So basically to sum up PS2 its just flipping territory and thats it.

I played for about 3 hours and I'm really disapointed I was really hoping for a great game.

* Map is much much smaller than I expected. I expected it to be a world .

* No safe zones , I didnt do much research on this game but when I think mmorpg I think cities , safe zones and auction houses.

* Nothing player built.

This is the first time I support a FTP game, I dont like FTP but Im really glad I was able to try this game out before I wasted money on it.

Between SWTOR , Tera , WOW getting Lazy , Diablo 3 sucking and now this PS2 crapfest , in my opinion video games as a whole are really starting to suck lately.

Originally posted by Thebigthrill

So basically to sum up PS2 its just flipping territory and thats it.

I played for about 3 hours and I'm really disapointed I was really hoping for a great game.

 

* Map is much much smaller than I expected. I expected it to be a world .

* No safe zones , I didnt do much research on this game but when I think mmorpg I think cities , safe zones and auction houses.

* Nothing player built.

 

This is the first time I support a FTP game, I dont like FTP but Im really glad I was able to try this game out before I wasted money on it.

Between SWTOR , Tera , WOW getting Lazy , Diablo 3 sucking and now this PS2 crapfest , in my opinion video games as a whole are really starting to suck lately.

at least its free... and not pay2win ;)

Originally posted by Kyleran
I see your mistake, it's a MMOFPS, and not a MMORPG

Seems the New kids on the Block seem to not know there are multi-MMO  archtypes.

What did you expected from FPS?

What FPS got bigger maps? if PS2 got small maps LOL

It is just mmofps just a shooter in persistant map.  Not a mmorpg. 

btw. AH suck balls,  players shops ftw !

Originally posted by Betaguy
I agree much better mmofps out there.

Well aside of PS1 and WWII there is no other mmofps out there.    If you're referring to BF3, CoD, Halo, etc  then those are just FPS or more specifically multiplayer FPS.  

multiplayer is not same as mmo.

Originally posted by Kyleran
I see your mistake, it's a MMOFPS, and not a MMORPG.

FPS doesn't have to mean zero emphasis on a gameworld.  You can still have cities and roads, or more elaborate terrain like forests,  swamps, mountains and caves, etc, etc.  None of that is about the game being PvE.  It's about putting the game into a context that is bigger than just pure bare-bones simplistic PvP.

Like I've said, I went into the game knowing it was a shooter, and knowing it was all about PvP, but I still expected there to be more of a plausible world involved.  I didn't expect it to just play like a giant persistent arena match.

Originally posted by Whitebeards
When you said maps are much much smaller..i just rolled my eyes and said  'never mind'. Maps in PS2 are anything but small.

its smaller than ps1

ps1 had 10 continents

Originally posted by Betaguy
I agree much better mmofps out there.

Like?

I don't see how people can justify the small maps because it's a FPS.. there is no technical difference you know.. it actually requires less tech power to run first person because there's one less character model on screen. The point is, they could have made a massive world and that's what some people wanted.

With decent travel systems in place and good alerts about where the action is, a massive world for a FPS could work just fine.

---

Originally posted by fenistil

---

Originally posted by Betaguy I agree much better mmofps out there.

---

Well aside of PS1 and WWII there is no other mmofps out there.    If you're referring to BF3, CoD, Halo, etc  then those are just FPS or more specifically multiplayer FPS.  

multiplayer is not same as mmo.

---

I gave up on him...Betaguy dosen't want to understand, and he is good at it.