From a tactical gamer, jaded by 'trendy' modern shooters

[diLLa]

Originally Posted by leecH

@op when i was your age i played this:

you rock sir. So did I

[ArmedZealot]

Planetside was not a tactical shooter, nor will PS2 be.

Planetside was a strategic game however, and PS2 has not lost those elements.

[Sledgecrushr]

I can imagine the game right now as I sit at my desk. Me and a hundred devil dogs are winding our way through valleys looking to flank the enemy. Organized into a staggered armour column with our MI safely tucked away and covered by air power. And being relentlessly assaulted by waves of near zombie like hordes of suicidal newbs. Outfit tactics will win the day.

[Dloan]

Originally Posted by brighthand

I never played the first Planetside, but I have done quite a bit of research on it,
and from what I have discovered, this game -if left untampered- will be the game of the decade.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

"elitism" another term like "overpowered" and "unbalanced" that are thrown around way, way, too much...

It's just as simple as he has strong feelings on something, and dislikes the tendency to appeal to the masses. By definition, appealing to the masses means simplistic and generic, so as to be easily accessible to the most people. Any thing firm in one direction or another risks alienating swathes of people, so PERFECTLY NEUTRAL is the preferred modus operandi. Good example: politics. Take absolutely NO stance on anything, that way you don't offend ANYBODY. Of course, this also means you have nothing of value to offer anyone... Same principle applies to games, and anything else for that matter.

Not saying that's what SOE is doing. That's just what many developers/producers (whether or entertainment or other products) are doing.

Ironically, the catering to everybody so as not to lose anybody approach, inevitably ends up losing large numbers of people who do have standards/beliefs one way or another... I guess it's a catch 22.

[FuzzyandBlue]

I'm having trouble applauding the OP for this post. Maybe I'm just ignorant to all of the old school tactical shooters out there. But can some one give an example? Can someone tell me what divides an "old school tactical" shooter from a "modern day trendy" shooter?

My issue with the post in general is that the OP didn't provide an example of a tactical shooter. He mentioned Killzone 2, which takes away aim assist and compensates by making everyone move slower. Watch a video of that game the base movement speed is turtle slow.

He said that Killzone 2 awards the skilled player with the kill. But so does every other competent FPS out there; even CoD. If you have ever played BF3 or CoD against a really good player 9-10 they kill you in one on one fights.

As someone who really enjoys a good match of BF3, I get the felling that people who make post like this just aren't that good at most modern shooters.

[Badjuju]

Well said. Hopefully the devs keep this in mind as we move through beta and things get tweaked.

[Top Sgt]

I agree with you OP

problem is most publishers and devs have sold out games to maximize money.

COD (console) started this trend.. make a shooter dumbed down and very easy to pick up and rambo play, market it to kids etc .. Well they made alot of money doing so as sales went bananas.

But.. this also hurt gaming (shooterwise) a ton As many publishers and devs followed suit hoping to cash in on the cod sales etc.. now the market is flooded with easy pick up and play shooters that have no skill base play to them at all.

In these games it's designed so a brand new player can engage a Highly skilled player and they can have an equal chance as these games now are based on "connection wins" especially on console.

It sucks to us older skill based vets of shooters.. but money wins out in most cases.

So far PS2 does not seem to be too bad in that area.. As long as they don't majorly change things from beta until release the game looks to be ok so far in that area.

Hopefully SOE let's them stay that way.

[brighthand]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

I absolutely do not think that my opinion on how the game should play does not count because I am not a veteran of Planetside 1. I am a passionate fan of Planetside 2, and my opinion should be worth as much as anyone elses in the beta.

Not saying OP ment this, but I just thought I'd make it clear.

Other than that.. Theres something about OPs tone I don't like, a vague hint of elitism perhaps. But it's subtle.
Otherwise, i find myself nodding in agreement. I too, want Planetside 2 to be a rich and complex experience, not another cookie-cutter shooter of the gunmetal gray and dogshit brown school.

So good show, OP. Jolly good show.

Don't worry my friend, no elitism. Just my fatigue from a stangnating genre that takes its cues from some of the most generic shooters arround, which in turn is dictated by the behavioral attributes commonly found in a significant fraction of the audience that plays those types of games: instant gratification, entitlement, no desire to learn or try.

Its like going to the swimming pool during adult swim hours or something and still finding a bunch of screeming kids and babies, still paddling around- and some crapping their diapers in the water.

I am not saying that everyone who plays games like COD is a kid. I have a friend who is quite an intellegent, civilized and respectable person, doing Law at Vanderbilt actually- plus he is a complete beast at Starcraft 2 online, and he loves COD; There are many others like him.

I am saying that let the kids have their swim time, and let us players who want a deeper more mature experience, have ours.

I would like my search for the ultimate FPS to end at Planetside 2.

[Comet]

From what I can tell from the research I've done on PS2 (Never played PS1) it is going to give the players the most tools and offer the most depth strategically (at the very least...) compared to any FPS out there right now. If the PS2 players want that big experience and that big reward for being a smart player, that experience will be found in PS2 if you and your squad mates want it to.

Even if there are some parts of the game you don't care for, this game will reward tactical thinking players if everything they've shown us so far gels well with things like the command tree and they stay true to their current design philosophy.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by brighthand

Don't worry my friend, no elitism.

Its like going to the swimming pool during adult swim hours or something and still finding a bunch of screeming kids and babies, still paddling around- and some crapping their diapers in the water.

Nope, none at all.

[EisenKreutzer]

Originally Posted by brighthand

I would like my search for the ultimate FPS to end at Planetside 2.

I concur wholeheartedly.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@Fuzzyblue

Tactical people tend to favor realism and emphasis on teamwork. Whereas most games center almost solely around twitch reflexes and running balls to the walls everywhere. It's TeamDeathMatch syndrome. A bunch of independent people who happen to be on the same team.

It's not that teamplay is impossible in such games, quite the contrary in fact. It's just that the presented game style encourages solo run amuckness. Simplistic mechanics and an emphasis on "everybody being able to do/have access to anything" so that "everyone feels equal".

In many ways, they try to take a field that is not inherently "equal" (as people have various skill levels and abilities to comprehend things at different rates) and water it all down where the field is more even. Not that there are not still "skilled" and "unskilled' players.

Many games cater to the instant gratification "I-WIN" tendency. Everybody wants to win, of course. That's why we're all here. It's a matter of perspective and approach, really.

This is not directly related to TTK (shorter TTKs are actually more realistic). It's a complicated topic. Perhaps I've explained it in a easy to read/understand manner?

Examples, as you asked for

Tactical Shooter: Counterstrike, Arma
Games characterised by lots of options and complexity. Not that they are "hard to learn", but that not everyone is going to be good at everything.

Twitch Shooters: Unreal Tournament, Call of Duty, Battlefield
Games characterised by lots of options, persay, but little complexity, and center on reflexes more than not. Everything is simplified so as to be usable by people who have no idea what the hell they are looking at, so anyone can get in and feel like a "badass" of whatever flavor they choose, be it infantry, tank driver, helicopter pilot, etc. Low learning curve, in general. Skill is present, but the simplification of mechanics greatly reduces its effects.

[brighthand]

Originally Posted by FuzzyandBlue

I'm having trouble applauding the OP for this post. Maybe I'm just ignorant to all of the old school tactical shooters out there. But can some one give an example? Can someone tell me what divides an "old school tactical" shooter from a "modern day trendy" shooter?

My issue with the post in general is that the OP didn't provide an example of a tactical shooter. He mentioned Killzone 2, which takes away aim assist and compensates by making everyone move slower. Watch a video of that game the base movement speed is turtle slow.

He said that Killzone 2 awards the skilled player with the kill. But so does every other competent FPS out there; even CoD. If you have ever played BF3 or CoD against a really good player 9-10 they kill you in one on one fights.

As someone who really enjoys a good match of BF3, I get the felling that people who make post like this just aren't that good at most modern shooters.

My gameplay in bf3 is all over the place depending on how I feel. And since I don't care about my k/d, I usually get myself killed trying to get an objective, and then other times I down people left and right holding a capture point. These days I have been doing alot of flying in the Super Huey, and that tends to get rammed, JAVed, t90ed, etc no matter how well you fly- and I consider myself to be a good pilot- see video


What I'm saying is, my stats won't be an accurate reflection of my skill, but I do consider myself a good player, and my post does not address frustration with not getting kills in afrementioned games, it addresses the dumbing-down of the meta game, which is entirely irrelevant to whether one is a good player or not; if tactical options and other details arent there in the game in the first place, then they simply aren't there; and that is something that some people, including myself, take issue with.

[soulsurfsublime]

I to hope that this game is more tactical and organized outfit driven. Like I stated in another post about k/d, I think if you find a core group of players or better yet an outfit that is like minded to your play-style all will be well.