Identity Crisis

I get pissed off when people in this forum respond to any voiced expectation that brains should be required to play with "LOL GO BACK 2 ARMA."

Yeah, because there can't be something that exists between the COD with lasers we have now and ArmA?

The vast majority of PS2's playerbase would've hated PS1.

The answer to what this game's identity should be is in the name - PLANETSIDE. We already know what Planetside 2 should've been: Planetside 1. Anyone who thinks that the only thing the game is about is fifty players cramming into a doorway shooting rockets out like it's Battlefield 3 Operation Metro 64 player conquest are playing the wrong game.

Well... Thanks... I doubt if I would come up to scratch though. I did have a character on Miller once and I just couldn't cut it. Seems a wise head doesn't help when it comes to close quarter skirmishes

I doubt the outfit as casual as mine would care

Terrible FPS would never fly this day and age... Then again, there's CoD, a terrible, but enjoyable shooter. While PS1 sucked at it's core component - gunplay, the guns feel terrible, even by the 2003 standarts.
I'm not against complexity and some of the things that were in PS1, how ever, more that few things in PS1 are just tedious and just simply not fun. Tedium does not add complexity to the game, it only creates illusion of it.

Brilliant. I could not agree more.

Just to elaborate how much I agree - This is my 1st post in 10 yrs of playing PS1,PS2 & being a silent observer on these forums

PS2 is like one of those beautiful, totally gorgeous, seductive & tempting girls the let their hard work go down the drain in the bedroom by thinking all she needs to do is lie there. You come back for more because she looks good, but always leave feeling let down.

PS1 was that girl you didn't want your mates to see you leaving with. Rough around the edges but so damn good you keep coming back for more.

These analogies are true. I once had a drop dead stunner that looked great but i'd have been better off with a sock and a whistle in bed.

Then there was Pan-Face. God I miss Pan-Face

It is a larger version of what ever the Battlefield games are...

I'm surprised to see this thread still bumping every once and a while. Thanks for all the replies; kind'a lets me see that I'm not alone and also gets a feel for what you feel the identifies itself as. I'll try to be respectful and reply to each of you individually if possible.

Thanks for the... thanks! Ha. Hope you didnt have to read it twice because of bad writing. When I vomit a bunch of text, it often is a convoluted mess of ideas attempting to reach a point that I never seem to hit at times.
Where do I see PS2 going? I do see it getting better; but it's already a dollar too short and a minute too late. It didn't start out with the things we needed to make it feel right from the beginning and cater to ONE niche. Because of that, the community is up in arms about what to expect for future patches, if the Resource revamp even will fix anything, the Valkyrie truly being of value and we already have a large group upset about the Continent locking on both sides because group (A) people cannot "choose" where to fight and group (B) people hate how the continents lock mainly through timed alerts and not through the traditional method of strategically Warp-Gating an opposing enemy.
I see it getting better... but it's just too late. SOE Corporate OBVIOUSLY doesn't feel PS2 is worth a high amount of risk and investment. It's a back peddler now, almost as if it's meant to expire to free up server space down the road.

I do believe what you're saying does more to pravocate my initial thoughts then you realize.
Yes, it's up to us as playing to find what matches us in a game. Many players go the other way and be "that guy" that joins a game and doesn't nothing but ***** about how it's not like this other title that played and there for demand that the devs have to change it to match that past title. So in sense, your point is more honorable. We should all be looking for a game that matches us rather than trying to make a single game match us.
However, as I said, I feel that with that thought? Is reason why I ranted about PS2s identity. WE CANNOT RIGHTLY CHOOSE IF IT'S RIGHT FOR US OR NOT because it HAS no identity for us to say so. Is it good for CoD Players? BF players? ArmA players? It's so damned busy trying to please EVERYONE that EVERYONE is unhappy with it in some way.
This doesn't mean the game isn't fun. I still have a blast for example. However, those of us who are just, overly creative or expect much more from Gaming are going to basically see PS2 as "The little failure that could have been great". It's already a "Failure" in some respects. Watch the Hype Videos about "can your FPS do this?" and remind yourself that the game isn't like that at all; not unless you're in an Outfit and people are scripting the events and you voluntarily follow the co-ordination. They don't show that it's mainly solo combat, with CQC, with Gals only being used for camping over Cap Points at 1k meters for squadies to jump onto and that most of us just "Redeploy Hop" everywhere. That's what REALLY bugs me about this game. They hyped it up using ideologies that make it LOOK like what PS1 once was! But it's nothing of the Sort. It's almost false advertising; but what publisher doesn't do that these days. It's an industry now; not a hobby. It's come full circle.

You can do the same thing in ArmA, PS1, WW2O and even Battle Field. Hell even Star Wars Battle Front. However, PS2 takes a little bit from each and mashes them altogether and yet does NONE of those titles or series any justice. It's not as deep as ArmA, it's not as co-ordinated as WW20, it doesn't even have features that Battle Field has and Battle Field is on a much smaller scale.

There is very, very little genre defining about this game. Seriously. There is very little.
Everything in PS2 has been done and has been done better.
PS1 had a far better and more complete Macro game (what people refer to as Meta), Battle Field 2... TWO!!! had a Commander Mode that actually gave REAL TOOLS and REAL REWARDS to Leaders. ArmA uses a POWERFUL Game engine that can render over 1000 AI on a SINGLE SCREEN without lagging, host an infinite amount of players (determined by hardware. If you could run 1k people, you could do it) and on a land mass over 270 SQ KM of playable land space. MAG had a real player driven Mission System. Battle Front had true Classes, each segregated through very rigid roles to promote diversity. CoD powerfully demonstrates twitch CQC combat better than any other. Halo, ArmA, Battle Front, Battle Field, WW20, Quake and many others incorporated vehicular combat seamlessly long ago. PS1 created the genre. Behind it, WW2O was the only true competitor (though many did set up true servers for ArmA games to be as large as PS1 as well because the engine was designed for it, so ArmA DOES IN FACT count). PS2 is just a sequel in this regard. There is no polish, no soul nor any innovation.

PS2 literally does nothing to impress. It takes a tiny bit from each, and doesn't do any of them well. Instead of building on What PS1 had, making it better thanks to improved technology, being inspired by ArmA to make a truly optimized engine and being inspired by Battle Field to give a real Commander Mode to a game that needs it MORE than Battle Field Itself? They chose for it to succumb to the common denominator and threw in a bit of everything in the hopes of getting everyone's wallets from every competing FPS out there. It failed. Doesn't mean it's not fun though. It's still fun. Just not as much as it could've been to a great many. (I'm not speaking for everyone here, of course).

I think the numbers of players who have left this game says otherwise. A lot of players got involved with the Beta and release of Planetside 2 in 2012 just because of Planetside(1)'s reputation and it was Free To Play. I base this off of anecdotal experiences where my Steam Friend List used to be just full to the brim of others playing PS2, its why I wanted to get involved with it in the first place - when I started asking my Steam Friends why they stopped playing when I joined up to be with them can be summed up in a few words "It is not as good as PS1, I think we should play something else". So, I added more friends to the Steam List from Outfits I played with in the game and a great deal of the conversations I had with them later were so similar to the others as to be eery.

My theory based on personal experience is I think a lot of gamers who looked on at the PS1 stories and viral videos that circulated before Youtube was even a thing but didn't have the affluence for a subscription fee, did one time payment FPS games instead at the time, then all these years later with more disposable income as they were older, the advance of friendly gaming user interfaces and pleasing graphics, the improvement of the internet's ISP bandwidth infrastructure and the announcement that it was Free To Play to boot brought in a lot of gamers in the expanded gaming market who missed PS1 but wanted to be a part of PS1.

There are a lot of gamers who would have been ecstatic if PS2 game design (especially base design) had been just about straight up copied as a design document from PS1 but given new graphics, a better interface, improved gunplay, and concessions to making it Free To Play with premium content.

You mean it isnt?

This game feels exactly like BAttlefield something, just supersized, zerged up and slapped on a massive map...which I like, I am not at all a fan of the 15 minute death matches.....but really?

As for PLanetside 1, I played it briefly awhile back, maybe 06 or so.....it seemed almost equally as pointless.....towers? it was 2 zergs on either side of the door....it was almost like out of a movie scene....door opens..everyone shoots...door closes....a hero walks out and the door opens, everyone shoots, door closes.....main bases were much the same thing....

The problem many players have is they play with blinders on. They just don't want to admit or think that the game is something that they don't wish to be true. This is different than intention. The game is what it is, in all its aspects.. whether or not the game was designed that way.

For example. We have vehicles. Why are they here? Well thats easy to answer, for combined arms. But suggest that they are useless and people will drone on and on about how different situations they are useful. Yeah... those situations are.. well too situational and easily bypassed. Vehicles that let you spawn are the only ones that are really useful. The rest of the vehicles help with a cert farm.

Next, what is the goal? The intent is to capture bases and continents for bragging rights. Before continent lock the original meta was to 3-cap. Alerts came around and it became to win the alert. What is it now? I have no idea. But the 'meta' that many players go for now is the cert farm. Sometimes they go for the illusion of strategy. But its nothing more than an illusion.

OP is right, this game has an identity crisis. What the heck is it supposed to be doing? The game is intended really for us to make our own objectives. At least thats how it launched. But left to their own devices, players will drone and cert farm. Some try for tactics and strategy. But facing the bulk of the zergling cert farmers, whats the point?

Realistically... here's the point of PS2. Not the intended point, but the real point. You have one of three options:

1. Cert farm it. Play it like any MMO and go for numbers. Max it all out. Once you've done that, you've beat it and can uninstall.

2. Go for Glory. This involves being charismatic and surrounding yourself with players that can get results. Start an outfit with a snazzy name and get the top players on the server to flock to your banner. Kick ***, take names, get videos and speeches and just be well known for fame and infamy.

3. Little thing I call "Derp Ops". Basically set small goals when you play and try to obtain those goals. You can do this in large or small outfits. I personally do this myself. I run a small static squad and our goal in life is to make ourselves look bigger than we are. We basically find a contested area and try to draw attention to ourselves. The goal is to pull the enemy zerg all over the place and make it so that faction loses major territory. This isn't ghost capping as ghost capping doesn't normally work unless an alert is going on. No it takes effort in a populated area and attacking from areas where its not expected but has to be dealt with.

There is a few things that SOE needs to do. They're simple and complex at the same time.

First they need to define a meta to the game. A purpose for the players, not just small goals but overarching goals that their entire faction can get behind. To make it work it has to reward you for winning and winning with equal numbers. This is where it gets complex. If VS has 20%, NC has 40% and TR has 40% of the pop.. then everyone needs an equal chance at winning whatever it is that everyone wins.

Next they need a role for vehicles. Right now you have two roles. Transportation and Spawning (Gals and Sundies). And Cert farming (everything else). That needs to change. Every vehicle needs a purpose and should roughly be useful (in varying degrees) in every location. Right now they're just for cert farming and in some areas, certain vehicles are just utterly worthless. I don't mind if some vehicles have advantages over others depending on terrain however. Dedicated Tankers should have a purpose if they never wish to step outside a tank.

If SOE makes those two things happen. This game will be better defined and the rest is on the players. Notice I didn't say anything about balance. Balance is roughly fine right now. Balance isn't an issue (at least not a major one). Most balance issues right now can be fixed by the players themselves. But that is a topic for another time. Also notice I didn't say anything about population balance. That can be fixed later and isn't a major issue these days. Again if the meta supports under popped factions this won't be an issue and will probably balance itself out.

In the same way that a point that can only be captured by Infantry clearly defines and motivates infantry players, a point that can only be captured while in a vehicle would be a good asset for base design - then those designing the base just need to commit to that in the design by putting the capture point underground/indoors for Infantry and aboveground/outdoors for vehicles. Then capturing bases wouldn't be just spawn blast suck fest or abandon all vehicles as the useless pile of nanites/certs that they are but instead teamwork between the two categories of roles for the team's specialists and supporters.

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/the-spawn-and-base-overhaul.189895/

You can't please everyone all the time, but you can please some of the people some of the time.

It's a fun game where you can be infantry, tanks, and fighter planes in massive battles. The end.

Yes, and this is the point I try to make on the latter half of post. For me? I say because of experience. I modded for years, I schooled with the hopes of achieving a game design career twice and I've done creative design and art for well over a decade. I know from experience, that making a game to please everyone? Is impossible. It's also greedy. There is no middle ground or nobility behind it. Game Design is an Art. Games are works of Art. Just off that alone we should know that it is a highly subjective product that has little merit as too "What's best". It's all in the eyes of the beholders. As a result, I feel PS2 missed it's mark. The reason why PS1 persisted as long despite bad gun play, questionable updates and the broadband infrastructure of the USA being so slow to evolve was because the initial release of that game was a pure gamble; an all-in. The creative leads probably DREAMT of that game in their sleep, day in and day out, watching themselves play the game THEY'VE always wanted. And that's the truth.

I learned one lesson that I've always kept with me from my favorite professor. "You make Art for yourself; no one else". It sounds selfish but it's true. When you try to make your expressions for the hopes of appeasing others? You castrate your release, talent and creativity.

This is precisely what Developers these days are doing and why so many major sequels get 30 minute long ANGRY-JOE hate videos. They are not making the game THEY want; they are TOLD to make the game that MARKETING wants.

It's a doomed cycle.

Let's hope it ends.

Still think it's the best game ever

This thread is very reminiscent of a thread we had in beta that got Smed, all the devs and the playerbase involved. The game was headed to be solely a BF style game with it's only niche that it was big. There wasn't really any vision beyond that and it created problems that PS1 had solved. The devs at the time might have taken offense that we were constantly comparing the play style and mechanics to PS1, but in our defense - no other game had achieved large scale organized gameplay. From the players point of view, there were problems that had already been solved by PS1, while it seemed the devs didn't understand that they were legitimate problems.

I can no way compare the current game to what we had at the time of this breakup (revisualization, redirection, managed intervention, *insert other management buzzword*). Simple things like how to highlight where you parked your vehicle, the ability to set multiple waypoints, chat micromanagement didn't exist at the time, heck--the map didn't even have a grid--you had to just memorize the bases. It was nice, but late in development that the game was finally changed to something with clear vision and direction, which is why things are changing slowly and we are getting there.

PS1 wasn't the same game in beta either (it was originally designed as a MMORPG rather than an FPS: with NPCs and quests and weird aiming mechanics where you 'rolled' your damage). But after 5 years of development it had solved problems that it exclusively had the environment for QA and testing. We're heading to a more PS1 style of depth, slowly but surely. The worry is, as was with PS1, that by the time they get everything working, 5 years will have gone by and no one will care enough to come back. I still keep tabs on some of my PS1 buddies that have left, they generally come back for a week or so when new depth has been added. They were all back for Hossin and continent locking, but left for pretty much the reasons people are still complaining about lack of depth.

I think we have been headed in the right direction ever since that late beta posting. I don't want to take away from the OPs rant though, it's necessary to reflect and refocus on our goals every 2 years or so. Hopefully the devs are having this same discussion at some point this year. If nothing else, to re-prioritize their work toward what supports the vision and eliminate side projects that inadvertently undermine it.

Maybe when they get everything worked out in a couple of years, they can pull it offline and re-release/advertise it as a new product to spur new enthusiasm. It's been done with other titles in the past with some positive results. Until then, enjoy what we have so far and continue to fight the good fight.

Planetside 1 was a faaar superior game in almost every regard.
To bad it had so few players left I had to stop playing (and paying)

Nothing we can do about it, it is what it is. In a year or two this game will be gone to so might as well enjoy it while we can.

I myself am hoping CCP's new mmofps will be good.

I'm one of those people who never played PS1. I have no idea how the game worked so I am never able to identify with the people claiming how PS2 sucks compared to it. The main reason I started playing, and still play, PS2 is because it was a free FPS with massive fights. I never expected an improved PS1 so for the most part I can't say there is a reason for me to have a gripe with the game.

However I definitely agree PS2 has an identity crisis. The developers are trying to cater to large massive fights and gunplay while at the same time introducing things like continent locking from PS1 to create more of a goal and metagame.

After hearing about all the elements from PS1 over the past 1.5 years, I always look back and wonder how PS2 would have been different had they released the game with these elements there to start with. Unfortunately now I think it's too late to see what these additions would have done. Sure they can eventually add these into the game in the future, but I can't see it reviving this game and making it huge.

Ultimately we can never know what the game WOULD have been had they made it a PS1 improvement. Maybe it would have been a massive hit, and maybe it would have still just been another game release that never got big. The game definitely didn't pick a side, and trying to do that 1-2 years after the release won't revive the game. It would be nice to get people returning and create a more stable community, but the chances for this game being huge floundered pretty early on.

My clues:
1. Lattice, putting the game on rails to some degree.
2. Continent locking, to try and squeeze us down (in conjunction with #1) into less places and thus, bigger battles.

My conclusion: They want this game to be all about big cluster-you-know-what battles. They want everybody in the same few places, they don't want us all spread out thinly. That's the identity.

It's good enough that I paid to support it. It's good enough that I spend hours every day playing it. Best game ever? Not even close. But it's fun, it's a diversion, it's a good time-waster. I prefer thinking games, and while there's some thought involved, there's not a LOT of thought involved in PS2. It's not the most cerebral of games.

By thought games, do you refer to chess and such?