I'm not here to argue, I'm not here to say it's right or wrong and I'm definitely not here to troll. But honestly, having only played PS2, and hearing all of these replies about how the original was leagues and bounds better than the successor, I wonder why the devs even wanted to change anything from the first game. I understand some polishes to combat and graphics, but I'm talking about core mechanics. I get the feel that this could be a little like battlefield when people say BC2 was so much better than BF3, yet the same people were saying BF2 was so much better than BC2. Is it the bandwagon effect or is this legitimate? State your reasons, observations what have you. I'd love to hear them all.
Same reason the BF franchise dove nose first into the showbox groud: gaming community changed. the current set up of PS2 and BF3 cater to a much larger, and much less intelligent player base. they want to attract the masses of kids, and young adults with money to spend. The older style of both these games was so advanced, that no game has come close to matching them since they were launched over a decade ago, yet in todays market, they are much to complex, and have to high a learning curve/skill cap to attract most players, and would therefore ultimately fail/set a new trend and prosper. Companies want a safe bet, and the safe bet is to simplify, and baby-proof your game so that you can cash in on all of the $$$$$ that kids have these days I also believe that DEvs want a certain aspect of it being "their game". if they re-hashed something, they wouldnt feel very original or accomplished. they want something to be "theirs" so they add their own little things. Most devs probably diddnt play the original
I played Ps1 from the beginning and was a huge fan. I'm also a fan, obviously, of this version. There were a lot of things that I think could work really well in Ps2. There's also a lot of things that just work better in the new version. But I don't think you're looking for that discussion. I believe that the decision to get so far away from many of the things that made Ps1 so unique, came from the decision to go free to play and cater to the newer generation of gamers to garner the larger population that would be required for a game of this type. Some vets may have a little bit of nostalgia and rose colored glasses on when discussing Ps1, but it was by no means perfect. It just had a lot of good ideas that worked and were ahead of their time.
Also BF2 was a POS disgrace. just had to say it. theres a reason people are STILL playing BF1942. BF2 was the BF1942 DCX mods group, cut down by the executives of EA.
I'm 14 and I really enjoy games like ARMA and BF2. Don't throw all the 12-14 year olds in with the "dumb" crowd. It's quite a bad stereotype. Whenever I say COD is a bad game, people stare at me like I'm not a human.
A few simple reasons: Because BF3. Because the PS1 lattice typically concentrates a gigantic mass of people at the "alamo" when a continent is about to be overturned and they know PS2's engine cannot handle 1000 people all at one base.
LOL I wouldnt do that to ya bud! there are exceptions to every rule, and if you like games like ARMA, then you are certainly an exception. it means you need more than just mindless entertainment to be happy.
Thanks for all of the feedback guys, I'm seeing a lot more perspectives and I'd still love to hear more
PS1 had more strategic gameplay. The frontline were obvious and people knew what they are fighting for, they fought for benefits, for global control because that actually meant something, winner took enemies faction weapons and vehicles. A lot more vehicles and aircrafts, the game provided plenty variety to chose from, not just the same copypasta with a different gun. There were no roles, but specialization were way more useful, like you could be a just a medic, healing teammates or you could be combat medic who revives. The same for combat engeneers... oh, those had better mines (works both on vehicles and infantry but way less powerful), automated turrets, motion sensors, tank traps, shield generators... comparing to them PS2 engies are kiddies with Lego! Yet game had terrible bugs, combat were clumsy, lags and not registering bullets, bugged doors, third person view players who sneak on you with shotgun behind the corner. Yeah, it had it flaws. But if SOE could just rebuild PS1 with Forelight engine and graphics, bring classes, combat system, dynamics... that would be hell of a game.
lattice system was truly better designed than the hex system. ps1 lattices created clearly defined battle zones. the hex system does nothing but scatter the fight and make room for pointless battles that have no strategic value except to farm xp there is almost no denying these facts, and how the hex system ever got dreamed up is a mystery to everyone who played ps1. abandoning the lattice system for the hex system is like dumping your gold bars in the ocean to make room on your boat for sand. i'm actually a veteran level 10 (a status earned on your EA account for having all 10 battlefield games registered to it) on my battlefield account, i own and have extensively played them all. when i make this very same comment people get very offended on battlefield related forums. BF2 sadly was a rotting piece of crap. i had bf1942 on the first month of launch, but i'm not a bf42 fanboy either. it's a great game but it was also very flawed. personally the shining light of the series for me is BC2. i felt like everything really started to come together there. it had the rough feel of bf2 without all the problems and a squad system that was much simpler but effective and promoted team play. DICE abandoned it to make a MW2 clone with tanks...
I played PS1 again before PS2 launched and just couldn't do it. It just got old. I love the new PS2's graphics. I like the classes, etc. On the other hand I think there are huge balance issues in PS2 and the meta game and battle flow are drastically limited compare to PS1. It seems we are going to be stuck with the hex system, unfortunately. I can't see them throwing that all out and implementing lattices - too much effort.
The reality is PS1 was written over 10 years ago. A lot of those developers, designers, etc are gone. PS2 is written by a new team with their own vision of what is good, and that vision comes from 10 years of successful FPS titles forging a new "status quo" as to what gamers expect. While it's foolish to not take what worked from the past, it'd be equally foolish to just rip the entire thing, update the graphics, and expect it to succeed.
