot of ps1 vets wont enjoy the game simply because the casual bf player was more important and the game was designed for their needs.

I wish I could figure out a way to purify the tears of this whiny player base, I'd make millions selling it as bottled water.

I'm a PS1 vet from 2003 - 2010. I absolutely love PS2. I know about 400 other vets who do as well, so there are plenty more out there.

The casual BF player was kept in mind because 1000's of the same players won't be logged in for 24 hours at a time. This isn't WoW or everquest, games that take 5-7 hours a day to keep up, and 8-10 hours a day to be AMAZING. Because it is free to play, it will be like League of Legends. People will hop on for 2-3 hours, log off, and come back the next day and play. (Just like in the CoD, BF, and MOHAA series).

Shooters are designed for people to log on, kill some stuff for a few hours, and then log off. Being a part of the FPS scene for a long time, I can definitely tell you that I hate having to do anything but twitch. Its bad enough they are adding a quest system into an FPS (what the hell?) but to try and make it anything other than a good shooter is stupid. There doesn't need to be inventory, there doesn't need to be walls, there doesn't need to be a lot of things in this game other than a sheer desire to log in, shoot some people in the face, and meet some cool people along the way. However, they are adding what they can to keep the PS1 vets happy, while keeping this game true to REAL FPS roots. (ie, hitboxes, TTK, and an aresenal of weapons).

Its absolutely genius the way they are marketing this. I cannot wait for them to open this up to more players.

P.S. - Saying this game is like battlefield and just another shooter is a pointless argument. I've played CS Series, Quake Series, UT series, Doom Series, BF series, MOHAA series, Wolfenstein Series, and multiple other FPS titles. In all these games the basic idea is the same, but all those games are unique in their own way which made them absolutely amazing to play / still play. Planetside may be a basic shooter like BF, but it has enough unique elements to draw in a crowd.

Fear The Amish · 2012-10-21, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by FortySe7en

I wish I could figure out a way to purify the tears of this whiny player base, I'd make millions selling it as bottled water.

I'm a PS1 vet from 2003 - 2010. I absolutely love PS2. I know about 400 other vets who do as well, so there are plenty more out there.

The casual BF player was kept in mind because 1000's of the same players won't be logged in for 24 hours at a time. This isn't WoW or everquest, games that take 5-7 hours a day to keep up, and 8-10 hours a day to be AMAZING. Because it is free to play, it will be like League of Legends. People will hop on for 2-3 hours, log off, and come back the next day and play. (Just like in the CoD, BF, and MOHAA series).

Shooters are designed for people to log on, kill some stuff for a few hours, and then log off. Being a part of the FPS scene for a long time, I can definitely tell you that I hate having to do anything but twitch. Its bad enough they are adding a quest system into an FPS (what the hell?) but to try and make it anything other than a good shooter is stupid. There doesn't need to be inventory, there doesn't need to be walls, there doesn't need to be a lot of things in this game other than a sheer desire to log in, shoot some people in the face, and meet some cool people along the way. However, they are adding what they can to keep the PS1 vets happy, while keeping this game true to REAL FPS roots. (ie, hitboxes, TTK, and an aresenal of weapons).

Its absolutely genius the way they are marketing this. I cannot wait for them to open this up to more players.

P.S. - Saying this game is like battlefield and just another shooter is a pointless argument. I've played CS Series, Quake Series, UT series, Doom Series, BF series, MOHAA series, Wolfenstein Series, and multiple other FPS titles. In all these games the basic idea is the same, but all those games are unique in their own way which made them absolutely amazing to play / still play.

Couldn't agree with you more, and honestly if we loose some of these whiny ass PS1 vets who want a 2 minute TTK to make up for bad reflex's nothing of value will be lost.

texico · 2012-10-21, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

I agree that the general tone is negative. Right now though you're eating a Taco without cheese. It's a great Taco! And you can't understand why people are complaining about how these great Tacos don't have any cheese. You don't need cheese! This Taco is wonderful as is! You won't understand until you have a Taco with cheese.
The original Planetside is coming up on 10 years. You know what's younger than Planetside? Modern Warfare. Halo only beats PS by 2 years. Everything that you named as what you thoroughly enjoyed from PS2 has been in PS1 (except the headlights, [yes even the graphics were good]) and as much as it seems that we're blowing smoke out our bums we're really talking about how great cheese is and how we wish we had some cheese.
Because in the end, we want you to have a Taco with cheese too.

10/10, made me laugh and it perfectly sums up what most of the negativity is about. Especially the last sentence.

We're fighting hard to get the devs to put the cheese on top because we know that the cheese is all it's going to take to make it the best taco in the taco-making industry.

And the moaning is actually proper critique. Few people are just saying "base designs" or "classes" are bad, they're stating why they don't like it, what effect it has that's detrimental, how it should be changed and why that change is better. How is that bad feedback?

Captain1nsaneo · 2012-10-21, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by dethred

The "General" tone is not negative, THE tone is negative.

Well consider this, when someone posts about a good time they had or something cool that happened ingame what is there to discuss in it? You might have 1 post congratulating the player or commenting how cool it is but beyond that there's not much to talk about. (example) With a negative aspect there's lots to argue about, discuss, and claw at.

We're also probably playing different games at the moment. I'm CPU bound and getting between 5 and 15 fps in combat. I want a role where I can have such fps but still be a help to my team. Normally those roles would come from working the backlines and causing distractions but they aren't in the game yet which would be fine as long as we got some feed back saying they know about the problem. This may seem small but people have wildly different ways of playing games, it's why some people really like medics in tf2 while others adore spies. More ways to play the game isn't pedantic, it's increasing the size of the net PS2 can spread to capture more players and make a better game for all of us.

dethred · 2012-10-21, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by texico

10/10, made me laugh and it perfectly sums up what most of the negativity is about. Especially the last sentence.

We're fighting hard to get the devs to put the cheese on top because we know that the cheese is all it's going to take to make it the best taco in the taco-making industry.

And the moaning is actually proper critique. Few people are just saying "base designs" or "classes" are bad, they're stating why they don't like it, what effect it has that's detrimental, how it should be changed and why that change is better. How is that bad feedback?

I'm not saying you should have a proper discussion on what it might need. Unfortunately, the forums are a polluted wasteland of complaints. If you want a certain feature included, why isn't there a single thread for each issue that everyone signs and keeps getting bumped and a link to it spammed on the Dev's twitter feed? The PS2 forums are just full of every kind of complaint you can imagine and its no wonder the Devs aren't specifically addressing them. I personally don't like the FOV on the Flash vehicles, but I'm not going to start a damned thread about it and get dozens of people to complain.

The whole reason I am having to dismiss many of ya'll complaints is because its to such a level of absurdity, that I make a thread praising the game for what it is so far, and immediately there are massive criticisms.

BF3's official forum was a complete wasteland as well, and they had a cohesive set of requests of the developers (including massive petitions and 50-page long threads concerning single issues). What happened to them? The developers banned everyone who was complaining and when they came back with different usernames, they eventually shut down the forum. Granted, BF3 was such a departure from BF2 that it would be like PS2 having only two factions, continents the size of one region, and many other complete game transformations that suck the soul out of every aspect of the game.

This sub-forum's first two pages only have about 5 non-bitch thread titles. So if you're the developer, how do you even begin? Its quite frankly not as bad as anyone claims it to be, as illustrated by thousands of people playing the beta and having a great time. Could it improve? Sure! Could your tactics for implementing that improvement... uh.... improve? Definitively yes!

dethred · 2012-10-21, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

Well consider this, when someone posts about a good time they had or something cool that happened ingame what is there to discuss in it? You might have 1 post congratulating the player or commenting how cool it is but beyond that there's not much to talk about. (example) With a negative aspect there's lots to argue about, discuss, and claw at.

Um... how about "I also like _____ because ______!" or "I had a similar experience when _____ attacked _________ and _____ was excellent."

If most of you can't even consider filling in the blanks, then I'd honestly suggest (for your own sakes) that you give up on the game now. I'm not asking you to do that, but if its that bad that all you can do is criticize it, then from personal experience I can tell you nothing they change will make you happy with it.

Shenyen · 2012-10-22, 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by dethred

They're getting the impression that the Taco is filled with with Horse shit. Not just shit from a horse, but shit from a person that ate horse shit and taco bell "meat filling". You guys are about to throw out the taco just because it has no cheese. Most of us that are content with the direction wouldn't mind having some cheese, but the Taco is still great and we're not going to throw it out just because its missing an ingredient.

THIS!

The negativity in this forum is astounding.

I can understand that Planetside 1 had some features that made parts of it an even greater experience than Planetside 2, but many in this forum sound like grumpy old men, talking about how everything was so much better in the past and how nowadays, everything is horrible.

That ridiculousness is only beaten by the great war between Counter-Strike 1.6 and Counter-Strike Source.

Originally Posted by Figment

You know dethred, our burden is being spoiled with knowledge of what can be (not just what could, because it's been done before). Hence we have set the bar there where we think is reasonable.

I have played an MMORPG with raids with groups of 150 players and more (DAoC, it later stole the metagame and mapdesign from Planetside for its PvP expansion "New Frontiers", but lacked the necessary FPS-gameplay^^).

An unforgettable experience.

But I won't complain about how WoW or EQ2 are shit, only because they have raids with a maximum of 25/24 players.

Different experiences, but still great.

Figment · 2012-10-22, 04:27 AM

That is great Shenyen, but I'm not complaining in BF3 about how it isn't a proper sequel to PlanetSide either. If it was a BC2 sequel that was crappier though...

Oh wait, that's why all those BF3 players are here: BF3 does not make an astoundingly good FPS game and certainly doesn't reach the "BC2 reasonable bar", even if it is a decent FPS game...

You would complain if the next Daoc game would go the way of WoW I'm sure.

PredatorFour · 2012-10-22, 05:19 AM

We have good reason to moan really. Apart from being vets for 6/9 years of the original, most of us have been following info on this game like crazy since it was announced 2 years ago(?),we havn`t been waiting 3 months like everyone else new round here. Throughout that time we were told vets will have significant input with the devs to make this game truly special, aswell as getting vet privelidges ingame. All our criticisms(constructive or not) have just been met with deaf ears, with the devs setting certain aspects of the game in stone.

Yes we may sound like bitter old people Dethred, but did you enjoy BF3? Did you want it to be a reskin of BF2 but more improved and smoother round the edges? Ofcourse you did. Whats wrong with us wanting PS to be brought up to date and smoother too? But too many aspects of the original have been changed (as detailed in many other threads). Planetside was ahead of its time but now is slated for being ancient. Truth is, it had many unique features that would still be unique to this day.

Maybe if this game wasn`t F2P and followed a sub model then we couldve made our own loadouts, had different base designs (no spawn camping in vehicles wtf), drivers with separate gunners etc..