Don't dumb down PS2

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

*shakes head*

If you enjoy modern FPS so much, why aren't you playing one right now? 2 new ones are already out. COD and BF3. Did you like them?

So unless you're playing modern FPS games literally 24/7 you don't like them? Are people not allowed to do other things without disliking said FPS games?
Am I the only one having trouble following the rationality in this thread?

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

IPs like star wars and final fantasy are huge names with huge fan bases and that didnt stop their games from failing.

Also metacritic reviews are lawl.

Fact remains diablo 3 was very successful. The only people pissed are the guys who want a diablo 2 clone with better graphics. Such will be the same in planetside 2. Those who want a PS1 clone will undoubtedly be disappointed.

This has nothing to do with "dumbing down" but more of "wah it was not like the last game that came out 10 years ago!"

It is dumbing down across the board on all genres.

D3 was only a success because of D2, without D2, D3 wouldn't have existed.

user reviews are the only accurate reviews.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

*shakes head*

If you enjoy modern FPS so much, why aren't you playing one right now? 2 new ones are already out. COD and BF3. Did you like them?

"Modern FPS" means a lot of things. Games can appear appropriate on the surface but not be when you actually play them. BF3's gameplay, overall, is what a game needs to be, that is, aim down sight, sprinting, etc. But BF3 dumbs the game down in the ways that matter - 3D spotting, killcam, audiospotting, small meatgrind maps with no strategic or tactically deep play, teamwork tools removed, etc.

[Littleman]

Either the OP hasn't really bothered to read much of the available info on PS2, or they're yet another bitter-vet that had hoped PS2 would be essentially PS1 with updated graphics and higher population counts.

I am so glad the game is actually being made more complicated. I felt PS1 was simplistic as hell. No depth to the certs. My cycler was always a cycler. I couldn't tune it into the cycler I wanted it to be. I basically picked what I liked and hit instant action, then performed the same as everyone else with it. I was choosing equipment or vehicle access, but really, that's about as deep as it got.

I had rexo/weapon/weapon/med/eng... just like everyone else.

Let's not forget the lattice system. Chee, if you want predictable! You knew where the enemy was going. It was practically pointed out for you with great big, bold lines! But between base A and base B, there was little point in combat unless the dead space between both points was a bridge (essentially, the only real choke point.)

Your enemies tactics included gal drops on the CC/gen (amp/tech and bio-lab, respectively) or on the back door. MAX crashes were a bit rarer, but you still expected them. And you KNEW there were vultures in the sky just picking off infantry left and right, because flying rocket spamming cameras are hard to work with, amiright? Don't get me started on the oh so interesting "dog fights." Coincidentally, they really did look like dog fights in the natural expectation of the term: two snarling, circling beasts snapping at each other.

Oh, and by the way, your aim need only be over the over-bloated hitbox of the avatar to do damage, and it didn't matter where on that hitbox your shots landed, they did a set amount of damage every time.

Oh yeah... PS2 is totally getting dumbed down... The limitations of the tech (and in some cases, vision like with base/tower design) at the time made PS1 dumbed down by default.

[TheSaltySeagull]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

It is dumbing down across the board on all genres.

D3 was only a success because of D2, without D2, D3 wouldn't have existed.

user reviews are the only accurate reviews.

When D2 launched it attracted a lot of flak because it was not like D1 and received horrible user reviews as a result as well as from technical issues that occurred at the time. We all know how that panned out. Or when SC2 launched people said it sucked because it was not like brood war. Again we know how that went.

But if you truely believe ALL games are being dumbed down then you might as well quit now. This is how games are made and while I agree in certain areas they are not as good in others they are vastly improved.

And for the record I liked BF3, COD not so much because its a little bit fast for my taste.

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

So unless you're playing modern FPS games literally 24/7 you don't like them? Are people not allowed to do other things without disliking said FPS games?
Am I the only one having trouble following the rationality in this thread?

Do you like the new COD or BF3? Those are the modern shooters. Do you like them?

[NoDachi]

I forgot how deep PS1 was with its ADADADAD netcode HA spam.

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

When D2 launched it attracted a lot of flak because it was not like D1 and received horrible user reviews as a result as well as from technical issues that occurred at the time. We all know how that panned out. Or when SC2 launched people said it sucked because it was not like brood war. Again we know how that went.

But if you truely believe ALL games are being dumbed down then you might as well quit now. This is how games are made and while I agree in certain areas they are not as good in others they are vastly improved.

And for the record I liked BF3, COD not so much because its a little bit fast for my taste.

When D2 launched it got very few horrible user reviews, most liked it allot, there were few to no technical issues.

When SC2 launched very few people said it sucked.

You don't like BF3, COD, that's why you are here and not playing the "modern shooter". So obviously the "modern shooter" isn't all that great.

Originally Posted by NoDachi

I forgot how deep PS1 was with its ADADADAD netcode HA spam.

Too bad the "modern shooter" never fixed that exploit.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

When D2 launched it got very few horrible user reviews, most liked it allot, there were few to no technical issues.

When SC2 launched very few people said it sucked.

You don't like BF3, COD, that's why you are here and not playing the "modern shooter". So obviously the "modern shooter" isn't all that great.

Not liking BF3 has nothing to do with preferring PS1's dated gameplay. The basic gameplay of BF3 is correct, but the pacing and map size and other factors are too much like CoD. Those things can be corrected without changing the base gameplay.

50% of BF3's problem is small maps, and THAT will be corrected in PS2.

[NoDachi]

guys remember how great the flight model was.

It wasn't totally just a floating camera with limited mobility.

[Runlikethewind]

When I read this thread I thought of this article http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playi...n-part-1.html/.

[TheSaltySeagull]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

When D2 launched it got very few horrible user reviews, most liked it allot, there were few to no technical issues.

When SC2 launched very few people said it sucked.

You don't like BF3, COD, that's why you are here and not playing the "modern shooter". So obviously the "modern shooter" isn't all that great.



Too bad the "modern shooter" never fixed that exploit.

Not to be a troll but this is the most fail logic I have ever seen, I was there for the launch of both games so I know.

Also the logic of "because you are posting here and not playing BF3 right this second means you dont like t!" is laughable at best. I guess since I am eating a sandwich at this moment and not pizza that means I must hate pizza as well right?

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by Littleman

Either the OP hasn't really bothered to read much of the available info on PS2, or they're yet another bitter-vet that had hoped PS2 would be essentially PS1 with updated graphics and higher population counts.

I'm all for improvement if it's not "diablo 3" style improvement.

I am so glad the game is actually being made more complicated. I felt PS1 was simplistic as hell. No depth to the certs. My cycler was always a cycler. I couldn't tune it into the cycler I wanted it to be. I basically picked what I liked and hit instant action, then performed the same as everyone else with it. I was choosing equipment or vehicle access, but really, that's about as deep as it got.

Tactical depth is more important than having more toys to play with.

I had rexo/weapon/weapon/med/eng... just like everyone else.

Let's not forget the lattice system. Chee, if you want predictable! You knew where the enemy was going. It was practically pointed out for you with great big, bold lines! But between base A and base B, there was little point in combat unless the dead space between both points was a bridge (essentially, the only real choke point.)

Well we all tried the no linky-no cappy in Planetside 1 and WWIIONLINE, it didn't turn out great.

Your enemies tactics included gal drops on the CC/gen (amp/tech and bio-lab, respectively) or on the back door. MAX crashes were a bit rarer, but you still expected them. And you KNEW there were vultures in the sky just picking off infantry left and right, because flying rocket spamming cameras are hard to work with, amiright? Don't get me started on the oh so interesting "dog fights." Coincidentally, they really did look like dog fights in the natural expectation of the term: two snarling, circling beasts snapping at each other.

That all could have been improved, instead of thrown out the window, like everything in D2 was thrown out the window for D3.

Oh, and by the way, your aim need only be over the over-bloated hitbox of the avatar to do damage, and it didn't matter where on that hitbox your shots landed, they did a set amount of damage every time.

Being good with the mouse does not improve tactical richness and depth.

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

Not to be a troll but this is the most fail logic I have ever seen, I was there for the launch of both games so I know.

Also the logic of "because you are posting here and not playing BF3 right this second means you dont like t!" is laughable at best. I guess since I am eating a sandwich at this moment and not pizza that means I must hate pizza as well right?

Makes perfect sense to me. If you were satisfied with the "modern shooter" than you would be playing a "modern shooter" and wouldn't even be thinking of Planetside 2.

But you are here so obviously you aren't satisfied with the "modern shooter", but still you want a "modern shooter". How logical is that?

[GreatMazinkaise]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Not liking BF3 has nothing to do with preferring PS1's dated gameplay. The basic gameplay of BF3 is correct, but the pacing and map size and other factors are too much like CoD. Those things can be corrected without changing the base gameplay.

50% of BF3's problem is small maps, and THAT will be corrected in PS2.

Not necessarily true, but the OP's post is too sweeping in its condemnation... ADS is still a hobbling mechanic designed to kill twitch gaming, but character customization can go a long way toward overcoming that handicap (which is a wonderful feature of the new paradigm).

The removal of the continental lattice system is in fact something that dumbs down the game at the macro level, but is also an unavoidable casualty of the meager continent count at launch (and Higby's misguided interest in removing losing conditions from the game). The resource system is certainly interesting, but it should've been added to the existing lattice system to increase the choices and complexity of the former.