They should have kept the RPG elements in Planetside.

Discussion in 'Off Topic Discussion' started by Drakortha, Nov 26, 2012.

  1. lol, Planetside (1) didn't really have an RPG system wit hthe exception of the sanbox layout and leveling up with the game. But to be honest a RPG element of Planetside won't hurt it.

    To be honest i wish they could add sort of like an RPG/Social system. Call it carrers.

    I got an idea using the trusty Planetside rule of 3s. Military, Science, Civilian.

    The Military carrers are for those who say Planetside is a FPS first and foremost and you should only play to kill the enemy and capture the base and RPG should be for another game. The Scientist who want to add in on the backstory and more act as a role player, could they be the spy, the leader, the explorer, or just a han solo type guy with a gun. The civilian is more of a freestyle tag, they realy don't have a prefrence for RPG or for hardcore competitive FPS game. Thye just want to play the game.

    One of the benifit of the tag is that it will tell you what type of player they are. That way if you want a well orginized group of experienced FPS players you would look for Military tags. If you want to try and do a machinima or say a role play GM even look for the scientist. Or if you just want to have fun and don't care if you win or loose look for the civilians.
  2. lol sonny maybe you should go try a real shooter game called castle wolfenstien. I'll bet that game will make you **** your pants with levels instead of checkpoints and you have to find health packs instead of waiting for your health to magicly reapear. You will never survive an internet game in 1990 :D

    Lol that is not what choked the game to death. What choked the game to death is it was treated as a unwelcomed step-child to SOE favorite game known as Everquest. SOE would promote either Everquest or the latest MMO game and just forget about planetside untill much later. By the time they really did some good development like the new sundeers, the wasp, the advanced CE, the game was already seven years old. Name one other game where most of the expansions or downloadible content comes after 7 years? Everquest? Heh got a patch weekly.
  3. I love this game but I do enjoy many aspects of RPGs. That said I've always wanted to see PS split up into two separate games which overlap.

    You'd have cities full of stuff for regular RPG players to do, so your non-fps player could join and level up his guy and contribute to the empire, but you would also have a full battlefield world like it is now all for FPS players. FPS players would somehow help those in the city by fighting for resources or something.

    I think this would add so much immersion we'd be due for another disclaimer after the splash screen that says, "Don't neglect your real life!"

    The only game I've seen do this is Face of Mankind, but it's horrible combat mechanisms made it hard for FPS players like myself to enjoy.

    I've said it many times before on this forum, but during the very early stages of PS1 development it was actually supposed to be a MMORPGFPS. There were polls for currency and talk of apartments that you could customize. A year later all that stripped away.

    Hopefully one day someone takes on that ambitious endeavor.
  4. it had a Massive RPG element? what are you talking about?
  5. So, you're telling me, the reason why new players never stuck around was...? What exactly? Because it wasn't marketed well?

    Obviously people heard about the game. Obviously the people playing the game were telling their friends about it (Good or bad).




    So why did new players not stick? Why did the player base CONTINUE to decline? The game apparently was AMAZING, but it kept losing players and not retaining the ones who did come. WHY?
  6. Role Player Game, as in what you did had an impact or patricipated in a backstory or what not.
    Now there were better roles with the fact you can customize you charachter in what ever you wanted and before you could not get everything so you had to find your nich, but it wasn't like you were able to pilfer Vanu artifacts from the Terran republic or be a NC spy deep within the headquaters of a Vanu Soverginty city (lol there was no city.)
    So planetside had roles, it had socialibility, but it did not realy have a story that was driven off of that.
    Planetside 2 has less of those roles and socialibility unfortunatly.


    P.S. Look at one of my sugestions it is on the top of the 3rd page.
  7. That is another reason I want to put in carrer tags and some benifits into how you want to play be it competitivly, fantasey, or just casual and have fun.

    But face it unlike Planetside (1) which was a sandbox shooter, Planetside 2 is a structured shooter designed to be more like Battlefield or Call of Duty to get more of those "competitive" FPS players. You could do more with a sandbox game, you do less with a structured game.

  8. not entirely sure what you are saying here

    you levelled a character to fill the role you perceive as being for you in your squad/game

    because the combat mechanics are shooter based does not make it any less a role playing game?

    there does not have to be a city or treasure, sorry bro you are confused

    its like saying most games like lotro you are not a spy deep within an enemy city, this is not an RPG?

    what you did in PS1 impacted directly, more so than most games that claim to be an RPG, it was as much an RPG as FPS it was all in your character specialisation

    p,s post a link
  9. okay well you and I have difrent ideas of an RPG, for me I would call KOTR and SWG more of an RPG type game.

    but we both can agree that Planetside (1) had better roles then with these so called classes of Planetside 2.
    • Up x 1
  10. You know what? I was prepared to mock and laugh at you for but you actually make a fair point, while I despise RPG systems in FPS' equally I think FPS systems are ****** and unnecessary in RPG games too, you play FPS' for the shooting and RPGs for the story.

    You know what the problem is don't you? They're running out of ideas, so they rip off peoples intellectual properties like they've done with Planetside 2 or they buy them out and now they're trying to make these ****** FPS/RPG hybrids that just don't work in the long run. The competitive FPS' I dream of are classics like Quake or Half Life Deathmatch on crack, I don't want any of this RPG **** in my shooters and equally when I play an RPG I want to be immersed in a glorious story and world like with Skyrim, I don't want to have to kill a million monsters to save the ******* princess every time a new game comes out.

    **** you corporations and your ****** excuses for games, **** you.
  11. That was a learning curve, unrelated to any "rpg" element. I could start a fresh toon and and get plenty of kills with the starting gear, because i knew what i was doing.

    PS1 died because it was ignored, people eventually got bored of the same old content and when they finally added new stuff, it was what they thought we wanted rather then what we actually wanted.

    What this game needs is a better meta game and support for the community. PS1 was all about rivalry's and bragging rights. You were only as good as the corpses you left in your wake and the battles you won. Currently in PS2 winning battles is worthless. The front line system is pointless because you can loose supply lines indefinitely with no urgency to re establishing them.

    As for community, i don't think i could name a single outfit in the opposing factions. Server forums would help that, add some fire to the rivalries.

    It is just a massive tdm at the moment. I am enjoying it so far, but with out a goal that probably won't last long.
  12. But the CoD/BF3 players would have gone "The sh** is this?", and not play it. And Sony/Smed is trying to cater to the CoD/BF3 audience not the PS1 one.


    On top of that everyday I spam SoE, PS2, Smed twitters asking them when they are going to adding inventory or making PS1 F2P, and telling them if the game keeps feeling generic that it will eventually go down the drain. I have seen it with many games. I was hoping I would play PS2 for 10ish years, but with it's genericness it will get boring after 6 or more months.

    @
    Shadestrike your the kind of players that make games go generic.
    Is not that hard to copy paste games, and make it into a new game. Look at TFC, and valve added everything in TF2 but they update the graphics, then they added items etc, but that didn't take out the TF gameplay that everyone loved. Is still the same with perhaps a few added things, but is still the thing people loved. "BF3 sequel to BF2" what did players get?. an endless CoD vehicle hybrid. If you don't recall BF2 had commander, and other features that made it great. Now the devs are realizing how much they fail, and if they don't add such features in their next BF game. The true Hardcore dedicated BF audience are going down the drain. Perhaps SoE/Smed & Peeps will realize that one day.

    @12987 you clearly don't what the OP is trying to say. PS1 was not a WoW MMO or something like that. It was a FPSRPGMMO where you took your time to get kills, loot, cap, and customize yer character however you wanted, and it still play like a FPS only that it had the loot+inventory system. Which made it ungeneric, and great. Also of course anyone who spends more time in any game MMORPG, MMOFPS is going to have better things that someone that hasn't; is common sense. Is like going into a job, and expecting to be promoted to Super Manager. While your only been there for 2 days. This is how the "PS2 defenders" seem to be thinking.

    Today I decided to uninstall PS2 because it lacks what PS1 had. Gladly PS1 will go F2P. Since I know Sony+Smed won't listen to PS1ish feedback until they start seeing a drop in players loggings or cashshop buys.
  13. For some reason they took out the edit function on my post. here have a look at this [IMG]
  14. I've never played PS1, but from what I heard that game had its fair share of problems as well. It's not my place to compare these two games, but from my experience with games, this sounds like a bit of nostalgia as well. I'm not saying PS2 doesn't lack things PS1 offered, but I think it can go the other way around as well and PS2 might offer a few cool things as well. The problem is, some people are not seeing that.

    Probably it's because I haven't played PS1, but PS2 for me is one of the best games of the year. I've played the beta, and now I've subbed and play the full game. Haven't got bored of it one bit. Not one single little bit. It's as fun for me as it was in my first day of playing the beta.

    Perhaps if I would've played PS1 I would be nostalgic as well. But, fact of the matter is, no game out there is perfect. PS2 offers a fair degree of fun for me, and for other players as well (I'm sure of it), and if it manages to do that, then it doesn't really matter if it's not exactly like PS1.
  15. But what happens when that generic fun goes away?
  16. I played PS1 too and loved it and now I love PS2 for it is a hell of a game and I cant get enough of it.
    Anyway I have to say that you got some of your points not correct, and I want to comment on them:
    1) Class System and availability at the start
    What I like about this is that your kills and deaths don not depend on your level but on the players skill in the first place.
    This makes is fairer since it is always up to yourself if you are doing well or bad and is also friendlier towards beginners
    as they can directly get what they want to have.
    2) Large fights
    Base captures get you a high XP gain at once as they did in PS1. In PS1 the difference was even higher since you got 100XP for a kill and 5000XP for a base capture. Now in PS2 you get up to 1000XP for base capturing depending on how many enemies there were and how long the fight was going. And fights can still take hours and days as they did in PS1 - sorry but that point is wrong
    3) Any base can be captured
    Thats wrong as well since you have to own one of the surrounding bases in order to get a "link" to cap the target base.
    4) Mobility
    It actually isnt a problem at all. In PS1 you could use the HART when you just got in the game to reach your destination but often had to wait. Now you can directly drop in the fight immidiately saving you minutes (and in sum hours) of senseless waiting. I dont get how this is negative for you. For people who can only play 1-2 hours at once this spare time waiting sucks...
    You can Instant Action into a zone now. If you die there you can respawn near the battle so you can directly get into the fight over and over again. And even if you want to go somewhere else you can take an aircraft at a bigger base and even respawn at the Warpgate to go whereever you want to. - So overall the spare time of stupid HART waiting is completely eliminated. Perfect!
    The only thing I can agree on is the ANT which was kinda funny if you had to get power to your base but was this feature really necessary in order to generate good and big fights? Not really so it isnt a problem.

    edit: At this point I really want to thank the devs for producing this kind of egoshooter genre one was always waiting for! This game is tons of fun and I know why I ordered the premium account for this. You guys deserve this little money ;) Keep up the good work
    • Up x 1
  17. I don't really get your question mate.
    It's subjective whether or not the fun is "generic". There's no sense of progression like an MMORPG offers, that's true. But I didn't expected an immense sense of progression to begin with. I just want to conquer maps in a dynamic environment. And I also have quite a few weapons and attachments to grind for, for different classes and vehicles. That adds quite a bit of sense of progression. I simply like the PVP on the massive scale. If you're bored every battle seems to be the same and you can say that it's all zerg. But you can also say that not one battle is the same, because it's not. Not every attach is a success, and not every defense is impenetrable. And playing this game with a good outfit does help.

    BTW, about the sense of progression. I too enjoy games that offer that, so if I really want to kill some NPCs or bosses, I log into Path of Exile or that fail of a D3 for example, and do some grind. But I always get back to PS2. It's just that fun for me, generic or not, and if that "generic" fun has lasted for two months and I'm still enjoying it, then I suppose PS2 is just what I was looking for. :)
  18. So when something better than PS2 comes out your just going to jump on the bandwagon?
  19. Almost any genre can be simplified into a chain of actions that makes it appear utterly repetitive and drains all enthusiasm. When that happens, it's usually a sign for me personally that I need to stop playing that genre for a bit.
    For example, Tribes could also be simplified down to "disrupt defense, grab flag, cap flag. Rince repeat.", but that would be my subjective view of it (just for clarity; it's not - love the game), based on me not being interested in the game.
    Since I was very much into Tribes 2, the Tribes games that came out since then were hit with the nostalgia-brick, and they seemed far less interesting than my first experience with the series.

    Looking at the list Moises J.Ramos posted, free base-capture, no power limits and brute force were all part of Planetside 1 untill people got organized, and voiced their opinions. Which took a lot more than beta+1 week before that started happening.

    While I agree (nostalgia-brick incoming!) that earning fancy armor through progression were good fun, and unlocking classes/items slowly the same way gave one a sense of accomplishment, in retrospect, after I got all 3 MAX certs (before Uni-MAX, or whatever class I wanted to play mainly), that was it, It didn't matter beyond that - I was able to play the game the way I wanted, and any cert points beyond that were slushing about in a bucket with the other things I didn't have much use for, such as the Inventory allowing me to stack more ammo-crates than I'd need, the odd hacker device for the seldom time someone else needed it.

    But going as far as calling that RPG? I'm afraid I don't share the sentiment.

    Bases, power and "Tactical" instead of "Brutish" combat came when players started banding together, as did the big operations where people would gather in Sanc and go out en masse.
    For the moment, my MAX won't look distinguished for a while - as it did in PS untill most people were BR25 - but I can still show my main is MAX (or that I had SC to waste), by buying the various visual upgrades for it. Different from Planetside 1, I can not only costumize my appearence, but also make it even more specialized (Well, once more AA/AV weapons are added), which I can only do - just as in Planetside 1 - by progression.
    I agree it would be nice to be able to show off, but the lack of it won't break the experience for me. Maybe they'll add shiny new parts later on, but for now, I get a snazzy titel instead.

    All in all, I'm not defending Planetside 2, I'm trying to say a lot of the issues raised were also present when Planetside 1 launched, and pointing out I do not consider "unlocking classes" to be any more of an RPG element than "unlocking up/side-grades".
    If you feel it's only a matter of "Objective A -> B -> C -> A -> ...", then I'd be more likely to consider it a general fatigue with the genre, than a flaw in the game.

    After all:
    MMORPG: Level up, choose skills, level up ... (Non-MMO) play through the game once in order to learn the story
    RTS: Build base, destroy/be destroyed, rince repeat.
    FPS: Point, shoot, kill/die.

    In the end, it's very subjective whether or not you are able to see the fine print:
    RPG: Level up, try new skills, see how you can progress further, level up, alter skills, discover something new, experience the story differently when X.
    RTS: Build base, pick a build, scout enemy, alter build, outwit enemy, improve timing/micro/macro, destroy/be destroyed
    FPS: Learn your surroundings, think up tactical maneuvers, find vulnerabilities in the enemys tactic, point, shoot, reposition, out-flank, timed push, kill/die.
    • Up x 1
  20. Once again "better" is subjective. Some people think PS1 was better, some people don't. But to answer your question with sincerity, if I play any game (not just Planetside 2) and a newer game that I personally think is much better/fun comes out, then yes, I will play the newer game (again, if I personally find it to be more fun), and no sense of progression would stop me from doing so. I don't play WoW anymore for example, since WOTLK came out. I had a lot of time invested in that game during TBC, but that's not going to hold me from trying another game that I personally think is more fun.

    There's nothing wrong with switching to another game. It's not a career, you're not quitting your job (although that works sometimes as well lol).

    So, to recap, I like PS2 because I simply enjoy playing it, not because I can justify my time spent in it with a sense of progression, or achievements, or items etc.
    • Up x 2

Share This Page