Downplaying future theme so that... - Page 3

PredatorFour · 2012-04-11, 01:08 PM

VS are the best. Cant believe lasers put people off a shooter, it seems farcical in the history of video games. Convince your friends to come so we can pew pew them and try and convince them to use a lighter for fire instead of scraping flint together too

(just messing on the last part)

Stardouser · 2012-04-11, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

I'm asking two questions, to put them simply...

1. I'm guessing the people you're talking about don't only want a modern-theme game, but a modern military game, correct? I'm guessing they refuse to play anything other than modern military shooters?

2. There's preferences and there's closed-mindedness. I prefer alternate-reality and futuristic, but that doesn't stop me trying out modern or fantasy games, especially if they're free. I'm asking you whether they have a legitimate reason for avoiding futuristic games, because mere "preferences" don't cause that.

1. Most of the people I'm talking about are BF1942/2 fans, yes. I have no idea if they only want military shooters, but then, Planetside IS a military shooter. Granted, the militaries are completely fictional. I myself don't care if it's the Modern Roman Empire vs Alexander the 500th and his Macedonians.
2. Most of them always mention "lasers". This may have more to do with the style of gameplay they feel futuristic games will bring. Lock-on weapons, and that kind of thing. I'd love to start threads trying to find out more, I was hoping to go in armed with something to ease them into Planetside first. Maybe that's the wrong order, I don't know.

In addition to the lock on comment, it doesn't mean these are realism freaks, but people probably assume that lasers are easy mode - no recoil, no bullet drop, etc. It may well be that they are worried about game balance concerns. Why should we pass up the opportunity to correct their assumptions?

Shogun · 2012-04-11, 01:10 PM

i´m quite sure tr and nc will never mess with lazers. not even high level certs other than laserpointers for your aiming.

at least not at launch. so you can advertise tr and nc as very close to modern combat games.
later on the road there might be a return of ancient tech vehicles like we had in ps1. but this has never been mentioned by the devs so far. the ancient turrets had plasma bolts, and both fighting vehicles, too. but the artillery is gone and the mobile fastfire turret has not been mentioned in any way. also we have no caves, which were the origin of those ancient tech vehicles. just don´t mention all this to your friends.

Bags · 2012-04-11, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

I'm asking two questions, to put them simply...

1. I'm guessing the people you're talking about don't only want a modern-theme game, but a modern military game, correct? I'm guessing they refuse to play anything other than modern military shooters?

2. There's preferences and there's closed-mindedness. I prefer alternate-reality and futuristic, but that doesn't stop me trying out modern or fantasy games, especially if they're free. I'm asking you whether they have a legitimate reason for avoiding futuristic games, because mere "preferences" don't cause that.

Agreed, I don't really like modern military but I still like BF3.

Shogun · 2012-04-11, 01:18 PM

future haters should play tr. they are the closest to actual military hardware.

nc is for guys who like the "near realistic future" stuff because gauss cannons and railguns DO exist right now, but are not seen on battlefields yet.

and vs is for the alien and manga lovers who don´t give a shit about battle-lasers and plasma cannons not being invented yet.

what your friends have to cope with, is the fact that they will encounter the other two factions and their technology on the field.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-04-11, 01:25 PM

Its kind of funny this has come out because the Warhammer 40k community I am with "Vigilia Mortis" would like to see more of a science fiction theme to planetside 2. Face it, a regular 40k pistol round is a .70 caliber self propelled explosive bullet that explodes you from the inside out.

GhundiPI · 2012-04-11, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

What I'm saying is ease people into the theme gently with videos targeted for that purpose. Get them hooked, and then when they encounter Vanu for the first time, maybe they'll be too hooked to change their mind at that point.

but you'd rather the devs starve and get laid off than make even a mild effort to bring people into the theme gently?

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're trying to put across, but I just don't see the use of it. When PS2 turns out to be a great game, people will come and play it on that merit alone no matter what the setting is. If some are just unable to see beyond their (blinkered) preferences it will be their loss, not the loss of the devs.

Neksar · 2012-04-11, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

That's exactly why I used the word "downplay". What I mean is in no way a suggestion to change the game in any way, but simply to emphasize to potential players that, yes, sure, we're fighting for bio-domes, but the guns still fire bullets. And I specifically talk about bullets because "OMG lazers?" is one of the things people say. And I tell them I haven't seen any lasers...

If someone could put together a good screenshot montage and a small write-up I would love to post this on some BF forums in an effort to get an even better feel for why they say these things.

So you want people to advertise it as an MMOFPS without ridiculous sci-fi elements, to draw in a crowd. You mean that the game doesn't need to be changed at all for this to happen, but that people ought to advertise it as such. Int'restin'.

captainkapautz · 2012-04-11, 02:07 PM

Won't the issue be even worse if the game get advertised with the SciFi-part downplayed?

Because then all the BF/CoD-people will rage out about how the game was falsely advertised after some Vanu melted their face off repeatedly.

IMO this is a total non-issue, because let's call a ***** a ***** here, if you need to downplay parts, very important parts I might add, of your game just to get some CoD/BF-douche to even try it, then you probably don't even WANT that kind of player in your game to begin with.

But those are just my 2 cents.

kaffis · 2012-04-11, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Eighm

I for one don't see what the problem is with a future setting full of made-up tech.

You can't pretend your awesome K/D ratio translates to being leetly SWAT skilled in real life, ready to handle and fire any weapon you come across in a combat situation.

Bittermen · 2012-04-11, 02:26 PM

I'm sorry but the purposed group of sci-fi "haters" is probably so small that it would be a misuse of resources to target them.

I mean come on, Who in their right mind would deny a game that has bigger and better battles than BF just because it takes place in the future.

These are 12 year olds we are talking about.

These aren't my friends, I'm talking about general observations of Battlefield players

EDIT: I'd also like to add that from my general observations I've concluded MOST BF players agree that 2142 was the best BF game.

Stardouser · 2012-04-11, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Neksar

So you want people to advertise it as an MMOFPS without ridiculous sci-fi elements, to draw in a crowd. You mean that the game doesn't need to be changed at all for this to happen, but that people ought to advertise it as such. Int'restin'.

Bait and switch? No, that's a DICE tactic. Would you consider the GDC videos bait and switch? The one where Higby is fighting around using the bullet firing assault rifle? No, that's pretty representative of the game. I say this tentatively, since things are always subject to change.

This could perhaps be accomplished by simply showing the most futuristic stuff last. Infantry firing bullet weapons first, then the tanks(they DO look like BF tanks after all), and all the VTOL aircraft last, for example.

Originally Posted by Bittermen

I'm sorry but the purposed group of sci-fi "haters" is probably so small that it would be a misuse of resources to target them.

I mean come on, Who in their right mind would deny a game that has bigger and better battles than BF just because it takes place in the future.

These are 12 year olds we are talking about.

Well, look at it this way: The are probably 400 active people over at Mordor. Although we did get over 2000 people over 6 months voting in favor of working commo rose. On most things, stuff lines up 80% in favor of one thing, 20% the other.

Anyway, the 80% are usually what you would call "hardcore" and the 20% are "casuals". Whenever the hardcore forum minority outvotes the casual forum minority, the casuals always say "well, you may be the majority here but not in the overall community". I am NOT saying that I agree with them, but I am saying this: IF that is correct, and the majority of the community at large is more in line with the casuals, then consider this: The future theme haters that I'm seeing come from both the hardcore AND casual crowds. Think about that one.

Xyntech · 2012-04-11, 02:36 PM

It's insane to try to get someone to play a sci-fi game if they can't stand sci-fi.

That being said, casual players can be slow to change. A lot of players pick up the next CoD game just because they played other CoD games, not because of the game itself. Thy are used to it and they know other people who play it.

I'm not totally against the idea, I just doubt it will be that big a factor. But by all means, once beta comes out I think it would be pretty cool if someone put together a video of just NC vs TR. There will be plenty of videos out there showing off VS and other sci-fi elements, so if someone wants to make a more modern day warfare looking video to help broaden some newer FPS players horizons, go for it.

I'm all for PS2 being F2P and attracting the casuals, as long as it doesn't pander to them. I think there is an entire generation of players who play mediocre games and just haven't yet let themselves be exposed to how deep and engaging a shooter can be.

I'd like PS2's community to remain relatively mature, but I have enough faith that a lot of the untapped masses can be reshaped into great members of the community if given the right game and opportunity.

Edit: This would only be for fan made stuff though. SOE doing this officially would be a waste and would likely end up misrepresenting the product.

kaffis · 2012-04-11, 02:38 PM

More on topic, now that I've finished reading the thread, sure, I suppose somebody could edit together (or at SOE shoot a whole video) some media/PR about the game that plays up similarities to modern weapons and whatnot, in an attempt to engage "realistic" shooter players on their own terms and stir up some interest instead of an immediate write-off.

I'm not sure whether that's a good use of PR resources, though, because, as others have pointed out, even if let the PR put some of the SciFi elements out of focus, once the player does download the game, his first impression of the game is still going to be essentially what the rest of the marketing is depicting. If that's too science fiction for him to have cared about the marketing, all you've managed to do is get him to download the client before he turns it off and ignores it.

Might there be some middle demographic, who doesn't think they'll like the scifi theme but gives it a chance once they play? Maybe? But I suspect that if they're willing to give it a chance in play, they'd be at least open to giving it the free try from the media, too. I mean, it's not like Higby is out there in interviews selling the game as "What about Planetside do you think makes it special and helps it to stand out from the crowd of shooters?" "Well, see, it's all WHHOOOSH and PEWPEWPEWZZZZAAAP! And then it goes all BWAHWAHWAH..."

Higby's out there talking about how the thing that makes this game separate from the rest of the shooter pack is that it gives you the opportunity to fight a persistent war with a few hundred of your closest friends at your side. And if that doesn't appeal to a realistic shooter fan, then the game probably won't, either.

Stardouser · 2012-04-11, 02:38 PM

For the purposes of trying to understand why people don't like sci-fi, would anyone care to make suggestions for poll options in a 4-6 option poll?

For example, one option could be:
I am not a sci fi hater, but I am concerned about balance with futuristic weapons(ie lasers have no recoil)

If we can come up with something, I will take it over to some BF forums and see if we can't get to the bottom of it.

@Vancha, ideas?