Fact: I play BF3, but would rather play PS1 - Page 3

Captain1nsaneo · 2012-04-14, 12:00 PM

Immersion is created in a game by setting down rules as to how the universe works and then rigorously adhering to them. The cause of immersion in PS was the sense that everything had a physical presence and actually took up space. Conts are large and have travel times as you can't just teleport a physical object somewhere. Recall and Instant Action both adhered to this as well as when you did them your body deconstructed which was itself a mechanic for explaining where the things went after they stopped taking up physical space.

Vehicle entrance/exit animations were just an extension of this logic as to get into a vehicle you need to resolve that two objects with that take up physical space are now occupying the same space. PS actually does have the instant enter/exit of BF but it adheres to PS's internal logic. The AT vehicles all effectively make you disappear when you enter them. It doesn't break immersion because you see your character dissolve like you would if you recalled. This is the genius of PS's immersion, always explaining or showing the transition of objects between in-game states.

Ieyasu · 2012-04-14, 12:05 PM

problem is that the devs would rather make a AAA blockbuster game than a true sequal to Planetside. If they could bring in 15% of the bf3/ cod crowd and not one single planetside 1 player they would probably be estatic as their main goal at the end of the day is to turn a profit. BF3 and COD have both proven to be huge money makers and as such a great deal of what makes those games "popular" is going to be adapted and put into PS2.

people are calling for the animations which Higby has already said would add to the production time. Based on the fact that this week was developer week as opposed to MAX week leads me to beleive that they dont even have the MAX units done yet. I also have yet to see any ingame female characters in a gameplay video or even screen shot. if they dont even have MAX units and female characters done why would you want to call for vehicle animations at this point in time? shooting for a 2014 release or something?

edit: should mention that yes i have seen the tr female render, but nothing ingame as of yet.

Tialian · 2012-04-14, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

Vehicle entrance/exit animations were just an extension of this logic as to get into a vehicle you need to resolve that two objects with that take up physical space are now occupying the same space. PS actually does have the instant enter/exit of BF but it adheres to PS's internal logic. The AT vehicles all effectively make you disappear when you enter them. It doesn't break immersion because you see your character dissolve like you would if you recalled. This is the genius of PS's immersion, always explaining or showing the transition of objects between in-game states.

Your logic contains holes when you consider vehicles that aren't fully enclosed, such as a harasser or quad. You do in a sense become one object, but your actual player model is seen and moves as you take actions.

If all the devs want to do is create a half assed sequel they should have stuck with their original idea to upgrade PS1. To make a proper sequel they need to take PS1 and expand upon it, not take BF3 and give it PS elements.

Captain1nsaneo · 2012-04-14, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Tialian

Your logic contains holes when you consider vehicles that aren't fully enclosed, such as a harasser or quad. You do in a sense become one object, but your actual player model is seen and moves as you take actions.

If all the devs want to do is create a half assed sequel they should have stuck with their original idea to upgrade PS1. To make a proper sequel they need to take PS1 and expand upon it, not take BF3 and give it PS elements.

The space a harasser takes up in game is the same regardless of if it is manned or not. A manned ATV takes up less space than an infantry and ATV alone. Mentally the space is conserved as you see where your character which takes up space is now and is still taking up an identifiable space. What's more important is the showing of where you went. The states I refer to are things like outside/inside a vehicle, alive/dead, and working/destroyed. The game conserves the mental idea of where matter is at all times which gives it a physical presence rather than a simple digital one.

I don't really know how to respond to your second paragraph as it seems more a rant combined with a bit of worry. If the devs wanted to create a half assed sequel then they wouldn't be working on PS2. I've talked to some of them in person and they're massive fans of PS. They want this to succeed just as much as we do.

Tialian · 2012-04-14, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

I don't really know how to respond to your second paragraph as it seems more a rant combined with a bit of worry. If the devs wanted to create a half assed sequel then they wouldn't be working on PS2. I've talked to some of them in person and they're massive fans of PS. They want this to succeed just as much as we do.

Second paragraph isn't in response to you but rather the post above mine, I just did a poor job of making it clear by not quoting.

Saieno · 2012-04-14, 01:30 PM

When we talk about Planetside we really need to take into consideration what type of game we're talking about here. Planetside is over 10 years old, yes it released in 2003, but the official Planetside website was around ever since early 2002 when I first discovered it, though they had media like the following video since 2001. Name me one other game that is still talked about today that released ten years ago and has not had a sequel. I'm sure if I did some really deep research I could come up with a couple candidates, but just off the top of my head I can't think of any.

So why are we still talking about Planetside ten years after its release? Even if Planetside 2 wasn't announced people would still be remembering Planetside, they would still be on the servers playing the game, and it would still be an outcry for a new Planetside. There is no other MMORPG that I know of that has had such a strong community loyalty, but why is that? We all remember our fun times and close calls with our friends, but what about the bigger picture? What was the defining moment that told you that Planetside was something special?

I still remember vividly the first time I played Planetside. I didn't know what I was doing and I came out of that spawn room in the TR sanctuary, just in time to see the HART taking off and flying off into space. All around me were vehicles and aircraft, people gathering around planning an assault and loading supplies into trunks. Seeing a Galaxy for the first time and the giant lumbering MAX suit jump into a seat was impressive, but watching the squadron of Mosquitoes and Reavers all load up was awe-inspiring. if you've never seen the storm grenadier's recruitment video Planetside from 2003, you missed something special. This video culminates everything that made Planetside special, not just for me, but for many of the people that still play to this very day.

Some of the concepts to take note of in this video is the animations to get into vehicles, how they're using the time to travel and set up strategies, and most importantly the teamwork and coordination.

Not every body played Planetside that seriously though, so on the opposite side of the spectrum we had The Enclave. Even though their play styles and empires are completely different, both videos still share the same concepts of what made Planetside great. Again, the concepts to take from this video are the animations of getting into the vehicles, how they use the time to get to an objective, and how they work together and coordinate as a team.

Shake · 2012-04-14, 01:31 PM

The game needs both good FPS gameplay and immersion, mmo elements, and the organization and teamwork that made PS1 so popular. You shouldn't think that because you want something, it is what the game needs or what the majority wants.

The vast majority of people out there wouldn't touch planetside 1 right now, and if ps2 didn't have good gameplay that is up to the standards of games like MW3 and BF3 (it happens to meet that standard as far as I've seen) they wouldn't touch it either.

Yes, a lot of us PS veterans care more about the game world and the teamwork more than the gameplay, and many people probably would like the gameplay to be more like PS1 and less like AAA shooters, but this game isn't being developed for us, its being developed for the largest market it can reach. SOE doesn't want to bring back all the PS1 players, they want to bring back all the PS1 players + revolutionize the industry by luring in all of the BF3 and MW3 players and making them realize that they can get gameplay comparable to what they're used to in a massive world with meaningful objectives, organized outfits, etc.

Frankly I think that PS1 players should like where this game is going even if some of us struggle to accept the new direction they're going with gameplay. This game, if all goes according to plan, could create a gigantic community and change the direction of the entire industry.

Saieno · 2012-04-14, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Shake

SOE doesn't want to bring back all the PS1 players, they want to bring back all the PS1 players + revolutionize the industry by luring in all of the BF3 and MW3 players and making them realize that they can get gameplay comparable to what they're used to in a massive world with meaningful objectives, organized outfits, etc.

The problem with that statement is that gamers don't go for the same type of gameplay, they go for a certain franchise. Any time someone mentions the name "Call of Duty", those fans stand up and cheer regardless of how good the game actually is. Battlefield is a little different though, because I've enjoyed Battlefield for over 10 years (like Planetside) but I didn't enjoy Battlefield 3. They strayed away too far from what made the franchise great, and because of that I still prefer Bad Company 2 or even Battlefield 2.

Call of Duty fans cheer not because of teamwork, but because of all of the frags and ownage they can do. It's very similar to Counter-Strike nowadays, especially the multiplayer aspect. Battlefield used to be about teamwork, but with the latest installment it turned into a lonewolf frag fest. This isn't a bad thing, but it's certainly not what longtime fans of the series wanted. Friends of mine that had been wanting to play Battlefield 3 for years, stopped playing weeks after release because it just didn't feel the same. Planetside 2 seems to have the same feeling as Planetside, but it doesn't seem to have the same spirit.

Levente · 2012-04-14, 01:48 PM

lol i knew this thread is gonna exist soon, but i cant argue, i agree with OP but this is the new generation the DERP generation making everything easy, primitive so the mindless idiot cod player can understand it, but i think the case with PS2 is not so bad like BF3. i mean we still have our large continents like in PS1, we still must plan coordinate the attacks, of coruse there will be travel times, and theres hopefully a very good command structure, i think the immersion is there. enter exit vehicle animations are far from important imo.

Stardouser · 2012-04-14, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Ieyasu

problem is that the devs would rather make a AAA blockbuster game than a true sequal to Planetside. If they could bring in 15% of the bf3/ cod crowd and not one single planetside 1 player they would probably be estatic as their main goal at the end of the day is to turn a profit. BF3 and COD have both proven to be huge money makers and as such a great deal of what makes those games "popular" is going to be adapted and put into PS2.

people are calling for the animations which Higby has already said would add to the production time. Based on the fact that this week was developer week as opposed to MAX week leads me to beleive that they dont even have the MAX units done yet. I also have yet to see any ingame female characters in a gameplay video or even screen shot. if they dont even have MAX units and female characters done why would you want to call for vehicle animations at this point in time? shooting for a 2014 release or something?

edit: should mention that yes i have seen the tr female render, but nothing ingame as of yet.

The people calling for animations are only able to do so because they know the game is in development and are following it. As was pointed out in another thread, the PS Reddit has 2000 subscribers, the game is simply not well known at this point. The more people that knew about it, the more resistance you will get to the animations. On the point of "immersion", there will be lots of resistance, because animations are an irritation 100% of the time. They don't get faster the 1000th time you are entering a vehicle. On the point of shooting at people and they disappear before you can kill them, there are more people that want it for that reason, but that's a separate issue, and there's a lot of bias there too; players who are likely to be shooting at people that are getting into vehicles are probably dedicated infantry players. Why wouldn't they take the opportunity to call for anything that makes vehicle drivers more vulnerable?

I believe that animations are a thing to be avoided for proper gameplay reasons, not because the AAA titles don't have them.

Fun Gameplay>Balance>Immersion, that's the pecking order.

JHendy · 2012-04-14, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

On the point of "immersion", there will be lots of resistance, because animations are an irritation 100% of the time.

I believe that animations are a thing to be avoided for proper gameplay reasons, not because the AAA titles don't have them.

You speak for yourself. At least the demographic I speak of when I advocate the implementation of E/E animations actually exists. In the form of the current Planetside players, who, by and large, really liked the feature, and are vocal about it.

The demographic you cite as being opposed to 'immersion features' doesn't actually exist yet. Your opinion is based on conjecture. How do you know that the majority of the game's player-base will think the same way as you do?

A lot of people love animations. There really is no decisive outcome as regards this matter as it's based on personal preference (as you said) so I guess It's wise for people on both sides to agree to disagree. Agree? :P

Cheers.

Stardouser · 2012-04-14, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by JHendy

You speak for yourself. At least the demographic I speak of when I advocate the implementation of E/E animations actually exists. In the form of the current Planetside players, who, by and large, really liked the feature, and are vocal about it.

The demographic you cite as being opposed to 'immersion features' doesn't actually exist yet. Your opinion is based on conjecture. How do you know that the majority of the game's player-base will think the same way as you do?

A lot of people love animations. There really is no decisive outcome as regards this matter as it's based on personal preference (as you said) so I guess It's wise for people on both sides to agree to disagree. Agree? :P

Cheers.

The issue has come up before when people were asking for this in Battlefield. It was shot down for much the same reasons I am opposing it now. Of course, bear in mind that when I say shot down, I am talking about the communities where I saw it discussed...why DICE never did it, who knows. And why CoD doesn't do it is obvious, they aren't a vehicle based game.

I will say one thing. If we're going to have a slight bit of immersion in the form of one thing, like animations, then I want the whole works. By that, I mean interactive cockpits that actually have a few working buttons to press. Not just 3D cockpits, but interactive. Why should we only have the annoying aspects of immersion and stop short of implementing the fun ones?

And further pursuant to that - when you get into a Galaxy as a passenger, the ability to stand up, look around, etc. In fact, for Galaxies, why even have an animation at all? You go to the back door/ramp, it opens, the pilot walks in and all the way to his seat. Passengers walk in and walk up to their seat and then they sit down.

In other words, I'm changing gears here...if we're going to do it, why do it halfway? If SOE is going to force it on me, lets go ALL OUT. And when naval ships come later, I want to be able to walk onto it and stand on the deck as it travels, or drive a tank onto the deck and travel that way, etc.

Tialian · 2012-04-14, 03:44 PM

Personally I wouldn't bother to purchase and play another BF3 clone. If that is the direction the industry is going I'd sooner play PS1 (if they don't shut it down) or not play shooters at all.

If I could take back my decision to buy BF3 I would since they seem to be taking it in the direction of CoD with the whole close quarters expansion (not to mention map limits suck).

I'll be watching PS2 closely and if they fail to deliver properly on immersion then there is simply no reason to buy the game since you can get a similar experience with any other shooter out there.

Sometimes I wish there never was a PlanetSide so we could all go on with our lives settling for mediocre shooters year after year that simply reuse the same shooter formula with a face lift.

I am curious though, for those that don't care about immersion: Why are you looking to play PlanetSide? Seems your type of game is already available between CoD and BF3.

JHendy · 2012-04-14, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

In other words, I'm changing gears here...if we're going to do it, why do it halfway? If SOE is going to force it on me, lets go ALL OUT. And when naval ships come later, I want to be able to walk onto it and stand on the deck as it travels, or drive a tank onto the deck and travel that way, etc.

Hell yes. I can't tell you how much I'd love to see that level of interactivity and immersion brought in. It wont happen, not at launch, at least. But it would be fantastic.

I've gotta say. You've thrown me off a little bit with that comment. First you're totally against this type of thing, in any guise. Then you do a U-ey and start describing the sorts of things that would make the 'immersion crowd' want to unbuckle their belts at the mere thought of!

Tialian · 2012-04-14, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I will say one thing. If we're going to have a slight bit of immersion in the form of one thing, like animations, then I want the whole works. By that, I mean interactive cockpits that actually have a few working buttons to press. Not just 3D cockpits, but interactive. Why should we only have the annoying aspects of immersion and stop short of implementing the fun ones?

And further pursuant to that - when you get into a Galaxy as a passenger, the ability to stand up, look around, etc. In fact, for Galaxies, why even have an animation at all? You go to the back door/ramp, it opens, the pilot walks in and all the way to his seat. Passengers walk in and walk up to their seat and then they sit down.

In other words, I'm changing gears here...if we're going to do it, why do it halfway? If SOE is going to force it on me, lets go ALL OUT. And when naval ships come later, I want to be able to walk onto it and stand on the deck as it travels, or drive a tank onto the deck and travel that way, etc.

I would love that, but you have to be realistic. When PlanetSide came out they made it as immersive as possible with the current technology at that time...so they could definitely improve on a game 10 years later but I doubt they would be able to deliver on all your wants.