Planetside 2..Free to play..and looking awesome so far!

[Arsinek]

What's the big reward in a typical shooter? *Victory!* RESET

What's the big reward in an MMO? *Level Up!* LOOT

It's never about the end, it's about the fun you have on the way to it. In PS2, that fun is technically never ending. If the massive battles aren't fun for you then the game simply isn't for you.

Yes, Im not a fan of typical shooters. I find them to be rather boring because the battles mean nothing.

Also, Ill take LOOT any day over what this game offers, which is nothing.

Im curious, are you bothered by people who dont like this game?

 

[SunnyD]

Meh. I was hoping for more. I want the battles to actually effect something in the game. Like one faction taking over a whole continent just until recently did absolutely nothing. People complained about this so they added a buff. But come on a buff? Really? Thats the big reward for taking a whole continent?

Also the number of vehicles is very disappointing. EVE has like 245 ships, PS2 has like 10 vehicles total. And they implemented a class system and weapons are class specific, so youre constricted to a small number of weapons per class.

Basically I think anyone who was hoping for an "MMO" experience from this game is going to be disappointed. If you were hoping for BF3 with a never changing map you might like it.

eve only has like 5 ships total. Each ship class has a different skin for each faction. For the most part each "variant" of ship is pigeonholed by DESCRIPTION into a role. That's it.

EVE is also a RTS, not a FPS. There's no way in hell they could do hundreds of different object types more than what they have and still give you the scale of what they give you in FPS format. EVE gets away with it because there's no hitbox tracking or whatnot. It's all just a relatively simple mathematical formula that amounts to a die roll of whether the enemy gets hit and for how much. As intricate as the combat system is in EVE, it's nothing as complex in a computationally technical way as a FPS is.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at this point, but I am trying to point out that your definition of MMOFPS is wrong, especially in PS2. The "map" is constantly changing. The scenery is static across the entire world, but the game is dynamic simply because the territory control means the MAP is changing all the time.

Again... all I can say is yes... it's like BF3, where the point is to kill people for your faction's cause.

 

[Arsinek]

eve only has like 5 ships total. Each ship class has a different skin for each faction. For the most part each "variant" of ship is pigeonholed by DESCRIPTION into a role. That's it.

EVE is also a RTS, not a FPS. There's no way in hell they could do hundreds of different object types more than what they have and still give you the scale of what they give you in FPS format. EVE gets away with it because there's no hitbox tracking or whatnot. It's all just a relatively simple mathematical formula that amounts to a die roll of whether the enemy gets hit and for how much. As intricate as the combat system is in EVE, it's nothing as complex in a computationally technical way as a FPS is.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at this point, but I am trying to point out that your definition of MMOFPS is wrong, especially in PS2. The "map" is constantly changing. The scenery is static across the entire world, but the game is dynamic simply because the territory control means the MAP is changing all the time.

Again... all I can say is yes... it's like BF3, where the point is to kill people for your faction's cause.

5 ships total? Stop being ridiculous. The first ships you get in EVE after the starter ship are frigates, each race has 6 T1 frigates there are 4 races, youre already at 24 ships! And each of these 24 ships has different stats.

And I dont even know what youre talking about with hitboxes in EVE. Im talking about the number of ships you can pilot in EVE versus the number of vehicles you can pilot in PS2. EVE has something like 245, PS2 has like 6. 6 because some are faction specific.

Convince me? Convince me of what? Ive already played PS2. What MMO definition?

And no the map doesnt change. The only time the map changes is when you go to another continent.

Are you mad because there is someone that doesnt like the game you like?

 

[imaheadcase]

Why are you even in this thread if you don't like the game is the question YOU should be asking.

 

[SunnyD]

5 ships total? Stop being ridiculous. The first ships you get in EVE after the starter ship are frigates, each race has 6 T1 frigates there are 4 races, youre already at 24 ships! And each of these 24 ships has different stats.

And I dont even know what youre talking about with hitboxes in EVE. Im talking about the number of ships you can pilot in EVE versus the number of vehicles you can pilot in PS2. EVE has something like 245, PS2 has like 6. 6 because some are faction specific.

Convince me? Convince me of what? Ive already played PS2. What MMO definition?

And no the map doesnt change. The only time the map changes is when you go to another continent.

Are you mad because there is someone that doesnt like the game you like?

I get it, you don't like the game and you don't understand the concept of Planetside 2. You see "shooter" and you say "shooter" and you walk away. It's fine.

Regarding eve, a frigate is a frigate, a cruiser is a cruiser, a battleship is a battleship, etc. Each one is just a different coat of paint a few tweaks to pigeonhole you into playing it differently. Like I said, there's essentially only a handful of different ships in the game once you distill it down. I've played eve long enough to understand the game, what it is, what "roles" are in the game and what you can do with each ship. In the end, it's not much different.

If you're worried about different vehicles and custom paint jobs, then no, PS2 probably isn't for you. If you're more interested in an action based MMO/FPS with objective based and/or team based gameplay where "leveling up" really doesn't get in the way of actually having fun, and your actual physical skill is more important than minmaxing character stats and gear... then you might like PS2.

 

[WelshBloke]

...Are you mad because there is someone that doesnt like the game you like?

I think that its more that you expect the game to be something that its not and are criticising it for not meeting your expectations.

 

[Arsinek]

Why are you even in this thread if you don't like the game is the question YOU should be asking.

Um, because I like talking about video games.

What YOU should be asking yourself is why you think these forums are for only talking about liking a game.

 

[WelshBloke]

... If you're more interested in an action based MMO/FPS with objective based and/or team based gameplay where "leveling up" really doesn't get in the way of actually having fun, and your actual physical skill is more important than minmaxing character stats and gear... then you might like PS2.

This is what I've always loved about Planetside. You can play for ages and "level up" and get all the certs and perks but still suck. Its great for people who cant put hours and hours a day into it, your still on a fairly even playing field.

Its just a shame that I really suck at it. 🙁

 

[Arsinek]

I think that its more that you expect the game to be something that its not and are criticising it for not meeting your expectations.

Well that would be, I hoped the game would be something that it turned out not to be. And its not my fault people cant handle when someone criticizes a game. Theres no rule on these forums that says criticizing a game isnt allowed. If there is please let me know.

 

[Red Storm]

Yes, Im not a fan of typical shooters. I find them to be rather boring because the battles mean nothing.

Also, Ill take LOOT any day over what this game offers, which is nothing.

Im curious, are you bothered by people who dont like this game?

Huh? Not at all. I think you're well within your right to not like a game. What I do think is odd is that you would complain about PS2 yet say you're not a fan of typical shooters. PS2 is a shooter, just on a much larger scale. It's not an MMO, I don't even know how anyone could think that from playing.

 

[SunnyD]

I think that its more that you expect the game to be something that its not and are criticising it for not meeting your expectations.

Exactly this.

This is what I've always loved about Planetside. You can play for ages and "level up" and get all the certs and perks but still suck. Its great for people who cant put hours and hours a day into it, your still on a fairly even playing field.

Its just a shame that I really suck at it. 🙁

This is pretty much exactly why I am going to love PS2 more than PS1... because as F2P I can play it casually, not feel bad if I don't spend hours at a time on it... AND it doesn't matter one bit in the grand scheme of things if I suck in general at FPS's and am lucky if my K2D is 0.75 on a good day.

Well that would be, I hoped the game would be something that it turned out not to be. And its not my fault people cant handle when someone criticizes a game. Theres no rule on these forums that says criticizing a game isnt allowed. If there is please let me know.

Here's my problem with your criticism though - you're upset over the fact that the game is shaping up to be exactly what it was advertised to be in the first place. For months, pretty much everybody had said, "Planetside 2 is basically Battlefield 3 on steroids, in a huge world." That's the distilled down version of it. I'm not sure how you could have expected anything different. Hoped for, maybe, but expected?

And then to come in and flat out say it's a disappointment in all aspects? Maybe a disappointment to YOU, but the game is hardly a disappointment given it is meeting its billing to a tee. And then lastly you try to compare it to something that is a polar opposite of what PS2 is (eve)? That just doesn't make any sense what so ever.

 

[Arsinek]

Huh? Not at all. I think you're well within your right to not like a game. What I do think is odd is that you would complain about PS2 yet say you're not a fan of typical shooters. PS2 is a shooter, just on a much larger scale. It's not an MMO, I don't even know how anyone could think that from playing.

I complain about PS2 and typical shooters because in both the battles dont mean anything. In PS2 they sort of do, but hardly. Like someone said, pushing the enemy faction back is for bragging rights. That is basically nothing to me. I want the battles to effect the game, I want the course of the game to change based on the outcomes of the battles. In PS2 they dont. Whether youve pushed the enemy back to their warpgate and are spawning next to their warpgate or youve been pushed back to yours nothing changes. You are no closer or further away from victory. There is no victory.

Thats my point, its not an MMO even though thats how they marketed it. I think a more appropriate name would have been "Online Shooter" or "Online FPS".

And Ive heard people try to make arguments on how PS2 is an MMO but usually by those definitions BF3 is an MMO. When someone says MMO most people think WoW, Everquest, etc. There are games that might fit a technical definition of MMO but arnt similar to WoW/Everquest, but most people are going to think of WoW/Everquest when they hear the term MMO.

 

[Red Storm]

The battles mean nothing? They're fun, that is the point of the game.

The only games that truly let you change the game world are single player games. MMOs are the complete opposite of "having a meaningful effect on the world".

 

[Arsinek]

Here's my problem with your criticism though - you're upset over the fact that the game is shaping up to be exactly what it was advertised to be in the first place. For months, pretty much everybody had said, "Planetside 2 is basically Battlefield 3 on steroids, in a huge world." That's the distilled down version of it. I'm not sure how you could have expected anything different. Hoped for, maybe, but expected?

And then to come in and flat out say it's a disappointment in all aspects? Maybe a disappointment to YOU, but the game is hardly a disappointment given it is meeting its billing to a tee. And then lastly you try to compare it to something that is a polar opposite of what PS2 is (eve)? That just doesn't make any sense what so ever.

No Matt Higby specifically describes this game as an MMO. To me this game is not an MMO. It has persistent maps, which is one aspect of what I think of an MMO, but thats it. It has no crafting, leveling doesnt really do anything, characters dont have stats, the amount of gear in this game is no more than COD/BF. Think of how many weapons your character has access to in WoW. In PS2 you have like, what 5 per class? The environments are static, you cant interact with them. Again, this game should have been marketed as an Online Shooter not an MMO.

And ya its a disappointment to me. I dont recall saying its been universally declared a disappointment.

And Im comparing it to EVE because EVE is an MMO.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

No Matt Higby specifically describes this game as an MMO. To me this game is not an MMO. It has persistent maps, which is one aspect of what I think of an MMO, but thats it. It has no crafting, leveling doesnt really do anything, characters dont have stats, the amount of gear in this game is no more than COD/BF. Think of how many weapons your character has access to in WoW. In PS2 you have like, what 5 per class? The environments are static, you cant interact with them. Again, this game should have been marketed as an Online Shooter not an MMO.

And ya its a disappointment to me. I dont recall saying its been universally declared a disappointment.

And Im comparing it to EVE because EVE is an MMO.

You're talking about MMORPG. this is an MMOFPS. All MMO means is massively multiplayer online. That's it. You need to get definitions straightened out before you bitch about a game. You can't use the term MMO and just make it mean ONLY an MMORPG. That's simply not what it means. MMORPG and MMOFPS are clearly different things.

Planetside is an MMO because there are many many players on a single persistent map. You can go play an MMORPG if you want, but the game is correctly marketed as an MMOFPS.

 

[Arsinek]

The battles mean nothing? They're fun, that is the point of the game.

The only games that truly let you change the game world are single player games. MMOs are the complete opposite of "having a meaningful effect on the world".

Warhammer and EVE the outcome of the PVP battles effect the overall game. Warhammer has a victory state which once reached triggers a reset. EVE is all up to the players, there is no reset.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Warhammer and EVE the outcome of the PVP battles effect the overall game. Warhammer has a victory state which once reached triggers a reset. EVE is all up to the players, there is no reset.

MMORPG vs MMOFPS

Please educate yourself.

 

[Arsinek]

You're talking about MMORPG. this is an MMOFPS. All MMO means is massively multiplayer online. That's it. You need to get definitions straightened out before you bitch about a game. Planetside is an MMO because there are many many players on a single persistent map.

Lol. Silly little man.

Tell me where in "Massively Multiplayer Online" does it say persistent maps?

So in your definition BF3 is an MMO?

Try not to be such a raging fanboy.

 

[Arsinek]

MMORPG vs MMOFPS

Please educate yourself.

So BF3 is an MMOFPS?

Please explain.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Lol. Silly little man.

Tell me where in "Massively Multiplayer Online" does it say persistent maps?

So in your definition BF3 is an MMO?

Try not to be such a raging fanboy.

BF3 isn't an MMO because 64 players is not a large game. its 64 players versis 2000. I think there is a fairly clear distinction in magnitude.

Please stop being such a raging hater who can't admit when he is wrong. You have a blatantly false premise and when you get called out on it, you ignore that fact, and you move onto another.

 

[Arsinek]

BF3 isn't an MMO because 64 players is not a large game.

Says who? I think 64 players is large. And I thought BF3 could do 128?

Also youre the only one that came in here throwing around swear words. If you cant have a civilized conversation, dont respond.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Says who? I think 64 players is large.

Once again moving the argument and ignoring the fact that you've been proven wrong on previous points.

64 players per server is not a large amount of players by any aspect. It's an extremely common amount of players on a single FPS server. Resistance, Half Life, Call of Duty, and many other games easily support that many players on a single server.

Come back when you have a non false premise. The fact of the matter is that you're bitching about something when its clear that you're wrong,

 

[Arsinek]

Once again moving the argument and ignoring the fact that you've been proven wrong on previous points.

64 players per server is not a large amount of players by any aspect. It's an extremely common amount of players on a single FPS server. Resistance, Half Life, Call of Duty, and many other games easily support that many players on a single server.

Lol says who? Its an opinion not fact. "Massively Multiplayer Online" no where in those words does it say how many players it takes to be "massively".

So basically if you want to go by your definition which is taking the 3 words "Massively Multiplayer Online" as the definition of MMO there is no right or wrong on the numbers of players it takes.

You are subjectively coming up with a number yourself to fill in what constitutes massive. And then you are no more right than me in subjectively filling in what MMO means.

 

[crownjules]

Lol. Silly little man.

Tell me where in "Massively Multiplayer Online" does it say persistent maps?

So in your definition BF3 is an MMO?

Try not to be such a raging fanboy.

The very definition of an MMO is a game capable of supporting hundreds to thousands of players simultaneously in a persistent world. We don't know the exact count, but speculation is PS2 supports up to ~2000 players and the world is clearly persistent.

There are more niches in the MMO space then the questing grind of your typical RPG.

 

[Arsinek]

The very definition of an MMO is a game capable of supporting hundreds to thousands of players simultaneously in a persistent world. We don't know the exact count, but speculation is PS2 supports up to ~2000 players and the world is clearly persistent.

There are more niches in the MMO space then the questing grind of your typical RPG.

Really where are you getting your definition? So World of Tanks isnt an MMO because it doesnt have persistent maps?