Could PS2 be too similar to Planetside?

Vancha · 2011-06-26, 09:54 AM

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 · 2011-06-26, 01:54 PM

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 · 2011-06-26, 04:00 PM

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 · 2011-06-26, 04:33 PM

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 · 2011-06-27, 12:43 AM

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 · 2011-06-27, 06:32 AM

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 · 2011-06-27, 07:50 AM

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.

BlazingSun · 2011-06-27, 08:11 AM

With urban warfare I don't necessarily mean fighting inside of buildings. BF2142 is an example: It had some maps where you'd fight inside a modern city, which I liked alot. It had some narrow side roads and choke points, but also big roads and enough space for Tanks and other vehicles to fight.

I don't mean either, that I don't want to see any combat out in the open anymore, but the new game needs more diversity in regard to battle locations.

Vancha · 2011-06-27, 08:53 AM

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.

Firefly · 2011-06-27, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by KornDemon

With urban warfare I don't necessarily mean fighting inside of buildings. BF2142 is an example: It had some maps where you'd fight inside a modern city, which I liked alot. It had some narrow side roads and choke points, but also big roads and enough space for Tanks and other vehicles to fight.
[prettypic]
I don't mean either, that I don't want to see any combat out in the open anymore, but the new game needs more diversity in regard to battle locations.

I'd like to see collision on wrecked vehicles, the ability to disable vehicles, and urban combat complete with buildings which can be entered - that way when some fucking dolt rides a convoy of tanks into town, he gets Chechnya'd: they vape the first and last tank and then the poor bastards get sodomized by a whale cock.

BorisBlade · 2011-06-27, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

I'd like to see collision on wrecked vehicles, the ability to disable vehicles, and urban combat complete with buildings which can be entered - that way when some fucking dolt rides a convoy of tanks into town, he gets Chechnya'd: they vape the first and last tank and then the poor bastards get sodomized by a whale cock.

Your over-exaggerated extremely "colorful" replies are always good for a laugh.

And yeah, we have collision currently on wreckage, but you can usually push thru it much like you can push thru other working vehicles, by driving up and over or basically plowin under em and havin them roll over the top of you. A more modern physics system should stop all that hopefully.

Keep in mind tho, the downside of urban combat is vehicles become useless since you cant have destructable buildings in PS (there are no rounds for the game to reset). If your tank cant blow up the building he's being shot from, then you can just peek out and fire all day long with your AV, esp if they leave the lame phoenix where you dont even have to give away your location or risk gettin shot to use it. I for one do not wanna chase down people in those cities on foot constantly having to clear a maze of rooms and corridors out every time some monkey wants to just come be annoying. (think of the guys now who come to towers where they are 2% of the population, just to be annoying to the other factions)

So those things have to be handled carefully or it will be bad gameplay, or just ignored competely. Again, the idea sounds good but its all about implementation. I'm all for it if its handled right.

Raymac · 2011-06-27, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

I'd like to see collision on wrecked vehicles, the ability to disable vehicles, and urban combat complete with buildings which can be entered - that way when some fucking dolt rides a convoy of tanks into town, he gets Chechnya'd: they vape the first and last tank and then the poor bastards get sodomized by a whale cock.

Planetside 2 - Day 1: Cert in Whale Cock

BlazingSun · 2011-06-27, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

I'd like to see collision on wrecked vehicles, the ability to disable vehicles, and urban combat complete with buildings which can be entered - that way when some fucking dolt rides a convoy of tanks into town, ...

(ignore the music)

Sifer2 · 2011-06-27, 07:46 PM

Well its kind of complicated because on the one hand people definitely want most of the original Planetside back unaltered. In fact a lot of people want some stuff to be reverted like no BFR's an back to continents.

But I agree I think if the game launches an its the same game it was in 2003 with better graphics it will just fail again. I think they have to find a solution to the burn out a lot of players got. Of where they were fighting over the same bases day after day an what they took one day was gone that night. So no feeling of meaningful progress. I think MMO players expect progress.

An FPS players expect lots of action. An Planetside was a bit slow in that regard as well with the long hack times. So I think catering to both these crowds to make Planetside 2 more action packed while offering more persistent elements will be the key.

LordReaver · 2011-06-27, 11:15 PM

PlanetSide didn't fail because of content. PS failed because of no advertising, poor decision making, and then lack of additional content. All other reasons are small time contributors at most.

Probably the best way to make people come back even more, is to further character development. Currently, you gain some XP, your rank goes up, you gain some cert points, but there is no real attachment. There needs to be something that makes characters unique. That is what makes you want to come back and further your toon. Even if it's just cosmetic things. You need the player to have a drive to get to the next thing, whatever it may be. For example, Halo's armor upgrades. They don't do anything, but yet you want to earn them. Or TF2 with hats.

If you go a more functional route, the Vulture was perfect. Anybody flying a Vulture, earned it. They didn't drop cert points for it, they fucking earned it. There is nothing wrong with the tree structure, so long as the earnings are not "better" than the normal stuff, but rather different. Upgrades have been talked about, maybe as you progress, you unlock upgrade slots. That would work also.