Im just wondering at what point do these people who are new to planetside and flaming it realize that the big "2" next to planetside means its not a new game?????  Its the same old planetside game updated and redone. Its the same thing as years ago, there was never anything player built in the first one. Theres no elves or trolls like the first one.Theres no pve like the first one. ITS A SHOOTER  ON A MASSIVE SCALE HENCE THE MMO BEFORE THE FPS.

YOUR NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO MAKE A PANDA CHARACTER AND BUILD YOUR OWN HOUSE OR SHOOT RATS WITH YOUR GUN AND COLLECT TREASURE FROM THEM.

DO A TINY BIT OF RESEARCH BEFORE YOU DIVE INTO A GAME THEN FLAME IT TO ALL HELL- IT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND DOES EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED- HOW CAN YOU BE DISAPPOINTED WITH THAT.  IF ITS NOT YOUR TYPE OF GAME DONT PLAY IT BUT YOU CANT BE DISAPOINTED WHEN A GAME DOES EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS IT DOES.

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

You can perfectly pay to win. advanced weapons for example. Still im playing it and i like it.

Loving the game, bought an SOE all access pass just tso I can play both Planetside 2 and EQ with just $20 a month.  Great deal, and I've spent so much time in Planetside 2 past couple of days.  Folks just gotta remember for every game, there are always people that dislike or some even hate the game.  But that's alright, there's plenty of games to go around, plenty of gamers always looking for something different, even if it's ever so slightly.  Players of BF3 often despise CoD games, and vice versa CoD fans often hate Battlefield games.  So you can have a game that caters to your own playerbase, and still be successful at it.

Some people are trying to say they dislike Planetside 2 because it's not exactly like CoD.  Some coming from PvE or PvP MMO's are not liking Planetside 2 because there's no PvE.  Well I just happen to enjoy the game because it's a cross between FPS and MMO.  It's got the gameplay of a FPS game, while it has the progression of a MMO.  You earn exp, you slowly work towards getting upgrades which by the way, can't be bought with cash.  You can buy weapons sure, but the specific upgrades to the weapons which actually do matter a lot such as the grip attachment, extra magazine attachment, scope zoom, laser sight, etc.. are all obtained by you gaining exp & playing the game.  So it has the feel of a MMO progression, slow & steady, but just fast enough for you to have fun and still got something to always look forward to.

It's always funny to see what's a disappointment to someone turns out to be an addicting, awesome game to others.  Just remember it's ok if you like a different flavor of ice cream.

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.

Welcome to the Real world...WoW dweller. ;)

Not all MMO's have auction Houses and PVE or Raids. Planetside 1 was the same, PS2 is a Pure Faction vs Faction (RvR) MMO with FPS mechanics.

SWTOR=WoW with different Colors

Tera=WoW without Tab Select

WoW well it is WoW ;)

And Diablo is not an MMO... so apparently you only played WoW, look further experience different MMO game Styles. You want something different but you expect everything to be the same. Something wrong there.

---

Originally posted by Varthander

---

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

---

You can perfectly pay to win. advanced weapons for example. Still im playing it and i like it.

---

Originally posted by Sourd420

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.

Seems there are even more who don't realize that this isn't an MMO at all.

Originally posted by zomard100
lol maps are small!   yea sure :)

I actually agree with the OP the maps are rather small, the vast majority of the time you'll never use the very mountainess areas of the game. All the action ONLY happens on the bases and that's it. so that's roughly about 15% of the game at MOST.

---

Originally posted by DAS1337

---

Originally posted by Sourd420

---

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.

---

---

Seems there are even more who don't realize that this isn't an MMO at all.

 

---

Originally posted by DAS1337

Originally posted by Sourd420

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.

Seems there are even more who don't realize that this isn't an MMO at all.

 

You sure about that?  Lets see, shall we -

M - Massive, check

M - Multiplayer, again check

O - Online, trifecta check

It seems to fall into the category of MMO quite well.  Add in that the factions that are fighting to control territory are doing so in a persistant war.  No resetting at the end of a round and everyone starts in neutral corners for the next round.  It actually is doing a better job than a lot of MMORPG's at maintaining an actual sense of consequence and of a living world for the players by having a constant ebb and flow to the control of stategic points on the game world.

Originally posted by ThumbtackJ

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

Like?

DayZ and WarZ

Originally posted by Storman1977

Originally posted by DAS1337

Originally posted by Sourd420

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.

Seems there are even more who don't realize that this isn't an MMO at all.

 

You sure about that?  Lets see, shall we -

M - Massive, check

M - Multiplayer, again check

O - Online, trifecta check

It seems to fall into the category of MMO quite well.  Add in that the factions that are fighting to control territory are doing so in a persistant war.  No resetting at the end of a round and everyone starts in neutral corners for the next round.  It actually is doing a better job than a lot of MMORPG's at maintaining an actual sense of consequence and of a living world for the players by having a constant ebb and flow to the control of stategic points on the game world.

Mmmmm... Define "massive" what number do you think as massive? Personally when I go onto a BF game and see 32 on 32 player matches, that's massive, it's multiplayer, and it's online. so in that sense it could be an "mmo"

Originally posted by grounnn

Originally posted by Storman1977

Originally posted by DAS1337

Originally posted by Sourd420

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.

Seems there are even more who don't realize that this isn't an MMO at all.

 

You sure about that?  Lets see, shall we -

M - Massive, check

M - Multiplayer, again check

O - Online, trifecta check

It seems to fall into the category of MMO quite well.  Add in that the factions that are fighting to control territory are doing so in a persistant war.  No resetting at the end of a round and everyone starts in neutral corners for the next round.  It actually is doing a better job than a lot of MMORPG's at maintaining an actual sense of consequence and of a living world for the players by having a constant ebb and flow to the control of stategic points on the game world.

Mmmmm... Define "massive" what number do you think as massive? Personally when I go onto a BF game and see 32 on 32 player matches, that's massive, it's multiplayer, and it's online. so in that sense it could be an "mmo"

I've played BF2 matches on servers with 128 v. 128 and I still wouldn't consider it massive, even at 256 players.  Having 64 players on a server is not massive at all.  My DDO guild has had that many people on at one time by itself, let alone all the other guilds with at least one person on and all the unguilded on the server.  In PS2, on the Jaeger server last night, my faction (Vanu) had roughly 800 players online and was only 30% of the server population.

Originally posted by Storman1977

Originally posted by grounnn

Originally posted by Storman1977

Originally posted by DAS1337

Originally posted by Sourd420

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.

Seems there are even more who don't realize that this isn't an MMO at all.

 

You sure about that?  Lets see, shall we -

M - Massive, check

M - Multiplayer, again check

O - Online, trifecta check

It seems to fall into the category of MMO quite well.  Add in that the factions that are fighting to control territory are doing so in a persistant war.  No resetting at the end of a round and everyone starts in neutral corners for the next round.  It actually is doing a better job than a lot of MMORPG's at maintaining an actual sense of consequence and of a living world for the players by having a constant ebb and flow to the control of stategic points on the game world.

Mmmmm... Define "massive" what number do you think as massive? Personally when I go onto a BF game and see 32 on 32 player matches, that's massive, it's multiplayer, and it's online. so in that sense it could be an "mmo"

I've played BF2 matches on servers with 128 v. 128 and I still wouldn't consider it massive, even at 256 players.  Having 64 players on a server is not massive at all.  My DDO guild has had that many people on at one time by itself, let alone all the other guilds with at least one person on and all the unguilded on the server.  In PS2, on the Jaeger server last night, my faction (Vanu) had roughly 800 players online and was only 30% of the server population.

800/3 maps ~260 per map then you take those 260 and spread them across the map at about 3-4 objective points. Which leaves you with at most 66 players fighting at a time per side; which is usually just 1v1 factions. Occasionally you'll have the 3rd come in but other than that it's 1v1. Oh and I cannot forget about the 30-40 players sitting inside the warpgates per map, so that's about 120 people off the 800 as well.

When you break it down it's not better than a normal FPS it's just all on one server. The customization is VERY lack lusters. Even less than FPS's today. They have MUCH more customization than this game; there's no real reason to spend money on the cash shop. The bases you're fighting for a very dull and have very little strategic value what so ever.

They say they're pushing the bar, but nothing has changed. Nothing impressive is improved. There's massive server lag in long running battles for control of bases. To the point at which the player models are no longer showing until you're in their faces.

Originally posted by grounnn

 

800/3 maps ~260 per map then you take those 260 and spread them across the map at about 3-4 objective points. Which leaves you with at most 66 players fighting at a time per side; which is usually just 1v1 factions. Occasionally you'll have the 3rd come in but other than that it's 1v1. Oh and I cannot forget about the 30-40 players sitting inside the warpgates per map, so that's about 120 people off the 800 as well.

When you break it down it's not better than a normal FPS it's just all on one server. The customization is VERY lack lusters. Even less than FPS's today. They have MUCH more customization than this game; there's no real reason to spend money on the cash shop. The bases you're fighting for a very dull and have very little strategic value what so ever.

They say they're pushing the bar, but nothing has changed. Nothing impressive is improved. There's massive server lag in long running battles for control of bases. To the point at which the player models are no longer showing until you're in their faces.

Where in any of my posts did I say it was better than any other shooter?  I only inferred it was much larger than any of the other pure shooters.  I said it was better than most other MMO''s at one aspect, maintaining a sense of a living world by the ebb and flow of control of territory and having a large, persistant world. 

As for customization, how many of those game allow you top end customization out of the gate?  You have to earn those upgrades, and PS2 only differs in that you can shortcut the process by purchasing it instead of earning it.  I said in another thread that the only thing that differentiates PS2 from BF and CoD, gameplay wise, is the persistant world. 

---

Originally posted by grounnn
800/3 maps ~260 per map then you take those 260 and spread them across the map at about 3-4 objective points. Which leaves you with at most 66 players fighting at a time per side; which is usually just 1v1 factions.

---

Originally posted by Storman1977

Originally posted by grounnn

 

800/3 maps ~260 per map then you take those 260 and spread them across the map at about 3-4 objective points. Which leaves you with at most 66 players fighting at a time per side; which is usually just 1v1 factions. Occasionally you'll have the 3rd come in but other than that it's 1v1. Oh and I cannot forget about the 30-40 players sitting inside the warpgates per map, so that's about 120 people off the 800 as well.

When you break it down it's not better than a normal FPS it's just all on one server. The customization is VERY lack lusters. Even less than FPS's today. They have MUCH more customization than this game; there's no real reason to spend money on the cash shop. The bases you're fighting for a very dull and have very little strategic value what so ever.

They say they're pushing the bar, but nothing has changed. Nothing impressive is improved. There's massive server lag in long running battles for control of bases. To the point at which the player models are no longer showing until you're in their faces.

Where in any of my posts did I say it was better than any other shooter?  I only inferred it was much larger than any of the other pure shooters.  I said it was better than most other MMO''s at one aspect, maintaining a sense of a living world by the ebb and flow of control of territory and having a large, persistant world. 

As for customization, how many of those game allow you top end customization out of the gate?  You have to earn those upgrades, and PS2 only differs in that you can shortcut the process by purchasing it instead of earning it.  I said in another thread that the only thing that differentiates PS2 from BF and CoD, gameplay wise, is the persistant world. 

I never implied to you that you said PS2 was better than any other fps. I was just typing more things that I wanted to add to the convo. I would hardly consider PS2 a persistant world and I hate it when people use the word persistant. There's nothing persistant about it. The only thing changing in PS2 are the Control points, you can't build anything, and you can't destroy anything ( other than vehicles and generators). Their persistance is equal to going to a BF3 match that goes on indefinately. You log in and take 3-4 control point then leave and come back a few hours later those points are no longer yours. Heck Battle Field: Bad company 2 had more persistance to its game, and all you were able to do is knock buildings down, but at least the maps were never the same from start to finish.

This game equates to a large scale Halo Territories match and that's about it. Even Arma II could handle much larger scale battles that this game could; and Arma III will be pushing the boundries even more. There are videos of CPU tests for arma II that scale battles of 2000 vs. 2000. You try that in PS2.

Originally posted by TeknoBug

 

---

Originally posted by grounnn
800/3 maps ~260 per map then you take those 260 and spread them across the map at about 3-4 objective points. Which leaves you with at most 66 players fighting at a time per side; which is usually just 1v1 factions.

---

OMG stop, just stop.

 

If you have nothing constructive add to the conv. why speak? When you break down the game to the core you're not fighting much more than 60 people at time and the game CANNOT handle if all 3 factions went full out on eachother in one location.

Originally posted by grounnn

Originally posted by Storman1977

Originally posted by grounnn

 

800/3 maps ~260 per map then you take those 260 and spread them across the map at about 3-4 objective points. Which leaves you with at most 66 players fighting at a time per side; which is usually just 1v1 factions. Occasionally you'll have the 3rd come in but other than that it's 1v1. Oh and I cannot forget about the 30-40 players sitting inside the warpgates per map, so that's about 120 people off the 800 as well.

When you break it down it's not better than a normal FPS it's just all on one server. The customization is VERY lack lusters. Even less than FPS's today. They have MUCH more customization than this game; there's no real reason to spend money on the cash shop. The bases you're fighting for a very dull and have very little strategic value what so ever.

They say they're pushing the bar, but nothing has changed. Nothing impressive is improved. There's massive server lag in long running battles for control of bases. To the point at which the player models are no longer showing until you're in their faces.

Where in any of my posts did I say it was better than any other shooter?  I only inferred it was much larger than any of the other pure shooters.  I said it was better than most other MMO''s at one aspect, maintaining a sense of a living world by the ebb and flow of control of territory and having a large, persistant world. 

As for customization, how many of those game allow you top end customization out of the gate?  You have to earn those upgrades, and PS2 only differs in that you can shortcut the process by purchasing it instead of earning it.  I said in another thread that the only thing that differentiates PS2 from BF and CoD, gameplay wise, is the persistant world. 

I never implied to you that you said PS2 was better than any other fps. I was just typing more things that I wanted to add to the convo. I would hardly consider PS2 a persistant world and I hate it when people use the word persistant. There's nothing persistant about it. The only thing changing in PS2 are the Control points, you can't build anything, and you can't destroy anything ( other than vehicles and generators). Their persistance is equal to going to a BF3 match that goes on indefinately. You log in and take 3-4 control point then leave and come back a few hours later those points are no longer yours. Heck Battle Field: Bad company 2 had more persistance to its game, and all you were able to do is knock buildings down, but at least the maps were never the same from start to finish.

This game equates to a large scale Halo Territories match and that's about it.

The green highlight is where you implied.  As for the game having a persistant world, it does.  If you had a never ending BF3 match, then it too would qualify for the term persistant.  Persistant does not equate dynamic.  It means ongoing.  The persistance comes from the fact that once you win a control point, you can lose it again.  There is no absolute victory (at least not until one faction completely dominates a server to the point no one tries to create an opposing character, at which point I would hope that SOE would step in) therefore the battle for control persists.  It is not a dynamic and living world.