Originally Posted by 2coolforu
Right, 8 years, care to enlighten me on the year of release of Starcraft and the year of release of Starcraft 2? Or the year of release of Battlefield 1942 and the planned release of Battlefield 3?
I imagine you are quite capable of doing that yourself, I don't know why you'd want me to do it for you?
You also give special pleading to the RTS genre, "It hasn't changed in years" Bull Fucking Shit. Have you played Sim City? Or how about Total war, World in Conflict? End War... There are plenty of strategy games that broke the 'build a base. Spam 20 tanks. Kill enemy" layout, however what you are trying to avoid saying is that C&C stayed like C&C because that's what a fan expected, just like Total War stayed similar despite switching time periods and even weaponry (muskets) because that's the play style of the genre.
Soooo your argument is there are different TYPES of games in a said genre (which in my orignial comment I never once said there wasn't) But the face of RTS games has not changed much in recent years. C&C stayed like C&C because most of the early C&C games were simply reskinned games on the same engine. Why fix what isn't broken?
Imagine the uproar that would have happened if Starcraft 2 actually got release as a Dawn of War style game, where you had to capture resource points around the map? And your argument that GTA switched from top down to 3D is equally irrelevant; Starcraft switched from a top down 2D game to a 3D game where you can actually change your view point, zoom in and rotate your screen, it's totally different. In Command and Conquer 95 we had a 2d game with sprites.
In both DoW and Starcraft you conquer resource points, the difference only lies in that in SC you have to mine the resources manually, and DoW its just a point that feeds you resources. As to your second point you are now agreeing that success came with changes to the game? So why are you mad PS2 is changing? I am confused. Unless of course you missed that the change from 2d to 3d was aesthetic in one game (Starcraft) and completely changed the control mechanics in the other(GTA).
I'm also not saying that taking tidbits from Battlefield is a bad thing, it's a great game. However we should consider how different Planetside is, it's larger scale and has more inherent teamwork and often a different style of fighting to the Battlefield games. The role of a medic in Planetside is different to the role of a medic in Battlefield, a Battlefield medic revives people to stop their points going down, a Planetside medic heals someone simply for teamworks sake and keeping your squad healthy and alive - it's a matter of convenience. There are many different situations and a far more diverse selection of roles and playstyles in Planetside than there are in Battlefield, Planetside's shooting mechanics left a lot to be desired so bring in better ones but don't forget the differences we have to account for.
This point is silly. In both BF and PS a medics job is EXACTLY the same; keep your team alive so you can take control of the objective. The ticker in BF1942 / BF2 / BF2142 goes down based on how many points on the map you control, unless we are talking about the RUSH game type in BFBC2? Your saying the role of a gamewide class is changed by one of many gametypes in said game? Once again, I do not want Planetside to BE Battlefield, but it should learn from it.
What Planetside had as a game, and now as a series was large scale persistent battles where you could have 500 people shooting at each other, dogfighting with each other or healing each other, with nearly every vehicle people had to work together and this is a difference compared to Battlefield. In Battlefield you can easily get along on your own, you can killwhore a Jet VERY easily or you can man a tank on your own and heal it yourself. You can be a one man army if you wish and there is no reason to squad up beyond having a mobile spawn point to get you into the action quicker, this isn't what we want to see in Planetside. The entire reason Planetside died was because a vehicle was introduced that trumped teamwork entirely and could fill all roles with one pilot, that vehicle was called a BFR and it resulted in Werner having about 4000 players online during the Bending to about 400 afterwords.
Now THIS point my friend is a GREAT one and I hope more than anything that the Devs keep this in mind. I do NOT want any one man main battle tanks, under any circumstances. Planetside was never about the one man army and I hope they keep it that way, because honestly this point here is a major reason Planetside was what it was. On this point I completely agree.
And yeah, go ahead with the ad hominems "Everyone who disagrees with me is a fat 12 year old ass nerd", that is exactly the argument that brings the picture of a crying baby to me.
I can not say I disagree with this.
Bear in mind that I've agreed with almost everything the devs have added, I think territory control is cool, the iron sights look awesome, more specialized roles - hell yeah, headshots are needed. I'm just debating the fine details of what has been added, in fact the only things I really disagree with is the possible advantages old players would have on newbies and the removal of sanctuaries so go ahead and make ad hominems and straw men.
|