This game is supposed to be unique and it kind of isn't

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by GantryPengy380, Jul 30, 2014.

  1. r4zor

    Not like your doing it different eh?

    You tried hard arguing against the fact that PS2 devs preferred taking certain game mechanics that were taken from other games instead of making this game what it's supposed to be. A successor to PS1. Considering the current state of the game its hard to argue against the fact that (among other things) this lead to flawed gameplay, lots of problems and dwindling populations.

    Again you couldnt admit you actually misunderstood things, instead coming up with such a "witty" response. Great job. NOT.
  2. Paragon Exile

    You're such a joy to talk to.

    1. I never argued against facts, I ceded the point at the beginning. I was arguing with Frostiken's extension of that to an unwarranted conclusion.

    2. This game is Planetside 2, it says so right in the title.

    3. You're right, the game is still effectively in open beta. I would've preferred if the game were released this year rather than 2012, though I suppose the situation with Everquest 2 made the release a priority.

    And finally, this isn't a competition, and I'm not trying to be witty. Truth flows from facts, not charisma.
    • Up x 1
  3. Tricycle


    Which is like a slap across the face for all PS1 vets. From the gameplay point of view PS2 shares very little with the predecessor. The BF/CoD reference is pretty accurate.

    Is this really true? I mean I have been wondering how it is possible for SOE to create such an awesome predecessor and then royally mess up the sequel. The fact that PS1 was designed by proper designers (Tribes was my favorite game back in the days) makes so much sense! Thanks for the info!
    • Up x 1
  4. ColonelChingles

    Not to mention that many vehicles could only be operated by someone wearing one of the less-armored Exosuits... so you had people who would gear themselves up for infantry or vehicle combat, but not for both at the same time. In PS1 you had tankers and you had infantrymen... in PS2 you have infantry that operate tanks.

    This is a purposeful oversimplification of the comparisons going on here, and you know it. To be more accurate, it should be:

    There is game "A1". It has a set of characteristics that are relatively unique.

    Later comes game "B". It also has a set of characteristics that are relatively unique, but most importantly many of these characteristics were different than those in game A1.

    Game "A2" is made, which is supposed to be a reboot of game A1. However, instead of using many of the characteristics in game A1, it uses those characteristics from game B.

    While game A2 is not an exact copy of game A1 or B, we can say that there is a clear trend that game A2 is moving away from game A1 and towards game B.

    That's what Frostiken and r4zor are concerned about. And they cite ample evidence to show that this trend is in fact very real. Whether that trend is a good thing or not is up for debate, but the fact that such a trend exists is irrefutable.
    • Up x 1
  5. Tuco

    Yeah the PS1 infantry class/inventory system is vastly superior to COD/WWIIONLINE/BF2142/BF1942/EnterFPSGameNameHere classes. Makes me sad to think about it.
  6. stalkish

    Well first off, Higby has been saying warpgates will work since BETA, im not holding my breath tbh, and i could point out that the only reason its not sorted yet is because its not a 'normal FPS mechanic'. So another kinda unique feature core to PS1 gameplay has been cast over and given little thought.
    Using classes isnt the only way to acheive balance, that is the exact thing im refering to, unoriginal thought, why not think 'how can we balance without using classes'. And tbh it wouldnt realy be original since FPS games havent always had classes.
    Ive actualy kinda changed my opinion on directive rewards, while i think they are a bit boring (same gun diff colour, single colour camo, etc.) i think they are respresentative of what you need to do to gain them.
    Nothings hard to balance if SOE get a backbone, same point to community backlash.
    No its not final fantasy...:confused: not sure of the relevance to my point there.
    Yes devs have reasons, how awesome of you to elaborate on them.
    Accept its not just aircraft, slow moving tanks also have lockons against them, deployed sundies can be locked, ESFs have lockon A2A they also have laser guide semi lock on missiles for A2G work. Id like to see a slight increase in dumbfire rocket speed to encourage aiming and leading.
    Not sure what your getting at with shotguns, they arnt the only weapon in the game, unique weapons like the lasher should be encouraged, instead the VS have had their no bullet drop almost removed since its not similar to normal FPS games. We dont have a radiator, or a malestrom. The radiator from PS1 could kill the occupants of a vehicle without harming the vehicle (radiation), was a pretty original mechanic (or not but its no very normal in FPS gams).

    My turret idea was just off the top of my head, i never mentioned reping it, my vision was for a device that attached to the gen, could not be repd or damaged and overloaded the gen. The only way to stop it would be to use the engi rep gun. Whether it would work or not is up for discussion but the point is it would be an additional item, and an additional thought when attacking a base 'do we have a gen sabotage device with us'. same thing for infils, does an infil take recon detect stuff OR do they take a REK (remote electronics kit) to allow them to hack terminals? More thought, more choice, more options in the game, less run around and hold buttons. But again thinking isnt the current FOTM when it comes to FPS games, mindnumbing simplness and alot of XP flashes on your screen to tell you your doing a good job is the 'modern' way of gaming.
  7. Colt556

    I skimmed through the thread and it seems like everyone's argument for how PS2 is unique is that it's an MMOFPS. Ok... anything else? I mean is the fact that PS2 has a big map really the ONLY unique thing about it? Because, due to rendering individual battles are basically what you'd get on battlefield. 32vs32 compared to planetside's 48vs48. You can't render anymore than that so it doesn't matter if you have 500 people in a single battle. The overall gameplay is very similar to battlefield, the various mechanics are pretty similar. So other than the large map size (which really isn't unique as every other MMOFPS features the same thing) what sets PS2 apart? Literally the ONLY selling point for PS2 is that there's no other modern MMOFPS games. That doesn't make the actual gameplay unique, though.
    • Up x 1