Why fight for territory? - Page 3

Arrius · 2012-08-10, 10:58 PM

It's about the experience that no other game offers.

It's about being in an intense battle over a choke point where each side uses every tactic they can muster... you want to push back the battle line just 100 yards and it's over. Then you look up and it's been 3 hours and you realize you've been advancing and pulling back over the same 50 yards the entire time... and it was the most fun you've had in quite awhile.

You really have to play the game to fully understand it.

cellinaire · 2012-08-10, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Otleaz

More meaningful than PS2 at least.

Right. And I know we should keep discussing in the future about how to improve MMOFPS as a viable genre and how to improve the 'meaningness' of it, however, if I only cared so much about the 'result' and 'meaningness', I'd have never played any mmofps.

Ashnal · 2012-08-10, 11:07 PM

I'd say a base capture or defense is roughly equivalent to a round win in a round based shooter. Especially due to the way the ticket system works.

"But that base can be taken away from you!"

Roughly equivalent to losing a second round on the same map in a round based shooter.

Honestly, I think I and many others will get that win/lose feeling when a base you've been attacking/defending for a while pops up the big "Facility Captured!"/"Facility Lost" banner that the UI emphasizes.

The territory metagame is just a way to tie all the bases together and allow for larger scale battles around the bases, as well as some strategic target choices.

Would you be happy if each base was disconnected with a loading screen between each one? That'd make it much more similar to a round based shooter.

Noon · 2012-08-10, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Arrius

It's about the experience that no other game offers.

It's about being in an intense battle over a choke point where each side uses every tactic they can muster... you want to push back the battle line just 100 yards and it's over. Then you look up and it's been 3 hours and you realize you've been advancing and pulling back over the same 50 yards the entire time... and it was the most fun you've had in quite awhile.

You really have to play the game to fully understand it.

^ QFT

Instant gratification isn't why you will be playing this game, you will live for moments like these. Straight up warfare.

If they haven't already I wouldn't be surprised if there was an achievement system implemented eventually. Seems to be a standard thing with most games now.

Gugabalog · 2012-08-10, 11:52 PM

If anything I consider round based games to be meaningless. You won!

Bf3: What did you win? "Uhhhh...The game?"

PS2: I won! We got the base! Let's use it to mobilize on the next one! OMG WE CAN USE IT FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN EGO BOOSTING?!?

/rant done

Stated as a Non-PS1 vet.

Otleaz · 2012-08-11, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by cellinaire

Right. And I know we should keep discussing in the future about how to improve MMOFPS as a viable genre and how to improve the 'meaningness' of it, however, if I only cared so much about the 'result' and 'meaningness', I'd have never played any mmofps.

I've played WW2 Online, that is an mmofps. Guess what? It has a winning team and a losing team.

Originally Posted by Gugabalog

If anything I consider round based games to be meaningless. You won!

Bf3: What did you win? "Uhhhh...The game?"

PS2: I won! We got the base! Let's use it to mobilize on the next one! OMG WE CAN USE IT FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN EGO BOOSTING?!?

What is the difference between capturing a point in BF3 and capturing a base in PS2(other than the fact that you get closer to victory in BF3 and get closer to nothing in PS2)?

If you want to cheer and celebrate after capturing objectives, you can do that in BF3 too.

In the end, no if you try saying collecting victories is meaningless, you might as well go all the way and say life itself is meaningless. Winning and losing has been central to games since pong.

Ashnal · 2012-08-11, 12:31 AM

You've even said it yourself.

Originally Posted by Otleaz

In the end, no if you try saying collecting victories is meaningless, you might as well go all the way and say life itself is meaningless. Winning and losing has been central to games since pong.

What if I told you collecting bases in PS2 means more than a win in BF3? That winning a base is a victory?

It's really a question of perspective. If you shift your personal perspective to see a single base as a 'match' then the game makes much more sense. Really.

From that perspective you have all the victories you need to be satisfied, and an extra victory that encompasses all those victories. Besides, the war in BF3 never ends does it? Matches keep getting played.

It's like the age old half glass of water question, half full, or half empty?

fvdham · 2012-08-11, 12:39 AM

> Why fight for territory?

Your score is: number of territories held.

Tzitzimitl · 2012-08-11, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by picchu

That push, that feeling to keep those areas under control, to keep your team up top.. which ps1-2 is lacking.

In my opinion it is not lacking it is just player driven. This being because keeping your team at the top is not rewarded by the devs/game but by players. This reward appearing the form of being distinguished and feared/respected

Otleaz · 2012-08-11, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by Ashnal

You've even said it yourself.

What if I told you collecting bases in PS2 means more than a win in BF3? That winning a base is a victory?

It's really a question of perspective. If you shift your personal perspective to see a single base as a 'match' then the game makes much more sense. Really.

From that perspective you have all the victories you need to be satisfied, and an extra victory that encompasses all those victories. Besides, the war in BF3 never ends does it? Matches keep getting played.

It's like the age old half glass of water question, half full, or half empty?

Exactly, it is all perspective. Perspective is easily manipulated by the developers of a game, luckily. Luckily again, the majority want to be manipulated in this manner.

If they want to, they could bury this discussion by having a scoreboard pop up once a facility was taken or defended, listing out the the result of the battle in a way similar to other games.

DOUBLEXBAUGH · 2012-08-11, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by Ashnal

What if I told you collecting bases in PS2 means more than a win in BF3? That winning a base is a victory

If you watch the streams, you'll see they are actually the same thing, since taking a base in PS2 is the same as playing conquest mode in BF. Then you drive/fly to the next base instead of BF's loading the next map, so you just get an interactive loading screen!

Originally Posted by Otleaz

If they want to, they could bury this discussion by having a scoreboard pop up once a facility was taken or defended, listing out the the result of the battle in a way similar to other games.

Have you not seen Higby bring that up during his streams?

Graywolves · 2012-08-11, 01:45 AM

There's been a clash between two mentalities here and there around here about "winning."

I've found it really comes down to your perspective. People go "in CoD/BF/genericFPS123 people keep playing for teh wins." Then lots of us go "But so what? You just play the same map over and over and over."

For me in Planetside it's like being pulled in to a war of endless conquest and I absolutely love that jawn(expletive substitute). I feel like I'm really fighting a war against the other empires, when I do fight over the same area there is context around it. How, why, who is defending/attacking, the people actually there and what they are using, who holds what in surrounding area.

If your question is "Why should I keep playing?" the answer is supposed to be "Because it's fun." What you find fun might vary depending on your perspective.

-edit-

I intend to make everything in the game red. Glory to the Terran Republic!

DOUBLEXBAUGH · 2012-08-11, 02:00 AM

But if it truely is just about the fighting and not about winning, why does everyone hate the never moving/ending 3-way that is Cyssorside?

Why? Because people like to WIN! If the map isn't moving you still have your never ending war going on, but nobody likes it because nobody is winning.

Winning in PS1 was capping a cont, with the eventual goal of capping them all (knowing it would rarely happen). In PS2 with only 3 conts you can't even do that, it really is just a large never ending round of BF, and that to me sounds very boring.

AJay · 2012-08-11, 02:35 AM

Graywolves has it pretty much nailed down. You're comparing two different demographics when you compare arena shooters to planetside. Even though PS2 is a shooter, it's important to remember it's still an MMO and that appeals to a different kind of character.

For the sake of clarification, we can better compare PS to WoW and ask the same question; "whats the point?" Both games are designed to be seemingly endless and it is debatable whether any ultimate goal is worth achieving.

I submit to you that in games like this; where you are going is not as important as how you get there. And MMOs in particular draw in the kind of people who appreciate that specifically.

I imagine if you ask the PS1 vets here you'll learn they have more fond memories of the things they did working towards dominating a land mass as opposed to the victory itself; it's more about the outfits, exploration, being in a giant battle, making friends, and importantly; solidarity.

You'll learn that games like this aren't really about winning, they are about teamwork, social interaction, and immersing yourself in a believable world. You just gotta ask yourself if you are the kinda guy who enjoys mastery of game mechanics and domination over scoreboards and statistical pages, or a guy who enjoys co-operation, exploration, and experiences larger than your own personal gratification. Then you'll know if this game is worth your time.

ArchangeI · 2012-08-11, 02:42 AM

I can see achievements filling the incentive role and worst case we het hats as rewards for these achievements