[Suggestion] Why is this game set in the future?

NS Defenses:
Crown
Bastion
TI Alloys
Crossroads watchtower
Bravada PMC Compound
All the Bio labs

and many more!

They don't have to, they have nanites.

they make nanites out of smaller nanites, so they need to make and buy even smaller nanites to make those nanites

In-universe, it's much more "realistic". In-game, it's this way because of fun, balance, and technical limitations.

They have Nanite producing farms where nanites create more nanites

Its not the realism, its the fact that in this game they are so afraid to make thing what they are, cause it will piss of moneybags and the won't give money to Daybreak, that they make paper tank to be easy kills for C4 cowboys,making libs fly 300m where G2A infantry can take em out cause moneybags again are to ... to pull air support they whine instead etc etc.

The problem is with logic not realism.Two different things.Yes sometimes they are the same but sometimes not.

For example.Superman laser eyes melt metal.Logical right ,but not real.Nobody has laser eyes.In this game, logic overlaps with realism in some way.But they cannot be logical cause whineside/cryside begins and you know that.

I'm pretty sure the fight would last all of a single engagement.

When you droppod in from orbit, ever notice the NS logo on those?

Why would it be possible for all three factions to droppod in from orbit? I mean isn't there a battle for space or something?

I think the right conclusion is that NS controls space. They have special NS battlecruisers set up to conveniently drop soldiers all over the planet.

So if any faction ever tried to fight NS...



"But we could all just respawn and everything would be fine!" you might say.

Who owns those spawntubes again? Who helpfully loads the TR GUI on all spawn terminals when the TR take a base from the NC?



It'd actually work out well for NS. Just a few simple steps:
1) Turn off the respawn function for the rebellious faction.
2) Plaster the planet with nukes from orbit, killing everything. Obviously NS-made buildings, terrain, and plants are indestructible.
3) The two obedient factions respawn, a little smarter this time.

None of that has to do with the subject of this thread though. Things were always like that from the very start. Beta levels of start. If anything they've stayed very consistent.

The only thing that was reduced incredibly - on a scale of its own - was Air to Ground back in 2013. And it was justifiably reduced. Air proved that it could not be trusted with that level of lethality. It also gave a stark, morbid projection of what a game where a lot of things were tremendously powerful would look like.

Can I be in your bunker please?

My bunker-mates stockpiled baked beans, and there's no opening window.

Seriously... this place is starting to smell like the inside of a packet of dry roasted peanuts.

Phrrrrrt.

It is set in the future, to set the game apart from other games which can be compared to it.

Why almost nothing resembles technology one could expect from future? Probably because developers didn't want to take risk with creating new mechanics and balance which would resemble the future.
If they did, I guess we would have much more automated weapon systems, aim support system (shows where to shoot to hit target). And a lot and a lot of hacking.
Players would probably fight in two levels simultaneously - with their weapons and with their viruses.
The result would be an unique, truly futuristic war game, but too complex for average kid to get into.

The tread is:
Why is this game set in the future?

Obviously it means its not futuristic at all.And why is that, cause in a logical futuristic ps2 we would have default heat vision/night vision built in our helmets."We could put laser and foregrip on our weapons at the same time."Planes could have real lock-on rockets.Jump jets would be jump jets not flying wings.Tanks would shrug off missiles because of reactive armor not because nerf everything by criers.Liberators could fire from 1000m perfectly aimed cause all the high tech doohickey built in them."Tanks could bring lot of different ammo with them."We cannot even perform strategic maneuvers like surround a base and cut it off cause latice and etc.

"" sign means that i really on the separating line between logical and realistic like i said before,but seriously we can't have these thing cause CODside would cry the s..t out of DB.

Ohh it has a lot to do with the subject of this thread my friend.A lot.

Because WW1 fighting would have been an even worse setting.

Now you're just quibbling the details of Gameplay and Story Segregation and you're focusing on technology levels as the basis of what paints the future. Go back to the 1950s and ask Popular Science what they thought the future will look like, and compare it to what we have today. While some of it looks just silly in retrospect, we're nowhere even near the level of the serious projections they put forth. Even something as recent as the 1980s failed their predictions in spectacular ways.

It also keeps the user more directly an agent of their activity. The computer assists greatly in our future's past (contemporary) real life warefare because that's not a game we're talking about. We don't develop iterations of weapon systems because they sound fun and balanced to use and to fight against. As this is a game, we have that to tske into consideration, however, and, without all the development time in the world, every little whim will not make it off the drawing board.

The whole point of this thread was to call attention to the disparity between the game's look and the game's feel. The apparent level of technological sophistication in this game (look) and the very primitive level of warfighting (feel). Yes, obviously it wouldn't be practical to give every player access to a couple of artificially intelligent assistant drones, but the lack of even simple and intuitive things like gunsights on ESF HUDs that correct for range and rate of turn (something that became a standard feature during the Korean War) makes the game feel more like it was set in the 1940s.

It doesn't take much to make gameplay look AND feel futuristic. Take a look at Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and Future Soldier. In Future Soldier, they added tha ability to see enemies through walls (feel), and they gave it the appearance of an X-ray scan and called it magnetic vision (look). In Advanced Warfighter, they did roughly the same thing (feel), but your allies/drones had to be in a position where they had line of sight on an enemy that was hidden from you so they could relay the bad guy's position via crosscom (look).

One of the rare good examples in this game of a successful combination of look and feel is the Phoenix. It looks futuristic and the way it operates feels futuristic. They could improve the look by adding the night vision mode to the missile's POV to highlight the fact that the player is seeing the world through the eyes of a camera instead of their own eyes, but other than that they did a good job.

To be clear, I did not start this thread in the hopes that the developers would drop everything and make the gameplay feel more futuristic. I only started this thread to call attention to the disparity of the game's look and feel in the hopes that the developers might take that disparity into consideration when something new is on the drawing board.

Reason #1- It is a game for crying out loud. It is meant for fun, not realism.
Reason #2- Nanites have not been invented.
Reason #3- Just because its in the future, that doesnt mean everything is lasers. Back to the Future said that we would have flying cars. Jurassic Park said that there would be DNA resurrection, there is not.


Final Verdict- It is a game, dont expect realism.

I'm not sure Cursory Raptor is asking for realism... after all by definition if you're asking for future technology then you are not asking for stuff in the 21st century.

What he seems to be pointing out is that there's nothing "futuristic" about PS2. Sure we have infinitely respawning soldiers and vehicles, but that's about it.

Are the buildings or bases we fight in "futuristic"? I mean they have jump pads and teleporters... but that's about it. Otherwise they're more like 17th century castles than anything else.

Are the vehicles we drive "futuristic"? The Magrider floats... but even then it's missing a lot of the bells and whistles that we think ought to be available on futuristic vehicles. Range finders, IR dazzlers, etc.

Are the weapons we use "futuristic"? Apart from the Lasher/Lancer, mostly not. You could take most of the small arms we have, reskin them and keep the stats, and no one could tell them apart from any BF/CoD weapons.

The only "futuristic" things in PS2 are quite shallow, and the rest of it isn't terribly impressive. That might be what Cursory Raptor was trying to imply.

Pretty much, yeah. You get an A+!

Because reality sucks. We don't make weapons that make fights more fair and balanced. We make weapons that kill our enemies in the most unfair ways possible, causing maximum damage to the enemy with minimum risk to our soldiers. Reasonable, since dying for your country is counter-productive, making the enemy die for his works much better. Doesn't make for a good game experience though. Bunkering down to defend a base, then boom, fuel air bomb everyone's dead. Driving a tank down the road, ESF launches a missile from miles away, boom, tanks dead. ESF takes off from a platform, instantly gets locked on by a SAM launcher at the next base over, instagib. Cruising around your base repairing turrets, then boom, head shot sniped from a nearby mountain, dead. (I'm actually okay with this one. Haven't had to bunny hop repair a turret in a while, it was kind of fun...) All in all, realism is great for a strategy game, horrible for a competitive FPS.

Ah, that makes things much clearer. Thanks. And sorry to Cursory Raptor if i sounded harsh. I have a nasty cold right now, so im a little grumpy.

Most 'futurewar' games actually approximate WW1 (or earlier) combat because truly modern warfare (loosely defined as post-2000 conflicts) is 1) asymmetric and 2) much more difficult to make into something fun. Being killed by guided munitions fired by an enemy you never even see is hard to make into an enjoyable game. Being killed by a group of enemies you didn't know were enemies until they started shooting at you wouldn't be much fun either.