Why is it over time this game is slowly turning into Planetside 1?

Doors pls, this mystical invention will change all of auraxis.

You're disagreement sounds more like an agreement. Read the entire post?

You mentioned more than just the ANT and base power, but you make it sound like towers in PS1 could spew vehicles. They couldn't. If you meant that players could move vehicles to the rear and strike from there, that isn't something exclusive to PS1.

However, on the note of those non-latticed towers, I've felt for a while now that outposts should have remained off the grid, and potentially even become the resource nodes, while bases (and now towers) are just the vehicle factories they were in PS1. Back cappers would probably love to have their resource constriction "black ops" BS back, though the hack times would have to be long or there would have to be no EXP reward for their efforts to discourage rampant abuse of the tactic.

The only thing this game has in common with Planetside, is the name. All else is superficial. We each have our own opinions as to whether that's good or bad - personally I'd love to see an updated, modernised Planetside, in addition to this game.

Other than the name, what did PS2 take from PS1?

1. Three factions
2. Names of vehicles (notice I did not say the vehicles)
3. Lattice Link
4. * * * * I am really trying hard to find other similarities * * * *

TLR

Planetside 2 is like Planetside 1 .............in name only.

PS1 was a better game than PS2 on every damn point cept hit detection so i consider this a briliant thing!

Its a bad idea. PS1 was a failure, so making this game like PS1 is not a very good strategy.
They had something at the launch date.
Today's PS2 is far, far from that.

Pretending that "everything is going according to plan" isn't true.

PS2 went full 180° since the beginning. I remember Beta was a development marathon with gameplay concepts being turned upside down every 3 weeks because none of them worked, which consumed a lot of time and led to a lack of polish in certain areas.
Not saying that PS1 did everything right, but it had a global coherence, a "big picture" that lacked in PS2

Hopefully, it'll get better in a few months thanks to the ****ton of feedback gathered since release, but we're still beta testing very important stuff and can't be entirely sure how things will work out.

the game can never truly be like PS1 because there's a class system with no cert cap, so everyone will eventually be able to cert everything and perform every role in battle. there's no need to specialize when you can (eventually) have everything. this gets even worse with no same-server alt limits or alt account limits.

so any attempts to graft PS1 mechanics onto PS2 are really only superficial when character progression/specialization is removed, and faction loyalty is broken by no restraints on alts. it would have been much more satisfying to see PS2 develop mechanics different from both PS1 and other modern shooters, to create a unique new game.

furthermore, the business model is F2P instead of a subscriber-based model like PS1, so there will never truly be balance. the gameplay will always be skewed by new cash shop items and a neverending nerf-buff cycle. the incentive behind F2P is to cash in more frequently with new, powerful items, instead of maintaining a stable subscriber base.

It doesn't, but it makes them successful games, which is important if you want development and support to continue. Besides that, the original CoDs and Battlefields were great games that would be considered simplistic and cumbersome by today's standards. It's entirely possible for a game to be accessible and deep at the same time. On that note, complexity =/= depth.

I don't know if I agree with that assessment.

For me, games like COD4 and BF3 were great games because they successfully created an immersive environment with their gameplay, graphics, and sound effects.

The games of old were better but PS1 was a game that came out in a completely different era of FPS gaming where everyone ran their own servers, you didn't have a sub model for purchase, and you had all the mod tools you wanted at your disposal. Flash forward 10 years and FPS's have been trivialized to the point where kids with down-syndrome have no problem playing them. I'm not saying PS1 was for kids with down-syndrome, but it was a model where you literally didn't have to do anything to play the game but to play it because there were zero degrees of freedom to the game. Back then people didn't give up those freedoms for games because they were all techies, dorks, and nerds who lived to bend the game to their will.

the only thing BF3 has over its predecessor is graphics and sound
everything else about BF2/2142 was better - they were much deeper games with objectives other than "capture A/B/C point" like being able to take out enemys satellite dish among other strategic objectives or the commander mode and its advantages which they just ignored for BF3
even the maps were bigger in BF2/2142 compared to BF3

everything that mattered in BF3 was in previous battlefield games but they diddnt include things that was great in previous battlefied games in BF3

BF3 was a simple version of its predecessors (especially when it comes to flight controls/flight model - anyone can fly in BF3) with smaller maps and less objectives

even the graphics were borked on BF3 with lense flares everywhere and its horrible blueish tint (on some maps more than others) which one looks better to you?

How exactly was PS1 a failure?

Also, what did PS2 have at launch date? You are implying that it was better than what it is at the moment. Why?

Nm, as long as YOU like it, its all that matters, right?

Hurrah for more PS1 features!

PS1 is/was a game with some very nicely interlocking mechanics, such as the base/supply system or the different types of armour.

I would love to see the return of doors, LLUs, NTU runs and inventory/class customisation. I'd love to see vehicles with entry/exit animations, EMP grenades and outpost towers.

Rivers and bridges.

I really liked the customisation options for the different armour types. I liked that if you wanted to be an engineer and repair vehicles, you had to either give up your primary weapon or go in heavy armour. I liked that anyone could carry a hacking tool, but they had to give something up for it.

One thing I really miss was armour and vehicle restrictions. It meant that pulling a Reaver as a heavy-assault for quick transport wasn't an option; you pulled a Flash, you hitched a ride or you changed into something lighter. It meant that when you EMP'd that tank, the guy who hopped out wasn't going to be a heavy with a LMG.

I don't think it was needed to point this out. Everyone who was here since the beginning knew they released it before it was fleshed out and that it needed a few more months of beta to put in some essential features. This is just them catching up and fleshing the game out more.

Hey CS didn't fall into obscurity. All they have done is reskin using new engines for Source and Global Ops. They NEVER pretended it wasn't the same game it always has been. All they wanted was a new looking game that was running on their new engine. Also remember that CS is 13 years old (almost 14). 1.6 alone is 11 or 12 years old. All they have done is release a new engine to run it with every 6 years. COD and BF drop a new version every year with the same 6 year old engine.

Nope, don't group CS in with CoD and BF. CS is and always will be the same great game (1.6) no matter what iteration it is. CoD and BF just keep getting crappier each version as more and more gets stripped away.

the only reason that PS1 "failed" was the BFR's. they were completely OP, and ruined the game. many considered the BFRs the beginning of the end.

the devs at PS2 have already said that they will not make the same mistakes twice, which means no BFRs.

WInner!!

Give this guy a job SOE, fire Malorn please. I really am not sure he is the same Malorn that played Planetside 1..

Higher this guy, he GETS IT!

I didn't really mean that CS had fell into obscurity only that its success was based on that first game. I was talking about how PS1 fell into obscurity because it was ahead of its time.