Do planetside players have legit concerns or do they just hate to evolve? - Page 4

Stardouser · 2012-05-18, 08:37 AM

The funny thing is, I've seen this exact argument play out in Battlefield 3's development process. There may have been 100 different changes incoming, and BF2 vets opposed around 10, but despite the fact that this left 90 changes unopposed, we were accused of not wanting to change.

One thing that people need to learn is that simply changing something is not evolution.

And I'm not even a PS1 vet, so the things that *I* oppose in PS2, it doesn't mean that I would do it the same way Planetside 1 did it, either. Sometimes we still want change, we just don't want the particular change that the devs have chosen. That doesn't mean we are unwilling to accept change at all.

Infektion · 2012-05-18, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Hamma

It's probably because games have been becoming more and more like the world today. Dumbed down and made easy so anyone can do it. And if they can't do it make it so they can use methods outside of gameplay (microtransactions) to let them do it. We live in an instant gratification world and many FPS veterans don't want to see every game have the same features.

You can sit around and call it over-reaction if you want but I see them as very valid concerns.

Instant gratificatiOn takes too long...

Figment · 2012-05-18, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Warborn

"Devolve" isn't a real thing. Evolve doesn't mean it's getting better, it just means it's changing. They're using the term correctly.

Not really.

Evolve is a term for mutating a next generation to be more adapted. It means growth, maturing. Typically based on a previous version that is closely related.

Changing just means one used an alternative where multiple alternatives are valid. This is why the critical group uses the term change where the typically less critical group thinks that any change must be an advancement for the better.

The use of evolution is used because people like the positive connotation that it has, being a better version of the previous.`

I can name you countless sequels that "evolved" the previous to make things worse. Especially true for Hollywood movies (think Star Ship Troopers II, upcoming non-TMNT and you could go on like that), but can well be applied to games.

Take a game like Commandoes. Commandoes "evolved" from an godmode isometric overview in I (first) and II (refined version of the first: evolved), to a rotatable isometric view with obscured sights and indoors stuff that only convoluted things unnecessarily in III ('devolved' experimental), to a first person view in part IV. IV was so horrible that I only played ten minutes of it before I stopped caring.

Why? Where III was pushing the experimenting to the point of breaking isometric view, Commandoes IV threw away all that Commandoes was about. It was a revolution, one that shouldn't have taken place, but hey "3D stuff was new and modern, so it had to be better, right?".

This is what a lot of players fear: that "modern" stuff is used for the sake of being more "modern", therefore "better", while it may not be the case.

This sort of thing even happens in aviation. Jet engines only become efficient near mach 0,8. Turbopropellor aircraft are much more efficient at lower speeds up to mach 0,5. Yet because passengers thought jet engines were more modern and did not want to fly in "obsolete propellor aircraft", those were used in the 60s and 70s especially for aircraft that really shouldn't be using them. Wasting fuel in the process.

What most here want, is that the game is created for the best, without losing or sacrificing the core good stuff from PS1. What entails the core stuff may be different for various players though.

The problem for people like Dreamcast, is they see all these different opinions and link them together (they lose the oversight of who wants what), simplify this to mean everyone who refers to PS1, ALL share the exact same opinion and then conclude that "apparently these people all want the same thing: PS1 with updated graphics".

The logic to come to that conclusion is pretty bad, tbh.

ArmedZealot · 2012-05-18, 09:09 AM

Things a "bittervet" is likely to oppose:

class system
shields
iron sights
lock on weapons
low ttk
driver-gunner tanks
galaxy spawning
lack of support vehicles
lack of buggies
lack of E&E animations

Is anyone who played PS1 that opposes one of these a "bittervet"? No.

A bittervet first opposes these changes by saying it makes the game too much like Battlefield 3/COD or that the game is catering too much to casuals, then go on to nostalgia-gasm over PS1. Any attempt to provide a counter argument leads to them either explicitly saying "you didn't play the game enough" or implying it, and points are reiterated and rehashed ad nauseum. Arguing with these people is like arguing against a wall, except that wall calls you close minded as well.

Doing this provides no feedback for the developers. They will not change their game to suit people like this. If you oppose something, provide good and reasoned argument for against it. Provide data and not anecdotal evidence.

I played PS1, and I played it for more than a year. I would be a veteran technically, but you wouldn't know it from my responses here. I try to provide a foil to most arguments opposing things that the developers have changed or truncated, just because I hate seeing how this community allows such behavior and I hate the developers to become the public pincushion because they can't respond to each and every thread.

Figment · 2012-05-18, 09:19 AM

So ArmedZealot do you recognise at all that you are:

1. Lumping a list of arguments together to create a stereotype.
2. Creating a negative connotation around this stereotype: the "bittervet".
3. Creating a "non-opposing" stereotype as the "hero": you.
4. Creating a "them-us" situation, where you automatically start to oppose any person refering to PS1 as "nostalgiagasm".

Funny how that works. Got any more derogatory terms for other people?

Gandhi · 2012-05-18, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

A bittervet first opposes these changes by saying it makes the game too much like Battlefield 3/COD or that the game is catering too much to casuals, then go on to nostalgia-gasm over PS1. Any attempt to provide a counter argument leads to them either explicitly saying "you didn't play the game enough" or implying it, and points are reiterated and rehashed ad nauseum. Arguing with these people is like arguing against a wall, except that wall calls you close minded as well.

I could make the same list and the same statements about a handful of "fanboys" on this board who agree with absolutely everything. But generalizing like that doesn't help anyone.

If you oppose something, provide good and reasoned argument for against it.

Many, MANY people did and do. Pages and pages of arguments against certain changes. I can provide links if you want.

There are always a handful of people on any topic who go no further than "It's too much like CoD", just like there are a handful of people on the other side of the issue who go no further than "You're just a bittervet scared of change". Most of the "whining" I've seen on this board has been in the middle, people opposed to a change providing solid reasons why. Now it might turn out that they're wrong, or that certain things are being blown out of proportion, it's hard to tell when we don't even have a beta to play. But regardless the arguments and reasons to back up the opposition are there, and I know you've seen them.

Stardouser · 2012-05-18, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

lock on weapons
low ttk
lack of support vehicles

I played PS1, and I played it for more than a year. I would be a veteran technically, but you wouldn't know it from my responses here. I try to provide a foil to most arguments opposing things that the developers have changed or truncated, just because I hate seeing how this community allows such behavior and I hate the developers to become the public pincushion because they can't respond to each and every thread.

What? You are defending the developers' decisions just because they can't or won't do it themselves? At least you admit it.

While most of the things you listed are pointless to resist(such as iron sights, that's clearly an improvement, and entry/exit animations are a waste), 3 things you list stand out:
1. Lock - on weapons = I believe these should be limited to ground to air. Other ground to ground or air to ground could be laser designated but that's not the same. BF3 has proven that lock on weapons remove skill and fun from the game, with constant BEEP BEEP BEEPs.
2. Low TTK : There is plenty of evidence for why this is bad. I'm not saying it should be as high as in Planetside 1, but it was clearly too low in the TB video. In fact, low TTK has a bigger affect on the game than ANY of those other things you listed. Low TTK is NOT an evolution, or an improvement, it is simply a design decision. TTK can be low, moderate, or high. It's nothing to do with advancing the genre or the fact that Planetside 1 is 10 years old. We can go to CoD or BF3 for extreme low TTK, we need a moderate TTK.
3. Are we really losing any support vehicles? I understand this to be that roles are simply shifting.

Figment · 2012-05-18, 09:32 AM

@Stardouser on 3: We may have lost the ANT (base energy logistics), we lost the AMS (cloaked spawnpoint obtainable at any base, which is not comparable to Gal at this point) and we lost the Lodestar (vehicle repair and resupply, transport capacity) and gained the Sunderer with half the Lodestar ability: repairs and resupply and the Galaxy with half the AMS ability: spawns for infantry without the protection of stealth.

So tallying, yes, support vehicles have been lost and the gain does not fully compensate as of yet.

ArmedZealot · 2012-05-18, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

So ArmedZealot do you recognise at all that you are:

1. Lumping a list of arguments together to create a stereotype.

I lump these arguments together because this type of opposition has become predictable and expected on these subjects

Originally Posted by Figment

2. Creating a negative connotation around this stereotype: the "bittervet".

It is a negative connotation. Players who show this behavior are bad for the community and should be ostracized. The first things new players shouldn't see when they log on to PSU to check up on PS2's premier community shouldn't be a bunch of moaning and whining.

Originally Posted by Figment

3. Creating a "non-opposing" stereotype as the "hero": you.

I can only speak for myself. The community is not homogenous and uniform. Some one can be a bittervet about the class system but be all for driver-gunners. It is just the type of opposition that makes someone a bittervet. Even on something like the U.I I will throw the BF3 flag. The squad indicator is a blatant copy of BF3's.

Originally Posted by Figment

4. Creating a "them-us" situation, where you automatically start to oppose any person refering to PS1 as "nostalgiagasm".

It isn't "them-us". We all have our buttons that will be pushed. What is important is that when they are our response is something worth considering rather than being filed under the "bittervet" category.

ArmedZealot · 2012-05-18, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by WildVS

Forget it Figgy. I've been reading some here and this guy is clearly fanboi material. I know, I know he played a 9 year old game for a total of 1 year so he hides behind the "vet" status but you will never convince his type that any criticism of PS2 is a good thing.

I played for more than a year. I shouldn't and won't explain my history with PS you. Because it doesn't matter, the bar will always be raised.

I have and will continue to criticize changes PS2. If you read my post history you would see that.

MrBloodworth · 2012-05-18, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by WildVS

Forget it Figgy. I've been reading some here and this guy is clearly fanboi material. I know, I know he played a 9 year old game for a total of 1 year so he hides behind the "vet" status but you will never convince his type that any criticism of PS2 is a good thing.

This is correct.

ArmedZealot · 2012-05-18, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by WildVS

This thread is pointless. Why do you think SOE opened up the dev community to such interaction with the fans at such an early phase of the game? To get sunshine blown up their asses? Hell no. They want feedback. It won't all be good and I hope they expect that. Work with us. Change. Adapt. or at least explain. And ALL of that has been done.

I haven't said that they shouldn't receive feedback I only want the feedback to not be kneejerk reactions followed by personal accounts of the glory days of PS1 and how PS2 is bound to fail before it is even in beta.

ArmedZealot · 2012-05-18, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by elfailo

You're obviously very sensitive and have trouble gauging the emotional connotation of posts. Maybe the internet isn't the right place for you.

Same could be said for you. You bit the bait.

Figment · 2012-05-18, 10:08 AM

Hoookay.

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

I lump these arguments together because this type of opposition has become predictable and expected on these subjects

Which... might actually mean they are just controversial decisions that not everyone agrees with?

I can only speak for myself. The community is not homogenous and uniform. Some one can be a bittervet about the class system but be all for driver-gunners. It is just the type of opposition that makes someone a bittervet.

No, not at all. This is used it to paint ANYONE opposing or critiqueing a "bittervet" on these particular topics, just so you can "win" the arguments in question for the "pro-PS2-changers". (See what I did there?)

And this is not us-them, how?`Just look at the damn title of this thread and see the polarization!

Even on something like the U.I I will throw the BF3 flag. The squad indicator is a blatant copy of BF3's.

So you're saying you're a bitterBF3vet and we should be ostracizing you for critiquing?

It isn't "them-us". We all have our buttons that will be pushed. What is important is that when they are our response is something worth considering rather than being filed under the "bittervet" category.

It is a negative connotation. Players who show this behavior are bad for the community and should be ostracized. The first things new players shouldn't see when they log on to PSU to check up on PS2's premier community shouldn't be a bunch of moaning and whining.

lol?

Sentrosi · 2012-05-18, 10:27 AM

To the OPs topic at hand, I consider myself a seasoned Auraxian vet. And I do love the way PS2 is looking and the direction the devs are taking this game. It's going to be epic. It's going to revolutionize the way games are played. Planetside 2 will deliver. But when they put in the jump pads I was like, "Hold on a second." I posted my response to the jump pads in the poll thread. But bottom line is that it is a legit concern for me. Now I'm not going OMG THEY'RE KILLING MY GAME at all. If it's in I will adjust accordingly. It won't kill off my enjoyment of the game. But to me it is a concern.

I think that if this thread doesn't evolve from it's constant name calling and badgering that Hamma will come in and throw down a huge lock on it though. So stop with the name calling please. We PSUers are above that. Always have been. That sort of diatribe was best left over on the old school SOE Official Forums.