Anyone else going to drop this game when PS1 goes F2P?

No - You're a casual because you can't even comprehend basic gaming. "Hurr durr, This skiiiireeeem gaem is fun - TES5? No it is obviously a new IP and entirely unique. And now they maek Skeeeryyyym ememorpergerhg"

It'll never be a TES game at heart - You cannot make an MMO of what the game has been for so many years now. Open, moddable, a sandbox.

What the hell? are you seroius? the graphics in PS1 sucks balls and...in general...PS2 is/should be way better than PS1. Someone please tell me why on earth he or any one would freakin do that?!??!?!

Ps2 is the greatest shooter of all time. I have proof of that with my youtube videos.

Where will Elder Scrolls Online take place?

So, I wasn't far off... You should feel stupid for being so hostile over such a petty mistake. Especially considering I was technically correct, seeing as how I will be playing a Nord and starting in the province of Skyrim.

PS1 graphics really aren't that bad. My sub just ended a few days ago and playing on max settings at 1080p the game is pretty damn beautiful. Especially the animations and character models.

Just because it doesn't have bloom doesn't mean it's bad.

Great. Go fill the ps1 forums with your over-dramatic BS.

No.

never played it but i will try it. but my home is ps2.

Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. I loved playing games on my Amiga 500 back in the day, was a leap from my 286 with monochrome monitor. My mantra was gameplay always trumps graphics and that games lost sight of that.

A decent Amiga emulator came out a number of years ago and a whole bunch of games I used to play were easy to find. Excitedly I downloaded it, installed it and grabbed some games. Those games I spent literally hundreds of hours playing.. I couldn't stand playing for more than a couple of minutes. My memory of those games were spoiled.

Enjoy PS1 - but sometimes games you used to love are best left in the past.

No, it never grabbed my interest in the past 10 years, don't see why being free to play would change anything. Planetside 2 caught my eye and grabbed my interest, it's why I even looked into it in the first place and free 2 play was just a bonus.

PS1 Infantry combat is superior to PS2, mostly due to structure design and a little bit longer TTKs.

Unfortunately, I'm actually considering it.

I suppose trying to mention in this topic that Planetside when it was 2 or 3 months old wasn't that much more deep / tactical / strategic than Planetside 2 is now won't make much of a difference right?
Off with you guys then have fun.

Yes I'm sure of it. Look at some videos of Planetside 1 on YouTube that go over the game mechanics and what you're supposed to do. Bases were linked together through a lattice system. So defending territory was easier to do, and was mandatory at times. People would recall, fly over, whatever, to save a base. Right now...no one cares much. Bases each had an amazing benefit and purpose. Interlink facilities were my most hated because they had base-wide radar, and provided this benefit to all other bases linked to it. So we'd infect the facility with a virus, or blow its generator, or otherwise take it out. Tech plans were very important because without it, there were no MBT's (which...really mattered, as lightnings totally sucked), and no reavers (ESF's as you know them). Bases had power/energy. Spawning, and auto-repairing damaged terminals/turrets would drain it. So you'd have to get a vehicle to fill up with energy from a warpgate, and drive it over to refuel the base. Which made it fun game when attacking or defending a base. We'd set up mines around the refueling silo so they couldn't hot-drop a battery and recharge the base. Reason this was important is that some times we could hold a base so well...but only the inside. We couldn't push outside, and the enemy couldn't fully push inside. But if they kept attacking and sieged the base, and we ran out of fuel, the base would convert to a Neutral status. So we wouldn't be able to spawn there anymore. There were so many tactics around this, including setting up a spawn point and pushing back even after having lost the base from it going neutral. Vehicles that were left alone (sundy's, tanks, etc etc..) could be hacked by hackers with certifications.

You'd have a limited number of certifications to use, so you had to specialize your character. This made it really fun to create several characters with different roles (similar to different classes or specs in WoW). I had one character dedicated to cloaking and hacking and sabotage and mining and repairs/etc.. Base turrets had an auto-mode. If vehicles or aircraft or max units in run mode were around, it would auto-target and shoot them. So someone couldn't go and get free turret kills at a less populated base. There would be some damage. The fire rate of the turrets would be substantially lower. But it was still an important aspect. In terms of base defense....people could deploy mines, and also create blockades of entry points that would stop vehicles from passing through (could be destroyed, but had lots of health). You set up motion sensors in strategic areas. You set up anti-motion sensors (forget their name now) that would hide things from radar that were right around it (ie. a sunderer).

Time To Kill was significantly higher than it is now. And there were no insta-revives like now. All repair and healing required ammo or "juice." So 1 Medic + 1 Engineer wouldn't have an endless supply of healing and repair and ammunition. You had custom loadouts. You were given a backpack depending on the type of armour you were wearing, and had to actually lay out and arrange the weapons, the ammo, type of ammo, repair/heal gun, hack tool, etc etc...and you determined exactly what you carried with you (you could save 10 customized loadouts).

Vehicles and Aircraft were prominent. But once a base had been sieged, to actually take the base required getting out of your vehicles and having CQC fighting. Base designs were interesting. The narrow hallways were the most interesting as each side would gather forces at each end of the hallway, and try to repel or push away the other team. So people would organize a MAX Unit rush of 10-30 maxes on average to be able to break through. And Max units could only spawn at towers (satellites) and bases. Not from AMS's (sundy's). So you'd see a train of them running from the tower. Bases would yell out to prepare for a max rush. Everyone would get prepared, go to the point we saw them heading to, and waited in the base for them. All in all...there's just so much more to PS1 than the dev's are willing to put into PS2.

From a financial standpoint, they're doing much better with PS2 because it's easier for people to pick up and play from Day 1 as opposed to having to learn the ropes. And I think that's why they've made these fundamental changes to PS2. Because they think it was the gameplay and mechanics that made PS1 not a great big success. Rather than just a horrible horrible engine that couldn't handle that many players, especially with much older computer technology. I remember the first days of PS1 it would be normal to drop below 10fps in a big fight. It was just that massive.

I will definitly go play ps1...

I'd say you're somewhat wrong. There were many more outfits organizing galaxies, troops, armour columns, etc etc...you know, proper warfare tactics starting in the first days of PS1. Because it mattered more. PS2's already taken a different direction in its approach to the game. Bases can't be "modified" to make them work. There are no real bases. There are no indoor fights. It's just a large crappy open complex, with a series of small cubes around, with one large cube in the center. That's really what they are. And vehicles don't allow any real infantry fighting to happen even after a base courtyard has been sieged. The biolab is the only exception to this, and I love it, but I disagree with them having 5 different entry points into the base. It needs to be 2 or 3 to create some good choke points and stand off situations.

Regarding how this is just PS2's first few months...and PS1's first few months were a little shaky, I do think PS1's was better...but more importantly, you'd think the dev team would have learned from PS1 so that those things wouldn't be an issue during the first few months of PS2. I still play this game. A lot. But it's definitely not what I had hoped/expected for a sequel to Planetside 1. So if PS1 is relaunched and has players, I will continue to play PS2, but will mostly be playing PS1.

Whenever someone says a game sucks because of its graphics, I cannot take them seriously and they lose all credibility. Especially when they say "sucks balls"

You're joking, right? Please someone tell me this is just sarcastic. Otherwise, this kid needs some serious psychoanalising.

I'll believe people saying they'll flock to planetside 1 when I see it. People have always said things like that, like "oh if SOE made EQ1 free to play, it would become the most popular game in SOE lineup". Yeah, EQ1 went f2p, it really didn't change much. Or those Vanguard diehards that wouldn't admit the game died 4 years ago, saying "oh if SOE made Vanguard f2p, it would become a top 3 game in the united states". Yeah, Vanguard went f2p, it's as dead as ever, no real jump in population.

Nostalgia plays tricks with people's minds. The way things really work is that if people truly want to play a game, they'll be playing that game. A small monthly fee will not stop them from playing a different game that they claim they dislike or hate. So I don't expect planetside 1's population to change much even after it goes f2p, because if people wanted to play it, they would have been there instead of here or elsewhere.

This isn't a knock on planetside 1, just how things are with people being clouded with nostalgia. No doubt some people will check out planetside 1 once it goes f2p, but don't expect any big persistent bumps in population. It never happened in EQ1, didn't happen in Vanguard. And planetside 1 never had a subscriber base anywhere close to even a third of what EQ1 and Vanguard had during their prime.

Yeah.. that's the new trend. Remake something to lure in all of the 80's kids .. who are now middle-aged losers and **** over everything that made the stuff great to lure in the new CoD crowd.

Diablo 3 (pains me to even type.. but Jay Wilson was fired, so it's a bittersweet mention), PS2, Nightmare on Elm street, Elder Scrolls.. Online (oh god it's terrible)... the list goes on and on unfortunately

If you're going to remake something, or make a sequel that is basically a bastardization of the first, have the dignity to call it something new. Innovation won't kill you.. or maybe it will.


You see, we "old codgers" never had this sort of thing happen to us: We didn't displace older gamers' preferences, because we are basically the first generation with a substantial number of hardcore gamers among us.

One day, your dumbed down abortions will be dumbed down even further and I'll be rolling around in my grave and laughing at you whilst you ***** on the forum like I am now.

That's assuming you're all not destroyed in the coming cyborg wars... and from what I can tell, given your inability to concentrate for more than a few seconds to aim at something due to your ADHD CoD mentality, that's a hard gamble.