Originally posted by Mordred1

Originally posted by ereyethirn
I'm not sure whether I'm not playing it right or whether I'm just not cut out for this sort of game but I started playing it and realized its an insanely well made game which I played for about 3 days and loved but as time grew on i found I was just doing the same thing (fighting the other teams people and making our area as much as possible) over and over, there didn't seem to be any depth or variation. However from the way people speak about it and the way it is designed I really feel like I shouldn't be thinking about it this way but I am. Does anybody feel like this after playing ps2? Or is there some fundamental part of the game that im missing or what?

The only thing wrong here is that MMORPG.COM is including any online multiplayer game on their website regradless of genre.

Planetside 2 is a FPS, it has nothing to do with mmorpgs

It has more to do with MMOs than WoW, SWTOR, Rift, TSW, or AoC. By far.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Mordred

Planetside 2 IS A MMO

It has more right to be on this site than diablo3, Torchlight 2, war z etc..

In fact its MORE of a MMO than games like swtor and tsw in my opinion.

It's a MMOFPS, not a MMORPG. PS2 is more akin to CoD, Quake and Counter-Strike than any MMORPG. Truth is the only thing it's similar to MMORPGs is the number of people playing. If that's enough to be on this site I think something is wrong... For me it's clear it's the wrong audience when you see posts of people asking about PvE or character creation.

IMO those games you mentioned also shouldn't be here, two wrongs don't make a right, but what the hell.

Originally posted by Mordred1

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Mordred

Planetside 2 IS A MMO

It has more right to be on this site than diablo3, Torchlight 2, war z etc..

In fact its MORE of a MMO than games like swtor and tsw in my opinion.

It's a MMOFPS, not a MMORPG. PS2 is more akin to CoD, Quake and Counter-Strike than any MMORPG.

Uh. No. You grow your character over time just like an RPG. It has more to do with Dark Age of Camelot and true MMORPGs than WoW does.

Originally posted by ereyethirn
I'm not sure whether I'm not playing it right or whether I'm just not cut out for this sort of game but I started playing it and realized its an insanely well made game which I played for about 3 days and loved but as time grew on i found I was just doing the same thing (fighting the other teams people and making our area as much as possible) over and over, there didn't seem to be any depth or variation. However from the way people speak about it and the way it is designed I really feel like I shouldn't be thinking about it this way but I am. Does anybody feel like this after playing ps2? Or is there some fundamental part of the game that im missing or what?

This right here is exactly what the game lacks, a clear mission or objective to do, something to make each time you play be different.

Right now there is just no reason to go fight a some place over another because at most they just give some weak bonuses or add +2 or +3 to your resources pool.

Also unlike the first game as soon as you conquer a location the enemy can come and just retake it, almost right the same second you got it. In the first game you had a lockdown on newly conquered areas and that made it completely different because in the end you had to move on, on PLanetside 2 I can be playing the whole day and never move from this or that facility because it is always under attack.

Im sad to say it but right now it is a huge battlefield experience, it needs missions or goals or something that makes each or some outposts more important than others, area lockdown so you can go protect or attack another place, and for gods sake add a Continent Conquered message because right now we have nothing.

Originally posted by ereyethirn
I'm not sure whether I'm not playing it right or whether I'm just not cut out for this sort of game but I started playing it and realized its an insanely well made game which I played for about 3 days and loved but as time grew on i found I was just doing the same thing (fighting the other teams people and making our area as much as possible) over and over, there didn't seem to be any depth or variation. However from the way people speak about it and the way it is designed I really feel like I shouldn't be thinking about it this way but I am. Does anybody feel like this after playing ps2? Or is there some fundamental part of the game that im missing or what?

This is a case where the sequel is far worse then the orginal.. In the first Planetside it took my almost 2 years before I fully burned out of the game.  In this version, that I have been playing for about a month, I am almost burnt out completly and from what I have been reading and seeing so are alot of people.

I truely despise this development team, as usual they refused to listen to their alpha/beta testers and now the game is made to suffer because of it.  This game will be dead within 6 months, and since it is already F2P I do not know where they can go from there...

I agree with the OP. Aside from the obvious hacking going on(and there is plenty of it regardless of people claiming only less then 1% of the player base hacks) The game has a lot of down time.

The only real fun happens when you are in huge battles where you could be around upwards or 100 people(just on your team alone) pushing a main base that already has hundreds from the other two sides battling it out. Sadly with my work schedule this happening is very unlikely. Occasionally on an off day ill log on and find a decent size group with a bunch of squads flipping bases but even when that is happening most of the times it just that. You cap a base and move on and as soon as you gain ground one of the other two factions come behind you re-capping. This can go on for hours just flipping bases with hardly any combat over the bases.

Correct, modern shooters aren't meant for long term play, DICE already announced BF4 less than a year after releasing BF3. I played BF1942 from beta 2002 up until 2009, PS1 from beta 2002 til earlier in 2011 (with many breaks), and would've kept playing SWG past 2005 if it wasn't for the NGE (well I play the *other*SWG right now), and other games like Day of Defeat, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, CoD4, Medal of Honor: AA on and off through the past decade, now I would play a shooter for less than a year as most would.

I don't see very much depth in PS2, a BR1 can drive and equip everything in the game that would require allocated certs in PS1, in PS1 you developed your character to a specific role but in PS2 you're jack of all trades.

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by Mordred1

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Mordred

Planetside 2 IS A MMO

It has more right to be on this site than diablo3, Torchlight 2, war z etc..

In fact its MORE of a MMO than games like swtor and tsw in my opinion.

It's a MMOFPS, not a MMORPG. PS2 is more akin to CoD, Quake and Counter-Strike than any MMORPG.

Uh. No. You grow your character over time just like an RPG. It has more to do with Dark Age of Camelot and true MMORPGs than WoW does.

You are basically saying CoD and Battlefield have more to do with DAoC and true MMORPGs than WoW.  Because unlocking weapons/ abilities is an integral part of any modern FPS no matter if character growth started with RPGs. Do you believe these games should also be covered by MMORPG.com if they had more than a hundred people playing on a server?

Number of people playing doesn't change a game's genre even if the industry created the MMO acronym. Can you really say PS2 has more to do with DAoC than the Battlefield series? As someone else said, PS2 is Batllefield on steroids.

I played nothing of the beta and honestly overlooked this title until I saw something about it's release the exact same day. I had read very little and knew only handfulls of info before downloading and starting. That said I can honestly say I am completely sold on what SOE has given me(us). Right now as a core game (and it is in core form, as SOE is already stated 3 more maps are coming, etc) the game is solid. There are problems with optimation and bugs, but honestly almost any MMO developed and released has these issues.

Moving on to the hacker "problem". They are there, they are lame, but more far and few between then they were the first month of release. This is at least the case on my server.

The cert "grind" is what it is, a grind. You want a nice new weapon? 500-1000 certs baby. Honestly I can get that in a few weeks of play WITHOUT a subscription. If you are super casual and only play about 10 hours a week, then it will take you much much longer. Honestly the game is perfect with the starter guns for each class, and with a few hundred certs you can upgrade them to work for you with no issues. The misconception that you NEED to upgrade stuff to be effective and have fun is high. I primarly play a medic with all my tools maxed and use an NS11 that I saved up 1000 certs for. I honestly just run around, rez a guy here and there and just use my 1 gun and capture points.

If you are looking for a game like CoD, it's not here. You really need to spend real money or grind for countless hours if you are looking to get 50 different weapon loadouts for every class. The game is not built nor require all of that. Concentrate on your class, upgrade a few hundred certs into it and help out a platoon.

Originally posted by XAPGames

Shooters aren't widely known for having much depth.  I think it could be described as casual friendly action entertainment with lots of eye candy.  At least that's what I'm hearing.

 

 Could you imagine a Bordlands MMO? the way they have the game now but in a massive multiplayer format would work wonders.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
No one said cod is like daoc, lol such a obvious strawman.

Sorry dude but you failed in reading comprehension. When I disputed the fact PS2 shouldn't be covered by MMORPG.com for number of people alone he mentioned PS2's character growth made the game closer to mmorpgs than WoW. Problem is this system is reminiscent of CoD and Battlefield even if it was inspired by earlier rpgs. Hell, almost any game now has some sort of character growth/ abiliites unlock. Even most Ipad games have it.

Originally posted by timtrack

Originally posted by XAPGames

Shooters aren't widely known for having much depth.  I think it could be described as casual friendly action entertainment with lots of eye candy.  At least that's what I'm hearing.

 

I don't know about casual-friendly. There is no tutorial, you just get droped in the middle of a battle straight away. And when you do, you will get your shit handed to you. A "casual" could easily be demoralized by that. Then you have to figure out how everything works while getting killed repeatedly, until you learn how to return the favor.

Casual's got nothing to do with getting to grips with a game quickly.

I'm a casual player (not much free time) and rocked it in the first 20 minutes of playing PS2. I'm just good at shooters.

As far as the rest of this thread is concerned; this is how shooters are. If you didn't know FPS games aren't for you before - well I guess you do now!

The only  thing that can save this game for non FPS gamers is team structure and strategy involved - which is amazing. Flying in formation with a dozen other ships towards a common goal is nothing short of breathtaking immersion.

Still a shooter, though, and if you never spent hundreds of hours in de_dust2 (or dm3, q2dm1, deck 16, etc, etc), it's just not your genre.