Any word on them giving this game a point?

Some consider fun to be the point.

I keep telling them they're wrong, and that fun clearly isn't the point of games, but they're a hard group to convince (partially because they spend too much time in-game enjoying themselves, and not enough time debating on forums.)

What's the point of playing games like Counter-Strike? Planting the bomb on the same maps since 13 years. Over and over. Again and again.
What is it in Battlefield? Capture the same flags again and again for several hundred hours.
Call of Duty? Oh wait... let's forget about that quickly..

What other games do you play that offer you "real" goals? Civilization?

It´s a game, so the point is to play it for enjoyment.

So, since everyone seems to be missing the point (of the thread)...


We're not looking for a "point", because, as you might know, nothing really matters, especially games.
So, in a single sentence, if I had to rephrase the title of this thread to make it more accurate:

"Up the scale of accomplishements"


The only time I've seen people care about objectives in PS2 was alerts, and then again it's only two hours.
Overall, what the "game-is-pointless" people meant to say is, there are plenty of short term objectives, but no long term goal.


Some might say that "fun" is the goal of games, but great games/movies/books/art (especially games) don't just entertain you, they involve you. PS2 is a pretty good time waster, but I find it hard to be engaged when whatever you do doesn't remain for more than a few hours

Um, last time I checked, you progress exactly the same way in PS2 as you do in BF4. Or do you think ranks mean something in PS2?

You seem to think capping a base and losing it right after isn't the same thing as restarting...

You won't admit it but you're playing BF just on a larger scale. Weapon menus are copy and paste, progression is exactly the same, etc.

Never heard of a bad game?

I didn't realize every single game in the world is enjoyable. How often do you play tag or hopscotch?

All Games =/= Enjoyable

"Um, last time I checked, you progress exactly the same way in PS2 as you do in BF4. Or do you think ranks mean something in PS2?"

nothing to do with ranks - i mean progression as in through the map (taking bases and stuff) and you seemed to have left out the persistence part which battlefield doesnt have

"You seem to think capping a base and losing it right after isn't the same thing as restarting..."
see thats the thing - you dont always lose it straight after if you defend it but if like battlefield it restarted then you would lose it no matter if you defended the base (or flag in battlefield) or not

"You won't admit it but you're playing BF just on a larger scale. Weapon menus are copy and paste, progression is exactly the same, etc"
progression in ps2 is nothing like battleifield - you seem to think progression is just levels and stuff

also (again) what is your point in all this? you dont seem to have one yourself
what would YOU like to see in planetside to please YOU? i have already said im happy with it, would you like a "end of round" screen?

I think this says most of what I was going to say. There will never be 'point' beyond fun. Put another way, there will never be a way to win.

But what would be good is 'higher tactical levels' to the game:

You win a one on one > you blow a generator > you help cap the points > you take the base > you take more bases > you push a fraction off the continent > you cap the continent > you cap all continents.

The last three would be new levels of play. They would also be increasingly difficult. The last, conquering everything there is would be nearly impossible. Getting some sort of permit ant recognition or very rare unlock for it would be a point in itself.

There is no point of it being an MMO or open world.

This game can be trimmed down to a lobby shooter with maps like quartz-ridge, crosswatch, a select biolab, amp station and a tech plant, limit it to ~50vs50 and voila.

You have the same game.
So no, no ones expectations are misaligned when we are advertised an open world MMOFPS.

All planetside 2 is right now is just a proof of concept - loads of players can be put in a big map and it can be made an FPS with some wonky physics. Even then it's just a lobby shooter in disguise.
Beyond that it's nothing.

Yeah, i dont play tag, that what you do if you cant enjoy a game. You dont ask for tag to be changed do you?

Lore only tells us how we got here but nothing about where we are going from here. My approximation is another battlefield. Where would you like to go?

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

I have no complaints against a suggestion that; I like the idea too. But that's not a point or an objective. A point is something to be taken (or made) on the way towards a goal. An objective is the milestone. What the person you were replying to is talking about is a gameplay mechanic.

Taking bases and continents IS the objective. Do you understand how the game works?

Or you up the ante and make it freeze tag or hide-and-go-seek tag or sharks and minnows: you up the complexity to make it more fun.

If you speak in terms of intercontinental lattice and cont locking then maybe by june because SOE does not consider giving this game meaningful goals to be urgent. Meaningful goals would be those that affect the game. IE NC can't get onto indar would be meaningful in the landscape of planetside.

I wish this was higher priority but SOE would rather change a class or a vehicle instead of make the game better.

We have a number of stumbling blocks in the way of such content:
1) Dev Team Size has been slashed (this can have both pros and cons: pro = less politics; con = less man hours and creative inputs)
2) Launch for PS4 is taking priority of time right now
3) graphic limits makes adding new stuff a problem
4) single faction overpopulation bandwagon jumping is a tactic that breaks most team vs. team competitions in the game
5) the PS2 Dev leadership either don't know how to do it (competence/vision), don't want to do it (politics), or don't have the budget to do it (economics)

If you can work out the status of the above, then you know what you have to work with, and then you can start coming up with thinking/planning/budgeting for cascading "story arc" style end points. Though #5 can flat out kill any such attempts.

The energy "crisis" is not a crisis to everyone. For those selling the energy, energy problems make for good business. As long as this remains the case and said businesses are able to control change, you can expect more of the same.

Colonizing Mars is a nonstarter currently in "democracies". Private Enterprise can't justify it profit-wise and Government funding/resources have been locked down by "other interests" or are being spun off to Private Enterprise. A country more driven to long term objectives and national fame is more likely to tackle it, especially if there are 2 of them racing each other. Current access to tech/funding also limits which groups could even tackle it, over time this constraint will open up as tech progresses and spreads out to more players. So over time this problem becomes more doable and doable by more parties, so that too could eventually tip the balance to it happening.

Solving game problems is less dangerous, more likely to both effect changes and improve quality of life, and its a fun exercise. "Real World Problems" are mired in economic and political gridlock: one man;s problem is another man's profit.

Do you truly believe the game would be unchanged by splitting everything into lobbies and 50v50 maps?

In many ways, you're right that Ps2 is a proof of concept. Ps1 and WWII Online are the the only games that come to mind that truly provided an MMOFPS experience. Given the technical and game design challenges of doing so correctly, I respect SOE for taking it on -- and have patience that the game will take many many updates to be elevated beyond its predecessor.

When you say there's no point to a sandbox FPS, it seems as though you're just expressing dissatisfaction with the way you play the game, rather than the game itself. Planetside's metagame may not be apparent if you keep your map zoomed in to the closest level.

If you're not having fun, you should try to step it up. It's probably more fun than copping a whiny attitude on the forums.

CAPPING CROSSROAD WATCHER TOWER FOR THE 0I9073948573948573298573948 TIME IS SO MUCH BETTER

You want an FPSMMO with a point? Just wait till Sept. 2014 and then you'll have a PvE FPSMMO named Destiny.

Planetside has never really had a " point" besides taking bases and controlling territory.

@IronPhalloi: That's cuz Indar sucks. ;p

I agree with both the OP and with most of his/her critics in this thread. Personally I just love the fighting and giving myself goals, but I can understand that some people want concrete objectives. There's no reason the game shouldn't cater to it. Alerts were the first step, but I think what would kick this sort of thing into gear is continent locking. And possibly player missions, or revamped alerts.

but hey while we're dreaming howabout some NPC invasions or outfit fleet carriers

I wonder how many people complaining about this had no problem playing on a 24/7 2Fort server for who knows how long?