Best game I've ever played...? - Page 3

ringring · 2012-10-22, 05:42 AM

You know before PS2 was announced and we were playing PS1, we were all pretty eager for an update. We scoured all the game site looking at each game announcement and wondering if *this* could be the one and wondering when the games industry would ever *get it* and not simply produce a new game that wasn't a simple clone of another with a few added quirks.

We also analysed what made PS1 so good and I think most agreed it was because it was massive, pvp only, 3 faction warfare across multiple continents that included fps, squad tactics and gloabal strategy and lastly I think we all liked the cert. system which meant you had to specialise at any one time but that you could also recert without penalty apart from a cool-down.

Now PS2, actually includes a lot of that. At the beginning a lot was missing and it seemed would not be included. It appeared the new game was Planetside in name only.

However, either the Devs have beeing keeping their real plans secret or they have changed direction a little in response to feedback but we are getting more of Planetside included in the update than appeared at first.

There are still some things to be addressed, things like the balance between air, armour and infantry, spec. ops tactics and combat engineering. Why is it wrong to comment on these these? Is it helpful to the devs just to keep shtumm?

There again, there are things that vets generally don't moan about .... bugs, we all understand software especially new software has bugs and weapon balance - we all understand this will be a constant issue and the devs a) have the objective data and b) do the best they can.

Gatekeeper · 2012-10-22, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

TLDR; bittervet.

Good job being constructive. I'm sure that's exactly the kind of helpful feedback the devs are looking for...

As for the OP: it's great that you're enjoying the game, and hopefully if other BF players feel the same way that bodes well for PS2's future. But at the same time, just because you're enjoying it, doesn't mean that the complaints a lot of PS1 vets have aren't valid.

Look at it this way: you're enjoying the game now, but maybe it could be even better!

It's not a matter of looking back with rose-tinted glasses and saying that PS1 was perfect - it wasn't. But it did have a lot of good ideas, some of which you're already enjoying in PS2. What's the harm in discussing some of the other good ideas from PS1 that haven't currently made it into PS2? Maybe you'd like the game even more if you got to try those things out...

Also: if there's a right time to moan about a game, it's during beta. That's a large part of what a beta is for

Gatekeeper · 2012-10-22, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

In a perfect world bittervets would self deport.

So... do you have an opinion on the actual content of my post? (or indeed, anyone's post)

Or are you just here to tell people that if they played PS1 they have no business commenting on PS2? Or are PS1 vets allowed to have their say so long as it's a stream of adoring praise?

Because I've got to tell you, I don't really follow your logic in either case

Figment · 2012-10-22, 09:55 AM

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...nd-wept.27969/

Funny what the response of new people to that video is in that thread.

Statements like:

"For every one thing good, there were two things bad. I never played PS1 so I can't dispute this claim. But here's a question. Why not carry on those good things and leave the bad? The nice thing about making a sequel is you can cherry-pick which features you retain. You don't have to keep the bad features that didn't work. But you CAN keep the good features that did. Clearly the base design was one of those good features. Even if it wasn't perfect, even if it needed tweaking, that base in that video is so far beyond anything in PS2 it isn't even funny."

"

If only I'd heard of it when it was relevant."

"about 14 minutes in the vid and tbh i want to uninstall ps2 and get myself ps1 :[ "

"Wow. I didn't play PS1, but after watching that I wish I had. There is so much more to the game than PS2. SO MUCH MORE DEPTH. I can empathize with with PS1 veterans for sure. Planetside is like a hollow shell of its former self with PS2."

"That vid makes me miss it and I never played the darn thing."

"While there are plenty of improvements over PS1 with 2 ... seeing PS1 again and playing it before getting into the tech test I must say the base design and the actual interation with the bases should be steering towards the PS1 direction. I really was hoping for real bases that would look awesome with the new graphics, ntu runs, lattice, strategy and tones more stuff that made PS1 so awesome."

"Never knew of or played PS1 and after seeing this I feel I missed out on one of the best experiences in gaming. After seeing and playing PS2 beta now, I feel it is definitely not as detailed as PS1 was, and I think they could do a LOT better. Also, I could care less about how good the game looks graphics wise, as long as I can run it at a good FPS. the unoptimization and feel of this beta in it's current state is definitely not that great in my opinion. I have a great system and barely manage in massive battles. I wouldn't mind if they scaled down the graphics a bit just for better performance."

Just saying, these are quotes from people with no PS1 experience and just a view of that 50 min video explaining a base (not even combat), or some before tech test playtime... Simply because they can see what makes it different. >.> Note that the vid actually points to one of the base design flaws everyone agrees with: the ease of camping base doors with vehicles. THAT is one of the things that we wanted to have fixed (next to roof protection at a wall from aircav spam). Instead, we got bases where vehicles DRIVE IN ALL THE WAY UP TO THE CONTROL POINT, CAMP NOT THE EXTERIOR DOORS, BUT THOSE OF THE SPAWN ROOM and then you wonder just what the hell happened to make that design decision happen. All we wanted was more infantry cover, especially in the inside-outside area, wider doors and corridors to make door, corridor and corner camping less easy and predictable...

Somehow that translated into the most hated PS1 building to defend: the AT Redoubt: in PS2 ALL spawnrooms open up to the outside directly, whether it's the roof or the ground level, it always results in constant all-angle camping where tanks can insta-kill you as you spawn and try to make a move, CCs are placed in even more impossible positions and the same can be said for SCUs and some of the generators. That's just bad design and I at that point I can't accept that, especially since it's something that's relatively easy to revise. :/

And yeah. PS1 base interiors were much bigger. Courtyard was indeed too empty and they did improve that a little (bit over the top actually, should still have enough room for vehicles to move around side by side), but the base interiors have been dumbed down tremendously to one or three room buildings and by losing all connectivity. They could easily create a subteranean structure that links barracks to main bases and generator areas or make some of these bases more compact, or the Tech Center's entire interior could be filled with rooms and an extra spawnroom. Instead, the tech has cubicle offices without a ceiling so you can get spanked from any side by jetpackers, or when every room you want to guard has 2 to 4 different ways to get behind you or shoot you from the outside...

When you see things like that and compare, eh... You can't but look back and say "that was actually better, why didn't they do that?".

Shenyen · 2012-10-22, 10:01 AM

@Figment and PredatorFour

Actually, i always saw Planetside 1 as a sucessor to Tribes 2 :P

If you upscaled Tribes 2 to 500+ players per server, you wouldn't fight for flags, you would fight for bases.
Design-wise, Planetside looked and felt like as if the tribes from Tribes forgot how to use their jetpacks, but everything else felt very similar.

Tribes 2 was imho the greatest game of its time and when i learned that SOE was making a kind of MMOTribes (with the same producer), i signed up ASAP.

Planetside was relased and Planetside turned out to be great.

Planetside inherited the title of "greatest game ever" of its spiritual father Tribes 2.

And now there's Planetside 2...

Which i have been waiting for from the moment the first rumours about "Planetside Next" surfaced.

Yes, it is somehow watered down.

I loved Infiltrator-hacking bases and i'll never forget the moment when some NC MAX didn't notice that i was standing cloaked behind her on top of the control console, hacking her base.
Someone got into the room, stopped my hack.
And still, that MAX never thought about HOW that CC might have been hacked with her standing there.
Took her about 10 minutes and 1 or 2 more hacks by me, until she realized that i had been standing right behind her all the time and shot me.

That will never be possible in Planetside 2.

I know and i would love it, if it was possible in the sequel...

But we have other great additions, of which the most important is the more streamlined FPS system at the base of the game.

Planetside 1 felt like an MMORPG with an added FPS layer on top of it.

That added depth, but also made you manage your inventory and featured a lack of hit boxes and stuff.

The subscription model and the inferior FPS mechanics made the population dwindle.

Planetside 2 is different, it feels like a FPS with an added metagame/light MMORPG-layer on top.

Shooting stuff is way more fun and works much better.

The F2P system and accompanying better FPS mechanics will make sure that the game is played by a larger number of players, keeping the game alive for a much longer time than PS1 had.

Just taking the complete mechanics from Planetside 1 and adding the graphics of Planetside 2 would have created a desaster, nobody would play it, maybe except for some veterans from part one.

It simply isn't a game that is fit for a 2012 mainstream release.

Oh, i hated it when i went to GamesConvention in Leipzig and saw the Team Fortress 2 tent. I waited twenty minutes (it was quite early and the games wasn't very hyped yet) to play the sucessor to that other great game, Team Fortress Classic.

I sat down, put on the headphones, the round began and - OMFG, WHAT DID THEY DO?
The comic graphics were okay, but the removed the grenades - how in the world should my scout/medic now 'conc' around the map?

I detested the game, thought it was horrible - i even began waiting for Fortress Forever instead, which was a mod that recreated the REAL TFC, not that dumbed down mainstream release Valve put together...

Well - nowadays, i play Team Fortress 2 from time to time and while i see that it doesn't feature the depth that the first (well, actually TFC was the second TF game) featured - IT IS FUN!

I can play it for hours and have fun, something that i would never have imagined after that heinous discovery in an orange tent at the GC in Leipzig.

Oh, and the reason why i play TF2 instead of TFC or Fortress Forever?

Because the disappeared from this world, their servers dead or filled with bots, no human being to ever again to grace the old and beloved maps 2fort, well, shutdown2 etc...

So while TF2 is no TFC - it is the closest to the original game that there ever will be.

Don't compare Planetside 2 to Planetside, because it won't live up to the ancestor, if you have years of memories in PS1.

But there will never be a new Planetside 1, because it had its time and it will be gone in a few years.

Instead, rate Planetside 2 to other contemporary games, knowing that it will be most likely the most Planetside-like game you will ever experience in the next years.

dethred · 2012-10-22, 10:22 AM

Now PS2, actually includes a lot of that. At the beginning a lot was missing and it seemed would not be included. It appeared the new game was Planetside in name only.

So here we have it. The soul of this game sounds very similar to PS1. Yes many details may be changed or missing, but every sequel has that issue. BF3, however lacked Just about everything that made a BF game a BF game. You guys take issue with very small matters when Compared to the bigger picture. If the devs went the way of most studios (DICE for instance), then this game would have more in common with cod than Planetside.

My entire point (not even the reason to start this thread) is that you guys are being negative and Over critical of everything to the point that it's self-defeating. If you want change... make a single mega-thread for each of your major complaints and have thousands of people so sign it, then present it to the developers. I''ll even sign it if it's constructive and more geared towards change than towards superfluous bitching.

Figment · 2012-10-22, 10:27 AM

Tbh, PS2 feels more like a RPG than PS1 and that's exactly due to the class system.

Controller providing power/mana? Engineer. Check.
Healer for ALL your heals? Medic. Check.
DPS for ALL your anti-tank damage? Heavy Assault. Check.
Tank for taking some brute force in your face? MAX. Check.
Rogue for sneaky backsta... backshotgun? Infil. Check.

PS1 was more of a FPS, because it actually let you decide what weapon to use where and how and in what combination. That the actual gunplay wasn't as good as some modern shooters, eh sure, what do you expect? Certainly with CSHD?

If you compare PS1 and PS2 base design, it's clear PS2 is a deathmatch zombie-shoot m up, because your enemies will come even through the walls (literally with all the damn amount of windows) while PS1 is a strategy and conquest game, because the bases are designed to be sieged.

Crator · 2012-10-22, 10:34 AM

^ A lot of it isn't bitching. It might come off as such. But that's just people who are emotional and didn't spell out exactly what they think. Hell, they might not even know if they are thinking properly. A lot of times people just need to converse about the subject to understand. Even then, people may not understand because we are all just speculating due to the fact that we don't have enough info on the direction SOE is trying to take.

Question, you guys harping on the PS1 vets for being, so-said, "bitter". What do you guys have to gain by telling us that we are wrong or that we shouldn't be discussing things about PS2, even if it's a game mechanic that should have been put in from PS1?

Mox · 2012-10-22, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Well that's good then. Cause I'm a fucking idiot.

THIS!

Fear The Amish · 2012-10-22, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...nd-wept.27969/

Funny what the response of new people to that video is in that thread.

Statements like:

Just saying, these are quotes from people with no PS1 experience and just a view of that 50 min video explaining a base (not even combat), or some before tech test playtime... Simply because they can see what makes it different. >.> Note that the vid actually points to one of the base design flaws everyone agrees with: the ease of camping base doors with vehicles. THAT is one of the things that we wanted to have fixed (next to roof protection at a wall from aircav spam). Instead, we got bases where vehicles DRIVE IN ALL THE WAY UP TO THE CONTROL POINT, CAMP NOT THE EXTERIOR DOORS, BUT THOSE OF THE SPAWN ROOM and then you wonder just what the hell happened to make that design decision happen. All we wanted was more infantry cover, especially in the inside-outside area, wider doors and corridors to make door, corridor and corner camping less easy and predictable...

Somehow that translated into the most hated PS1 building to defend: the AT Redoubt: in PS2 ALL spawnrooms open up to the outside directly, whether it's the roof or the ground level, it always results in constant all-angle camping where tanks can insta-kill you as you spawn and try to make a move, CCs are placed in even more impossible positions and the same can be said for SCUs and some of the generators. That's just bad design and I at that point I can't accept that, especially since it's something that's relatively easy to revise. :/

And yeah. PS1 base interiors were much bigger. Courtyard was indeed too empty and they did improve that a little (bit over the top actually, should still have enough room for vehicles to move around side by side), but the base interiors have been dumbed down tremendously to one or three room buildings and by losing all connectivity. They could easily create a subteranean structure that links barracks to main bases and generator areas or make some of these bases more compact, or the Tech Center's entire interior could be filled with rooms and an extra spawnroom. Instead, the tech has cubicle offices without a ceiling so you can get spanked from any side by jetpackers, or when every room you want to guard has 2 to 4 different ways to get behind you or shoot you from the outside...

When you see things like that and compare, eh... You can't but look back and say "that was actually better, why didn't they do that?".

of course they say that to a video that doesn't show 15 minutes waiting for a hack to go through. Or sitting in sanc for 30mins - 1 hour waiting for enough people to actually have a chance of opening a continent. or the multiple times you spent 30 minutes getting to a location and dying. With good editing i can make Postal look like the greatest game ever....

SUBARU · 2012-10-22, 11:56 AM

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.

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?

All i really wanted was a Taco with cheese

But they gave me a Burrito instead

dethred · 2012-10-22, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

^ A lot of it isn't bitching. It might come off as such. But that's just people who are emotional and didn't spell out exactly what they think.

Complaining for the sake of complaining is called bitching. Where are the poll threads for each major issue the veterans have? You guys need to organize (ironically I'm seeing no teamwork or deliberate approach to solving the problem from vets of PS1).

Crator · 2012-10-22, 12:24 PM

^ Polls threads are not allowed by both SOE and PSU. Also, not everyone reads and participates in forums. For true poll results you really have to present the poll to the player via the launchpad.

bullet · 2012-10-22, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Fear The Amish

of course they say that to a video that doesn't show 15 minutes waiting for a hack to go through. Or sitting in sanc for 30mins - 1 hour waiting for enough people to actually have a chance of opening a continent. or the multiple times you spent 30 minutes getting to a location and dying. With good editing i can make Postal look like the greatest game ever....

We still sit around for 10-15 minutes trying to cap a base, depending on influence.

I've never sat around the sanc for any longer than 10 mins and that was because I was coordinating with a squad/outfit or taking part of a Empire raid. That seemed to be an issue when Planetside was dead.

I doubt it would take you 30 minutes to get across Cyssor in the slowest vehicle, but it sounds like you were trying to lone wolf your way into a base. With the proper support and logistics, the group/zerg would have been supporting you with AMSes and or hacked a tower. Before AMSes, I had this issue in PS2. If a Gal couldn't get through to the base because of its inability to be stealthy, then there were no spawn points close enough to the next outpost/base.

The video shows the core elements of the game which supported the huge fights and provided the meta-game.

ringring · 2012-10-22, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by bullet

We still sit around for 10-15 minutes trying to cap a base, depending on influence.

I've never sat around the sanc for any longer than 10 mins and that was because I was coordinating with a squad/outfit or taking part of a Empire raid. That seemed to be an issue when Planetside was dead.

I doubt it would take you 30 minutes to get across Cyssor in the slowest vehicle, but it sounds like you were trying to lone wolf your way into a base. With the proper support and logistics, the group/zerg would have been supporting you with AMSes and or hacked a tower. Before AMSes, I had this issue in PS2. If a Gal couldn't get through to the base because of its inability to be stealthy, then there were no spawn points close enough to the next outpost/base.

The video shows the core elements of the game which supported the huge fights and provided the meta-game.

15 minutes waiting (10 minutes in the cave)... if no enemy was trying to resecure or you decided not to go to the next base.

No one ever spent 30 minutes trying to get into a fight. Press esc+i and in 2 seconds you would be there. Or fly, 5 minutes to cross the largest continent.

Of course when a raid was forming you would wait for everyone to gsther up, but who cared, you were about to see something awesome.