Ever feel that PS2 is a little dumbed down?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by ColonelChingles, May 24, 2014.

  1. ColonelChingles

    After taking a bit of a break from PS2 and going to play some other games, coming back to PS2 kinda makes me realize how simplified... well, everything is. Good or bad, I dunno, but it got me wondering about exactly how PS2 is almost just an introduction to video games, instead of something that requires more skill and thought.

    Tanks
    There are a lot of good tank games out there, but one of the most recent hits is World of Tanks. Now WoT does have some amount of simplification too... indirect fire, auto-aiming, and 3d person aiming to name a few. But it does other things very well, including:
    1) AP and HEAT shells both do damage to enemy tanks, but differently. AP shells punch holes, while HEAT shells cause more damage to the innards (if they can punch through).
    2) Armor angles matter... if your shell hits the enemy tank in a spot where the impact is more than 70 degrees, that shot will ricochet and not deal any damage.
    3) Armor is more complicated. Instead of front/side/rear/top armor, tanks in WoT have individual armor values for different parts of the same side of the tank. Combine this with the sloped armor effect above, and aiming at parts of a tank become much more important.
    4) You can damage individual parts of a tank... damage the main cannon to reduce accuracy, set fire to the engine/fuel tank, or destroy the ammunition rack to blow up the entire tank. Or blow up the tracks or turret ring to render a tank immobilized.
    5) Turrets have an actual turn speed. This makes flanking enemy tanks much more effective, because they can't instantly rotate around to return fire.

    Aircraft
    For anyone who's spent any time at all playing flight simulators, PS2's "flying" is pretty much a joke. Based off of WASD plus controls for up and down... not impressive at all. My first real taste of flying was the free version of Microsoft Flight Simulator that came with the family PC... must have been Windows 2000. More recently though (and appropriate to PS2's helicopter-jet hybrid) is DCS Black Shark, which is an attack helicopter game. It features:
    1) A real flight model that actually has reasonable momentum and lift.
    2) A damage model where even slight damage to parts and components will hamper operation.
    3) More useful cockpit instruments and HUD displays. Not too much to be cluttered, but actually useful stuff to know.
    4) Chaff, flares, and countermeasures that looked cool and worked well. None of the weird IR flares that PS2 has which magically protect you even after they've disappeared.

    Infantry
    Yes, PS2's infantry game is extremely simplified and arcadey. CoF is silly, bullets are sluggish, and the gunplay is more reminiscent of Borderlands than any serious FPS. Maybe it's the fault of CoD dumbing things down, but there really haven't been too many good infantry shooter out there... apart from the ARMA series. ARMA and Operation Flashpoint brought these features to the table:
    1) Modular damage to soldiers. Getting hit in the arm or leg led to injuries which would impair your ability to fight. Heck, even Fallout had this.
    2) Suppression effects. The earlier ARMAs had this... and it's even in the Battlefield games now too. Suppression is an important part of infantry combat... it's the reason that LMGs exist at all. Suppress and flank, suppress and flank.
    3) Actual ballistics. Bullets arc and deviate in an interesting way. Bullets can also penetrate light cover, making it much more fun to pick out your cover (and get a quick lesson between cover and concealment!).
    4) Fatigue. Running around all the time would probably tire you out... particularly with a rocket launcher and a LMG strapped to your back.

    So that's what it is, and probably more features that don't come to mind so quickly. What would happen if PS2 had some/all of these features? Would it be good or bad?

    Adding these mechanics would make the game more difficult for new players. This is probably the most valid critique of these changes I think. A simplified game is an easier game, and more approachable and forgiving to new players. Imagine the frustration of a new player as they shoot at an enemy tank, only to watch the shell bounce off because the angle wasn't right. At least in the super-simple tank damage model, that shell is at least going to do some damage. Same for the air and infantry game.

    This would make the game too realistic, and PS2 isn't a realistic game. I don't quite agree with this opinion. Many of the above mechanics actually aren't that realistic... sloped tank armor is exaggerated to make it a valid mechanic, few flight simulators implement things like fuel, and ARMA and BF3 infantry suppression models aren't realistic either. Instead these mechanics make the game more skill-based and challenging, while loosely tied to real-life mechanics. These are not realism mechanics, they're gameplay mechanics.

    If you like those other games so much, why don't you play those? WoT, DCS:BS, and ARMA are all fun on their own... but they don't have a true combined arms experience that PS2 offers (okay, ARMA a little... but not that much). Imagine if all those games were mashed together, with tank play being as complex as their air game... now that would be a game! Plus, none of them have jetpacks.

    These changes would slow down gameplay. Also a valid complaint... and I think I recall the Devs saying that they wanted a faster-paced game. Most sorts of engagements would have to be much more thought out... meaning greater time spent repositioning and flanking. Aiming would also be more critical, rather than the pray-and-spray that affects both tanks and infantry. Effectively, TTKs would be raised. Personally I don't think that's a bad thing, but there are of course those who would differ.
  2. Bassett

    I think infantry gameplay in PS2 is much closer to Battlefield than ArmA. I'm more of a fan of Real Virtuality than Forgelight personally but PS2 isn't based around realism to any great extent and ArmA style infantry combat just wouldn't work IMO.
  3. Cinnamon

    Aiming and flanking are both important in this game across vehicles types and infantry. If you want all of those changes made for that end goal then you are creating solutions for a problem that doesn't exist. If you just prefer more realistic sim or tacticool features in games for their own sake then I understand but am not sure that is what they should have done to broaden the appeal of the game.
  4. Trik

    As far as tank combat goes I have always wished they would go back the the multicrew of PS1. The Battlefield series has kinda changed that for most fps games that use tanks, vehicles and the like. As far as infantry combat suppression effects would be a great way to spice things up a notch.
    • Up x 1
  5. z1967

    Well, those are all specialty games. WoT only has to focus on tank combat, DCS only focuses on helicopters, and ARMA is a simulator. Of course PS2 and its wide variety isn't going to be able to compete on that level if they continue to appeal to as many audiences as possible.
  6. TriumphantJelly

  7. Skooma Lord

    It would be nice to have reduced CoF while aiming down sights with any weapon besides SMG's. Maybe the Grip attachment could have an added effect to reduce CoF. I think it would create a better experience for longer range fighters. It might make the higher damage weapons overpowered. I don't know.
  8. TheFamilyGhost

    Simple is good. It is also known as accessibility.

    The dumbing down of the experience - which is a clear policy decision - (weapons are "nerfed" or "buffed" based on performance) is the real shame around here.
  9. eldarfalcongravtank

    sorry but more realism isn't always better for a game

    granted, i've played some War Thunder the last days and the air/tank gameplay is freaking brutal/unforgiving in this game. in the air, once an enemy is on your tail, it's pretty much gg. no ally or ground-based anti-air can really help you and save your plane from getting wrecked there. as for tank gameplay, it's always a huge camp fest. once you move up, it's guaranteed suicide because you get picked off from large-caliber tank hunters hidden somewhere in a bush. not my cup of tea really

    having said that, i gotta remind you i also grew up playing Operation Flashpoint. i really loved its simulation elements and realistic war feel. when playing a match of ArmA2, i feel the same way. however, in my view, these games just won't cut it in multiplayer because the skill difference between good and noob players would be too high: skilled players would get better and better (and you have to invest much time to get good), while bad players will leave the game in frustration, causing the game to inevitably lose player numbers. and with that in mind, a much more realistic PS2 would likely suffer from the same fate

    in this respect, i think PS2 strikes a solid balance between arcade feel and authenticity. yes, it may have too much run-n-gun elements in it and lacks overall complexity. but what makes games like BF4 and PS2 so 'popular' (well, PS2 definitely has the potential to be much more popular) is their accessibility: they're quite easy to pick up, easy to learn, easy to have fun with. compare them to real war simulations where people would need to invest quite some time beforehand to actually learn the mechanics of the game, which would be a huge barrier for many i presume. in the end, realistic combat elements would hurt the game more than benefit it
    • Up x 2
  10. doombro

    The simulator crap can stay away. I think this kind of simplicity is a good thing.

    What PS2 really needs is strategic & tactical depth. This is where it cannot afford to be simple.
    • Up x 2
  11. Grayson

    1. What would run this? Because i can't really afford a nuclear reactor atm. Do you?
    2. This is a f2p game a pretty "quality" one , but its overlooked by our mighty leaders, because the next 2 money milker game is coming so "ditch dis milk the others too"..in other words they wouldn't waste money on this anymore..like they do it now..no new conts cause it wont bring any money.
  12. Axehilt

    1. A better damage model for vehicles would certainly be an improvement, but it's definitely easier for a non-MMO like WoT to have a more detailed damage model than a game like PS2.
    2. The flight model is unique, fun, and deep enough to reward mastery. That's really what matters for a game offering fun gameplay.
      • Many changes that would make the model more realistic would either fail to make the model deeper, or would actually make things shallower.
      • But that's not true of everything. For example if flares' visuals matched the protection of your aircraft and lock-ons actually treated the flare as the target (instead of magically zipping straight up into the sky) then that would be more realistic while also potentially improving gameplay (since now the flare's physical location matters and can potentially send the projectile into another aircraft.)
    3. Infantry combat is an even better example, since extremely fast bullets just flat-out create shallower games. With PS2's "sluggish" bullets, more skill is required, making the game deeper than it'd be as a hitscan shooter where you basically only need as much skill as it takes to click an icon in Windows.
    For me I'm only interested in deep gameplay that rewards skill, without being unnecessarily over-complicated. So any step towards realism that fails to make the game deeper is wasted effort (if not a step in the complete wrong direction.)
  13. Nepau


    There is one problem with trying to put all that into a game. That is the amount of Data that would have to be tracked and Processed.

    Think of it this way. A game checks if you were shot in the head or not, thats 2 points of data it has to keep track of. If it has to know if you were shot in the arm, leg, thats 2 more, so thats 5 points of data that the game has to process and keep track of at all times. With 1 or 2 guys thats no problem, now multiply that by 200 or 2000, and then add more complexity of that to other items.

    Really the issue here is not that they have dumbed down the game to make it more accessible, but more to make it possible to have the scales that they want. It is much like how much of the Hit detection is done client side then the servers, because it wouldnt be possible to have the server do it and have people be able to play in any scale that would make the game what it is.

    You example are from games that are built around 1 Thing and 1 thing only. ARMA is around relism infantry combat, the flight sim is self expanitory and WoT is just about Tanks. It is Not possible with current technology to have the same Level of detail of All aspects and be able to have a working game.
  14. MrJengles

    Yes, PS2 is watered down.

    Given the data concerns raised, I don't think the place we're at now is that bad. It avoids the most complicated systems for small rewards. For example, I'm just not convinced that modular damage would really add much. Isn't an immobilized tank a dead tank? Or a plane that can't maneuver? The simplistic fire approach is a no-brainer for new players and seems to add a similar stage of desperation.

    Out of those you listed, things that I could see working and improving PS2:

    • Turret rotation speed - It's a small limitation to add to a force multiplier and something an attacker can try to use to their advantage.
    • Suppression effects - When death doesn't matter suppression isn't really a thing. So you need mechanics that make people care.
    • Sprint fatigue - Gives players something to manage. Shouldn't hinder players too much in a fight unless they run around a ton. Creates a new mechanic that Adrenaline Pump could make use of. Probably wishful thinking that this could be tied into implants similar to PS1.
    • A re-balance of aircraft flares to be given as standard and ammunition based - The 1 flares blocks everything then sits on a cooldown model isn't fun, engaging or particularly balanced.
    Great points. The flight model in particular is unique and fun, so changes have to add to it, not undo what's already there.