Reflections of a (non-beta) PS1 player

Discussion in 'Off Topic Discussion' started by Jurun, Dec 12, 2012.

  1. I never played PS1 - a guy recommended I try this game out so I have but the description there? Very nice sounding game and one that I think might be a better model than this one.
  2. Honestly of all the points you brought up the class one I feel is the key one for me. The classes seem so restrictive to me, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to be an engineer and ditch my repair tool or turret in exchange for a jet pack so I can support light assault groups with ammo packs. Actually speaking of engineer turrets I find that not being able to replace them with an alternative all together is anoying. I rarely use turrets, if I'm on a turret I'm not watching vehicles for repair requests, or not running around dropping ammo. Also boggles me as to why I can't deploy the turret for use by someone else, that seems like a more useful thing to do than manning a turret to me.
  3. PS2 is just too simple and shallow. Just run and gun on a large scale at the moment. They are chasing the clock to keep it funded to improve this. Pops here are already shrinking and it being F2P that really stings the coffers. We'll see. They are starting up in China next month so hopefully they can kick in some funds to keep things improving.
  4. As good as PS2 is, it's still a massive, massive disappointment to me. I was so excited when I found out about the PS2 beta, because PS1 was probably my favorite game of all time. Then the slow realizations started coming.

    Oh, there are only 2 continents (there were in beta), and they are both small and square. Ok, I'm sure they have better versions and more continents in the works. Released with 3 small, square continents with no water and weird out of bounds areas. Big disappointment.

    Oh, there is a class system. I no longer can pick my armor weight and weapons loadout. I also can't loot enemy weapons to use. Really disappointing but ok I'll roll with it.

    Oh, they didn't include implants. That just sucks. They were one of the really interesting and fun things in PS1.

    Oh, they left out MAX special abilities, and MAXes can just be shot down with regular small arms fire. Strange, when the entire point of a MAX is to be nearly immune to small arms fire and only killable by AV. And no empire specific AA.

    Oh, the guns are all the same. It's only a small exaggeration to say that all the guns between factions are the same. Compare the differences between the lasher, MCG, and jack hammer, and on the AV side the lancer, phoenix, and striker. Different, iconic, unique. This gave each faction its own look and feel. Now we have identical reskinned rocket launchers, and infantry guns that have different tracers and slight differences in recoil or RoF or CoF. The guns are all the same. Boring.

    The infantry combat sucks. I guess that I missed the transition to "tactical" shooters, which apparently means that you move like molasses and die instantly. I came up on fast paced shooters like unreal and tribes. I don't expect that kind of speed in planetside, but "who can aim better while on a casual stroll" is incredibly boring to me. I'm not saying PS1 infantry combat was ideal at all, but at least it had movement depth. You could choose to use agile and move fast or go heavy, but movement was still part of combat. Running for cover was also viable. Not so in PS2. Stand and aim, and hope you shot first. Can't run, can't evade while firing. Boring. TTK this low also doesn't work for a game with this many players. It becomes entirely too random, and any 3 guys can turn a single corner into an instant death zone. It's fine for a small map deathmatch style game, but not for a game with this scale. There needs to be some kind of staying power. 10 shielded heavies breaching a defended door need to be able to get further than instant death. This also puts the HA weapons in no man's land. Turning a corner to face an empire specific HA weapon should be an "oh ****" moment. There's no room for that since ALL of the weapons kill you fast enough that there's not much difference.

    Oh, the bases are ludicrous and incoherent imitation battlefield maps. This one is especially bad. The minor bases are like trailer parks in the middle of nowhere, and the major bases are like some weird wannabe urban combat zone with junk littering their courtyards. There is no flow or natural progression to base fights because the designs are so terrible.

    The territory system is awful and just leads to completely random backcapping rather than concentrated fights. The system should facilitate and focus large battles. As is the fights are just random and nonsensical.

    The spawn rooms are shielded? And there are shielded teleporter rooms? What the crap is this? Just awful. At the very least make the shields drop when the SCU is destroyed. Preferably get rid of them altogether, but that would require a complete base redesign.


    So yeah, that's my road from super duper excited to really disapointed. I hope that they can change a lot of this, but I think some of it is just locked into their battlefield-clone concept of what the game should be.
  5. This is my biggest gripe. The infantry combat is so boring. Strafing and creative movement while firing isn't a part of this game, and I feel it would have been perfect here. Besides the movement, the gunplay is very unresponsive. It's plain sloppy. I like the vehicle and air combat but that will probably only hold my attention for so long.

  6. To clarify, there wasn't really anything to be proved/disproved in my OP, it's just one guy's opinion. But if you'd like some spirited debate, I'm up for that too. The fact that PS1 vets are playing PS2 is not an argument for the latter's superiority. While I have fond memories of PS1, the game is nearly a decade old. I also think vanilla wow was a great game in it's day, but I don't play it anymore because it doesn't exist in the form I remember it, and even if it did it wouldn't have the playerbase to support the kind of experience I valued.

    The point I was trying to make here is that while PS1 had its fair share of issues and poor design decisions (BFRs), it also had some great ideas that diverged from the mainstream of online FPSes. My gripe (more of a disappointment) is that it seems that when SOE came to a decision point where they could either reserve, update and adapt a PS1 system or swap it out for an analagous system more standard in modern AAA FPSes, they opted for the latter.

    To your point about vehicles, investing in weapons (as I pointed out in the OP) increases their marginal utility, while PS1 limited your ability to use them in battle at all without an initial investment. With the cap on certs and limits on respecs, that meant you had to make meaningful choices about what your character would be able to do at any given point- you had to make sacrifices to specialize. Once that cap was raised to 40, that restriction disappeared and the ratio of vehicles:infantry rose dramatically. In the first case, it meant you had to either a. learn to handle a vehicle well enough to make it worth playing or b. recert into something you were better at. Everyone having the ability to hop into any stock vehicle at any time significantly changes the battlefield profile. In PS1 if you weren't either good with a vehicle, getting good with a vehicle, or hopelessly deluded about how good you were with a vehicle, you were likely to drop the cert and pick up something else more useful because of the scarcity of points,erasing the presence of that vehicle from the battle altogether. The incentive system is significantly different in PS2- maybe it's better overall, but it doesn't fit my taste.

    I'd disagree about TTK, I think it shifts the deciding factor in most fights to twitch reflexes. .5-2 seconds, if we're being totally honest with ourselves, really isn't enough time to make more than one tactical decision before you either die or win. Certing into nanoweave gives you maybe .5 seconds more and in some circumstances could keep you alive if an enemy runs out of a clip, but it doesn't change your battlefield profile the way medium-heavy did in PS1 and I think anyone would be hard pressed to make an honest argument otherwise.

    In regards to the class system, I'd disagree here as well. DIY builds really only worked if you were Doing It Yourself, and there was significantly less incentive to lone wolf in PS1 than there is in PS2 because of the way kills/zerg med/repair xp is farmed out. I think the balance between infantry classes really breaks down when you consider that ~30-50% of combatants in the field will be using vehicles. It feels like this system was adopted from earlier FPSes that have been using it for years without considering how it fits into the larger scale of a game like Planetside. If someone's going to lone wolf (or functionally lone wolf after auto-joining a squad), they're going to do it because of the XP incentives and they'll find the best fit in the class system to do it (right now it's arguably medic or HA) until the incentive disappears. I don't think the implementation of a class system has really done much to ameliorate the zerg mentality, and even if it has the downside of removing a critical system from PS1 and a significant amount of player choice isn't worth it. The zerg will always zerg, what really matters IMO is the effect trying to prevent it has on the players who don't participate. The system they removed is really a 2-parter: 1. The custom loadout/classless infantry system and 2. The limited cert system that put a cap on how many roles any one character could fulfill at a time, referenced above with regard to vehicles. One will never work without the other, or else we'd have exactly the scenario you described. Together, I think it worked great.


    As for your last point, I didn't even bother going back. You can't reinvent an MMO's core systems once it's out and any attempt to make sweeping changes like that usually causes a backlash from a playerbase that feels entitled to the experience they had, even if there were parts they didn't like. I figured PS2 was coming someday and that would be a fresh start to stick with and develop what worked and re-evaluate and replace what didn't. In some ways SOE took advantage of this, in others they just looked across the aisle at genre conventions and pasted those in instead. I wish they'd done more of the former, and that was the point I was trying to make here.
  7. Time to mature is what PS2 needs. That plus a whole lot of work and a real good look at what makes Planetside function the way it does.
    I too, wish that PS2 was based more on Planetside than whatever popular FPS are currently available as it's hard to find the similarities between the two barring the names of things/places.
    I wouldn't be as disappointed with the game (although it does have it's high points) as I currently am if they had named it anything else. The mere mention of Planetside in a title carries with it certain expectations and of course, all those good times and nostalgia.

Share This Page