Could PS2 be too similar to Planetside?

[Vancha]

There's been a lot of people worried that SoE could change something in Planetside 2 that ruined a fundamental aspect of what made Planetside so great, but having seen that the same empires and some vehicles are (probably) returning, I'm starting to wonder if PS2 could suffer from similarity.

With Planetside having been the equivalent of free for the past month there have been old names coming back, only to leave, bored, within a day or two because it's the same experience they've had time and time before. Despite graphical and engine updates, if it offered too similar an experience, might we see Planetside players rapidly lose interest in Planetside 2?

Personally, I'd like to see the weapons/vehicles change. I'd be quite happy with all the empire-specific weaps and vehs being different. I've been fighting against Lashers, MCGs and Jackhammers for years...no matter which engine they're on, I doubt the experience would be that different. Lets see how the NC/TR/VS tech and tactics have changed since the days of Planetside.

What would you like different?

[Furret]

Maybe I haven't played the game long enough to get bored of it, but i still think its a great game. If PS:Next is PlanetSide with better graphics, I'm still gonna buy it.

[LordReaver]

The reason people get bored, is because they haven't added anything in years. As long as PS2 keeps evolving, it shouldn't suffer the same fate.

[DviddLeff]

Multiplayer FPS typically have a lifespan of a few, maybe several months outside of a core of players who are in clans or just click with the games style. Only a few standard FPS games have lasted longer with a decent sized player base; Counterstrike, Team Fortress 2 are prime examples.

What made them successful? Counterstrike perfectly nailed the quick play method; each round lasted mere minutes yet you could pay it for hours without getting bored. It barely changed over the years but it filled its niche extremely well. TF2 was pretty much identical to TFC, yet the style of the game along with the unending updates from Valve keep the community engaged. For me at least these two stand out against CoD and BF which with a few exceptions in the series are only active until the next version is released.

The original PS held its players probably as well as any standard multiplayer FPS did; after 6 months populations had dropped fast, especially with WoW releasing which siphoned players from every game to it and not forgetting Core Combat...

To remain faithful to the spirit of the game, and the existing core players it must retain the original central design ideas. These key features in my eyes are:

• Massive combat with hundreds of players on each side in the same area.
• New players able to stand toe to toe with veterans and have an equal chance of success if using the right equipment.
• Option to fight as infantry, ground vehicles or aircraft.
• Reliance on other players to succeed due to limited individual roles.

So what does PS2 have to do differently? As I see it it failed on these aspects:

• Lack of potential player base; at release almost all MMO games were RPGs with quests and PS was radically different from them as it was an FPS (with the exception of World War 2 Online). This meant that it was really aiming for bored MMORPG players and FPS players that wanted larger battles and more persistence for their characters. Now we see many standard FPS games having awards and unlocks for persistent characters, and there have been far more MMO games to test the waters and get people interested.
• Monthly fee; FPS players themselves had experienced Battlefield 1942 which probably was the most similar game to PS at its release. This was a game that had large fights (although only 64 players) yet there was no monthly fee. FPS players still are not used to paying monthly so subscriptions are going to be an issue until they are used to it. Ideally I would instigate new payment system with options for no recurring cost, but with reduced BR/CR limits.
• Under par game mechanics: No headshots, poor flight physics and an odd recoil system all turned off many players at release as these were all features that Battlefield 1942, other FPS and flight games had perfected before Planetsides release. PS2 has to feel right and familiar for players coming in from other games immediately, not awkward.
• Poor graphics; while most people see past under par graphics (particularly in MMO games due to their massive nature) there are many who will not even attempt to play a game with poor graphics, especially FPS players who are fickle beasts. Confusingly the games graphics got worse over the years as the developers tweaked it to get better performance.
• Poor post release development; Core Combat was simply not the urban combat many people expected, and BFRs could have been fantastic heavy tanks yet destroyed the game for many due to their shocking implementation and year long beating with a nerf bat to get them to fit in at all. Add to this a seemingly 4-6 month gap between game updates and the huge influx of hackers in recent years. With decent updates the game could still be going strong, with new base designs, continents, vehicles and weapons, not to forget graphics we might not even be wanting a PS2.

[Grimster]

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

Multiplayer FPS typically have a lifespan of a few, maybe several months outside of a core of players who are in clans or just click with the games style. Only a few standard FPS games have lasted longer with a decent sized player base; Counterstrike, Team Fortress 2 are prime examples.

What made them successful? Counterstrike perfectly nailed the quick play method; each round lasted mere minutes yet you could pay it for hours without getting bored. It barely changed over the years but it filled its niche extremely well. TF2 was pretty much identical to TFC, yet the style of the game along with the unending updates from Valve keep the community engaged. For me at least these two stand out against CoD and BF which with a few exceptions in the series are only active until the next version is released.

The original PS held its players probably as well as any standard multiplayer FPS did; after 6 months populations had dropped fast, especially with WoW releasing which siphoned players from every game to it and not forgetting Core Combat...

To remain faithful to the spirit of the game, and the existing core players it must retain the original central design ideas. These key features in my eyes are:

• Massive combat with hundreds of players on each side in the same area.
• New players able to stand toe to toe with veterans and have an equal chance of success if using the right equipment.
• Option to fight as infantry, ground vehicles or aircraft.
• Reliance on other players to succeed due to limited individual roles.

So what does PS2 have to do differently? As I see it it failed on these aspects:

• Lack of potential player base; at release almost all MMO games were RPGs with quests and PS was radically different from them as it was an FPS (with the exception of World War 2 Online). This meant that it was really aiming for bored MMORPG players and FPS players that wanted larger battles and more persistence for their characters. Now we see many standard FPS games having awards and unlocks for persistent characters, and there have been far more MMO games to test the waters and get people interested.
• Monthly fee; FPS players themselves had experienced Battlefield 1942 which probably was the most similar game to PS at its release. This was a game that had large fights (although only 64 players) yet there was no monthly fee. FPS players still are not used to paying monthly so subscriptions are going to be an issue until they are used to it. Ideally I would instigate new payment system with options for no recurring cost, but with reduced BR/CR limits.
• Under par game mechanics: No headshots, poor flight physics and an odd recoil system all turned off many players at release as these were all features that Battlefield 1942, other FPS and flight games had perfected before Planetsides release. PS2 has to feel right and familiar for players coming in from other games immediately, not awkward.
• Poor graphics; while most people see past under par graphics (particularly in MMO games due to their massive nature) there are many who will not even attempt to play a game with poor graphics, especially FPS players who are fickle beasts. Confusingly the games graphics got worse over the years as the developers tweaked it to get better performance.
• Poor post release development; Core Combat was simply not the urban combat many people expected, and BFRs could have been fantastic heavy tanks yet destroyed the game for many due to their shocking implementation and year long beating with a nerf bat to get them to fit in at all. Add to this a seemingly 4-6 month gap between game updates and the huge influx of hackers in recent years. With decent updates the game could still be going strong, with new base designs, continents, vehicles and weapons, not to forget graphics we might not even be wanting a PS2.

I agree with you on almost every aspect of that post. Except for the headshot part which in my opinion don't belong in PS.

[BlazingSun]

A Planetside with just a facelift won't be enough for a MMO released in 2012. Basic concept is fine and I agree with your points.
Urban Warfare for example is almost a must for the new game in my opinion. Fighting in the middle of nowhere for some shitty copy-paste bases all the time is lame.

[BorisBlade]

Originally Posted by KornDemon

A Planetside with just a facelift won't be enough for a MMO released in 2012. Basic concept is fine and I agree with your points.
Urban Warfare for example is almost a must for the new game in my opinion. Fighting in the middle of nowhere for some shitty copy-paste bases all the time is lame.

i hope any urban combat is limited. It has its place, but I dont like it, its just close quarters run and gun, feels like playing doom. Cant use the majority of things in the game in those situations, its pretty much HA all the time and tahts it with the random AV for a max here and there. Basically its like base fights. The only difference is you run out of one buliding 5 or 10 feet and then into another.

Not sure what "middle of nowhere" you refer to, but considering there arent population centers or anything, then every single base either is middle of nowhere or none are. Yeah the bases could use more variety but tahts more of a function of age and lack of updates, it was plenty of variety back then. Look at any other FPS. They are teeny tiny maps with a bunch of crap thrown together in the middle of nowhere for you to mindlessly zerg around and shoot each other.

[Vancha]

I suppose I should have made clearer that my question was geared more towards gameplay than reality. Of course PS2 will need better advertising, post-release development etc.

Urban cities is a good one. I could imagine some 2142-esque environments being great battlefields, though I'm also remembering how cities were placed in the C&C games. That mix of the cities amongst the player "bases" seems like a good parallel to how urban fighting could be implemented in PS2.

We know that the TR, VS and NC are the shattered remains of what was once a united population. Having urban locales in various states of disrepair which were once inhabited by that united population would make sense.

[Raymac]

You know, this really is the fundamental challenge of any sequel, whether it be a video game, movie, or even a book. You have to find that balance between the familiarity and the magic that made the original special, but still be able to inject new elements that improve upon the original.

This is the one thing I really don't envy the devs on. There's alot of pressure to get that balance just right and there is no set formula. So I'm hoping Planetside 2 will be more Godfather 2 and less Phantom Menace, if you catch my meaning.

[Redshift]

Armour unlock with purely cosmetic value like halo:reach would be fantastic and really does work with keeping people playing,

buying actual bases with outfit points would work too, pride would make outfits defend them and thus care what happened to the conts

balancing vehicles would be nice, i.e getting rid of the 35 mm on the lib, or making it only arm if there's passengers etc, drivers should not get guns in multi crew vehicles as it just leads to them being used for the wrong jobs

i'd like larger indoor area's safe from vehicles so we get less choke points in bases too, hopefully discouraging spam a bit

[Logit]

Originally Posted by SRxRedshift

i'd like larger indoor area's safe from vehicles so we get less choke points in bases too, hopefully discouraging spam a bit

THHHIIISSSSS

35 people in a 2 person hallway just doesn't work.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Logit

THHHIIISSSSS

35 people in a 2 person hallway just doesn't work.

eh. I prefer multiple entrances. The small hallways work. Ever play that welkin 4591 game? It had large open bases and sucked. They felt too open. Maybe there is a middle ground I'm not seeing.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

eh. I prefer multiple entrances. The small hallways work. Ever play that welkin 4591 game? It had large open bases and sucked. They felt too open. Maybe there is a middle ground I'm not seeing.

well i like for example, fights in the vbay of a tech plant or through the rooms near a BD, i dislike 60 people lobbing plasma at each other up and down a flight of stairs

What i'd really love is a pure AV (zero damage to troops or maxes) turret above any door that can be camped by tanks that can be controlled and repaired from inside, since door camping is possibly the most annoying thing in the world (for both attackers and defenders)

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

eh. I prefer multiple entrances. The small hallways work. Ever play that welkin 4591 game? It had large open bases and sucked. They felt too open. Maybe there is a middle ground I'm not seeing.

The problem is the population fighting for a base is so variable, it is impossible to design an ideal size. The best compromise would be bases that have additional entrances/areas to fight that open or close automatically based on the population of the SOI. More players, more wide open areas inside, and more entrances/paths to the vitals.

[Grimster]

Originally Posted by Raymac

You know, this really is the fundamental challenge of any sequel, whether it be a video game, movie, or even a book. You have to find that balance between the familiarity and the magic that made the original special, but still be able to inject new elements that improve upon the original.

This is the one thing I really don't envy the devs on. There's alot of pressure to get that balance just right and there is no set formula. So I'm hoping Planetside 2 will be more Godfather 2 and less Phantom Menace, if you catch my meaning.

I agree, if they make the sequel Planetside with updated graphics they are not going to appeal to the wider audience. Sure it would most likely satisfy the hardcore fan(me for example ). But if they want the sequel to succeed then they probably have to throw in something that makes the game fresh.

This is just my humble opinion though but I have a hard time seeing that a Planetside with updated graphics would become more popular than its original.