Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by chilly154, Sep 9, 2013.
Great to know that you enjoy the game. We need more positive post like this on our forums.
While I agree more people is more fun the level design team for battlefield didn't make the level fun for anything above 32 players max. The 64 player maps are basically a biolab alert. The game was not meant for 64 players and it shows.
I used to be a big fan of bf3 before and during planetside 2 beta , i tried out the beta a few times ( i had to beg for a key ) and i just had no idea what the hell i was doing but i really liked the large scale , i remember looking up at a biolab in the beta and thinking wow that's huge ! it looked so incredible . The game ran really poorly for me then though , before the crossfire fix amd released in their beta drivers .
After playing planetside 2 a lot and now , i haven't played bf3 in almost a year .. I don't intend on playing it either , planetside 2 is a much better game in every aspect . It might not have as great graphics but the gameplay is a ton better , in bf3 you just get instagibbed every few seconds from god knows where . Its really not fun to play at all , its just a grenade spam fest .
FPS games that support less than 1000 players at a time are so last century.
My personal dream is that Dice will come out with an MMOFPS based on Battlefield 2142. If I could get that then I could probably die happy. PS2 is a decent enough substitute, as it features similar levels of technology and the same "near-future" sci fi feel, but oh man... Battlefield 2142 was just soooo good. I miss my SCAR-11 and Shuko K-80 so much. And the gunships. And the walkers... and the Titans.
It'll probably never happen, but a man can dream...
I must agree that Battlefield in its current iteration is lackluster and "just another shooter," which is a shame considering the series' pedigree.
I'd love Walkers on Planetside 2. Sadly it will never happen because of the BFR fiasco on Planetside 1, but they would be a fun addition to fights... they look amazing, and they can't be more unbalanced than the Harasser.
It's actually pretty easy to balance walkers, and 2142 did a good job of this. They were extremely well-armored from the front and sides and had weaponry designed to defeat every possible opponent, but they had three big things going against them.
1) Their anti-tank weaponry was fairly short range, and not usually accurate enough to hit targets further out than 50 meters or so.
2) A single hit to the back of their chassis was usually enough to kill them.
3) They were friggin HUGE targets and pretty easy to hit.
They were very fun to use and devastating when used well, but also difficult master. Their weaknesses counterbalanced their strengths very well.
I'd love to see 'em here, but yeah, too much bad blood there. I also wouldn't trust SOE to get it right on the first shot, and that's really the only chance they'd get before the "Return of the BFR" uproar drives lots of folks away. :/
Despite all Planetside 2's flaws I'd happily prefer this game over the overhyped mess that Battlefield 3 turned out to be.
I can guarantee my opinion will remain the same when DICE's second attempt at a "next gen" game comes out the end of this year.
I think I'm on the opposite site. I've purchased BF3 with recent humble bundle and I noticed that I do play it a lot more than PS2.
Guns feel like guns. TTK is lower so 20-mag weapons are actually usable and feel deadly too. Maps are much smaller (obviously) but quite action packed. Tanks feel like tanks - I can destroy walls of concrete and drive inside buildings.
PS2 started to be a little bit stale for me. I've unlocked everything I wanted to unlock, framerate is dropping with every GU (still playable but I'm not a fan of 35-40 fps) and guns don't feel very deadly or intimidating to me anymore. Community is much better than the one of BF3 though (4th factioners and nerfwhiners excluded).
Maybe I'll get bored soon and perhaps BF3 was simply a breeze of fresh air? Who knows.
This happened to me as well... but back in 2003 when PS1 came out.
I always said that if one was to experience the game and willing to look past some flaws - there is nothing like it.
I'll just add that if you think PS2 is Epic now, wait till resources come in, continent locks, and battle islands. Fights are going to be REAL EPIC. With as many people who play PS2 relative to the smaller numbers of PS1, you're going to see multi-hour battles for bases, and when you capture territory it's going to mean something.
So when you hear PS1 reminiscing about that "8-hour bridge fight on old-Cyssor", you'll know what that means when you spend hours fighting over a territory, with resource constraints, and managing that sheer epicness compared to what we have now.
It's going to be a whole other level.
Oh how I miss those times lol!!
And yes - with everything planned... its coming like a freight train! Hell - the new interlink on Hossin almost looks made for hours and hours of fighting - just at the one base
The battles in PS2 ARE NOT massive because the render distance (for infantry) is so damn short. At least in BattleField games, you know that if you're looking somewhere and an enemy isn't there, then an enemy isn't really there. On the other hand, in PS2 you have to physically walk to every little point to make sure some enemy isn't just failing to render due to distance.
oh noes! a negative post on this thread
Glad all you young folk get it now... next issue in gaming... how freeloot sandboxes (with a budget, twitch mechanics, and competent dev's) can save the world...
Haven't touched another FPS since this came out besides the brilliant Natural Selection 2 which is in a category of its own.
My experience with BF3 after loving BF2 and BF2142 was an exercise in frustration due to supernova lighting, blue tint, horrendous UI, tiny maps and dumbed-down gameplay.
That game with a modern/upgraded engine would had have numbers exceeding the BF-series but sadly the dev crew (although really good) was too small to compete (ran with the 31st for almost 6 years).
In PS2 the grand scale is what attracts me and also whats keeping me from playing BF3. Crossing my fingers that SOE will keep delivering cause if so I'm not going to get BF4.
I'll probably get BF4. I got my moneys worth from BF3, and enjoyed it a lot. I've heard BF4 map design is a lot better, and I love Rush mode so much more then conquest.
Pretty much. I can see people shooting at me in BF3 ~50m away, or the other side of the tower garage for example. It's great to hear yourself getting hit and dying without seeing the tracers or being able to shoot back. Or to see your turrets/vehicles getting nuked without even seeing explosions, let alone tracers. This game's rendering distance is heavily flawed.
I'm actually the other way around. BF3 has better combat, the weapons feel like weapons, it isn't glitchy, you never have to worry about being sniped by an engineer turret, due to destruction the battlefield changes and when playing on random servers vehicles actually feel dangerous. PS2, by comparison, feels slow, glitchy, laggy, the combat feels thin and unsatisfying. PS2 has 1 thing over BF3, in my opinion (if people didn't understand that bit) and that's the scale. Of course, the scale is only partially working due to rendering and absurdly poor optimisation. But fights are still bigger than BF3. PS2 is hardly more complex or deeper in any way though. It's an endless team deathmatch. At least BF3 has different playmodes.
I'm not saying all this to whine. There are natural limitations due to the potentially massive scale of PS2. Combat will never be as good as in BF3, it's just not going to happen. Our computers would explode a million times over if they tried to recreate BF3. And naturally they shouldn't. PS2 needs its own identity.
I do wish they'd make the weapons feel more like weapons. They feel so generic somehow. It feels as if every single TR weapon is the same gun. And of course, optimisation. If PS2 would run they way its supposed to run I think it would be a significantly better game. I find it hard to explain, but PS2 feels like it's a shooter from 2005 with some pastel colours slapped on. Which isn't necessarily bad, but I find BF3 much more enjoyable when it comes to shooting stuff. Feel much greater satisfaction killing someone in BF3.
That said, if PS2 can be better optimised I think it'd darn near double the enjoyment people would get out of the game. And I do love the big battles, even though the bases often feel quite small. That could be just in my head though. And I suppose they can't make bases expecting them to have 200 people fighting every time there's a fight. They have to balance things more carefully in that regard.
In essence, I find BF3 to be a better FPS than PS2 but lacks the grand scale of big time, full-on warfare. PS2 satisfies my need to see 20 tanks, a dozen aircrafts and a hundred infantry storm a base. But I find it to be no more than a mediocre FPS.
Separate names with a comma.