| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (34)

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 2:16PM SnarlingWolf said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
1) People easily bypass the limits in every PC FPS game ever released and there will be 128 player BF3 games.

2)The people who like MW3/BF3 etc. don't want a game that has an item shop. They also want the serious clan ladder/tournament boards that go along with PC FPS games which won't exist for PS2.

3)They should be comparing themselves to the browser based Battlefield Heroes that has an itme shop because that is the crowd they're going to be pulling from. I guarantee you both BF3 and MW3 sales will make PS2 look like a little no name indy game.

4) It is SOE...

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 3:52PM SnarlingWolf said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@SnarlingWolf

Lol downgraded for speaking the truth. Go ahead and come back and upgrade my post after seeing that what I said was exactly true after all 3 games launch.

Fan boys are always funny. Downgrading won't hide the truth.
Reply

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 4:48PM Phone Guy said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@SnarlingWolf

"1) People easily bypass the limits in every PC FPS game ever released and there will be 128 player BF3 games."

Sure they bypass the limits by moding the game and end up creating a fairly unplayable mess. Few games were balanced for large teams. And the ones that are ok, stem from heavily changing mechanics so that the core game seems unrecognizable.

"2)The people who like MW3/BF3 etc. don't want a game that has an item shop. They also want the serious clan ladder/tournament boards that go along with PC FPS games which won't exist for PS2."

Planetside never targeted the audience who needed ladders or rankings to make themselves feel special. The game it self is about war and world domination. If they want clan versus clan style game play and dedicated rankings and tournaments the FPSMMO is not the genre for them.

"3)They should be comparing themselves to the browser based Battlefield Heroes that has an itme shop because that is the crowd they're going to be pulling from. I guarantee you both BF3 and MW3 sales will make PS2 look like a little no name indy game."

Why would they compare themselves to BH, when Heroes was designed to compete for the attention of those who like the short quick matches with game play balanced for small groups? I'll bet you MW3 and BF3 have more box sells. The typical console fanboy has it burned into their brain that the most own anything with a specific brand.

"4) It is SOE..."

And your a Hater? God forbid a company makes some mistakes. Everyone who criticizes Sony, EA, Activision-Blizzard, Mythic...ect should really go into the industry themselves. But they don't because its much easier to criticize companies for decisions sitting down at your 9 to 5. Especially when the toughest decision you'll make in a day is whether to get the number 5 combo or order from the dollar menu.
Reply

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 5:13PM SnarlingWolf said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Phone Guy

I don't "hate" SOE, I would just never be stupid enough to buy/play/enter any of my personal information into a single product they make again. It isn't just the massive security issues that they knew about and chose to ignore putting all of their customers at risk. It is also the quality, or major lack thereof, in all of their products released in the past 6 or so years. They make crap, and they mess it up, it is as simple as that.

Making comments to try to hint that your game may be better than the big boys in that market group is as bad as every MMO that releases and says it is going to be the WoW killer. It is an idiotic statement, plain and simple.

I remember the first planetside. I remember travelling around thier "massive scale" you know what it was like? Boring as all hell. The battles didn't take place in massive scale. They took place at one base at a time in an area the size of a BF2/BF3 map. That was all you ever experience because everyone wanted in on the action. Sure sometimes I would sneak to the other bases and cap them while no one was there, it wasn't fun or exciting.

Ladders/Tournaments don't "make people feel special", although I can see how someone who would have no hope of competing with talent would see it that way. It provides a competitive experience to the game where you will play against tough/skilled opponents. A game which ONLY has one world where all of the no skill, uncoordinated people are mixed in with the good doesn't give cooperation.

This game will make a fraction of the money of BF3/MW3. So for them to even mention the names of one of those games in a press release is ridiculous. PS3 will bring in a rush when it is launched due to being F2P. They'll get a few bucks off people, but then everyone will move on to the other, better quality games out there.

It's fine to be a fan of a game, even one that won't do well. But to try to fool yourself into thinking it is this amazing game and it simply isn't for the crowd is silly.
Reply

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 6:42PM Phone Guy said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@SnarlingWolf

Welcome to the world of online marketing. Talking smack about other games is common place. You can't play a competitive game now a days without the fan boys ranting about another game and how much better it is. Marketing simply took this as a way to get the droves of sheep who refuse to think for themselves.

You must of played a different Planetside then me. I played from beta till well past Core Combat. Sure the majority of battles wound down to focusing on one base at a time. But to get to that point you had to break the defense, which in some cases encompassed a field of area that stretched between multiple bases and a handful of towers. Air towers needed to be defended to allow Air Calv a chance to repair and rearm. Bridges were locked down creating choke points. The amount of team work and strategy involved was impressive at the time. Not to mention that the Planetside had a role for everybody. People lousy at fighting might have hidden talents making them excellent Pilots, Medics, Engineers, or even Commanders. The game really gave away for everyone to be important without over focusing on the twitch crowd.

But overall that's the point. Games that focus on Ladders / Leagues and Score Boards generally breed players who fall into the elitist jerk category. They do believe themselves to be something special. If you think otherwise you probably haven't spent enough time playing in league matches or listening to the non stopping trash talking by clans during play.

Let me quote you here

"A game which ONLY has one world where all of the no skill, uncoordinated people are mixed in with the good doesn't give cooperation. "

Everyone starts this way, its called being new. If you only want to play with the "good" players, then you are an elitist who feel that playing someone new is beneath you. In a game like BF or MW sure those new players can cost you a match. In Planetside they can be harnessed and used like a resource. You grab into the platoon tell em to hop in the transport and let them know when to bail. The game allows for real leadership and direction.

Trust me I won't deny the money those other games will make, but at the same time why shouldn't they mention them. They are drawing a line stating we are over here. We exist where BF3 and MW3 cannot touch. If you want massive battles, tactical game play, and a persistent battlefield come over here. Especially when you consider the players who play games like modern warfare not for Ladders or Leagues, but simply to grind out to the highest prestige. A persistent game were all the work doesn't get them a little badge by their name, but actual character growth. its a perfect match.

In the end its ok not to be a fan of the game. But to fool yourself into believing it won't do well, because the genre doesn't cater to the small percentage of elitist, well that's just silly.
Reply

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 7:17PM Graill440 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SnarlingWolf

BF3 is riddled with hackers right now, pb hasnt updated yet and it has been 3 days. The game itself is a pathetic console port for the pc, another fail. The BF3 campaign story was created by a 5 year old and a room of spider monkies and is super short. On hard level the Ai is so ignorantly stupid and scripted on both sides its a wonder anyone , including myself, played it, that and the ending level is bugged to hell.

The multiplayer is laggy and disconnections are rampant, though i only got tossed one time in 3 matches, still i do not like the console feel of the game as it detracts from the experience.

With planetside, the company took Section 8, absorbed it, and added those mechanics and probably more to the new planetside. Whether a persistant multiplayer game will catch on is anyones guess. If it turns out pay to win, it will not.

Reply

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 8:15PM champagon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SnarlingWolf NO COMPANY IS 100 PERCENT SAFE BEING AN ONLINE GAME...../cruisecontroloff. I can't say it any clearer Sony got hacked cause they had it coming, just the fact of being online means that they are vulnerable.
Reply

Posted: Oct 27th 2011 11:06AM SnarlingWolf said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Graill440

I never said BF3 was a good game, I said its sales will make PS2 sales look like it is a tiny indie game. MW3 sales will be even higher than BF3 sales. It is pointless for PS2 to try to talk tough because they aren't going to make anywhere in the ballpark as much money as the games they're trying to talk tough about, which makes the person saying those things an idiot.
Reply

Posted: Oct 27th 2011 11:07AM SnarlingWolf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@champagon

Being told that you have huge security holes and refusing to do nothing about it is not the same as simply being an online company and prone to people trying to hack you. It is being a terrible company who doesn't give a crap about a single customer, plain and simple.
Reply

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 2:21PM FrostPaw said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Size of the world is a problem if its full of empty.

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 2:30PM Yellowdancer said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@FrostPaw

That is why the game is F2P
Reply

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 11:36PM Sabbatai said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@FrostPaw Like Planetside 1? Where my roommate just participated in a huge battle with what I'd estimate to be about 300 people and all 3 factions well represented.... last night?
Reply

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 2:25PM Pingles said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
If this game launches with enough fanfare the servers will be full. They always are when a major title opens.

If they make this game fun and keep the payments reasonable I see no reason why we won't be playing large-scale battles for quite a while.

I am looking forward to it. Naysay all you want but at the beginning it's gonna be crazy. If they get things together and make it fun it's gonna be spectacular.

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 2:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
did m.ag have more then 1k per battle?

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 2:57PM Faith said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
But will it dwarf the original PS in scale?

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 3:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Funny thing is that Arma 2 and 3 both have more scale in them than BF2 and 3 but they don't get as much publicity either.

Scale is one thing, gaming is another. Folks that like BF2 didn't like how big the Project Reality mod or Arma 2 game were because it meant the action happened in bursts with lots of down time in between and a LOT of movement in order to get to said action. Will PS2 have the action like this or will it all be localized?

If they can balance the big with the fast then they have a winner, if not then it might drift off into obscurity like the first PS.

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 4:06PM Davevis93 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) While I did play the first planetside I managed to join in when the game was hemorrhaging players during the mid 2000's so it was a mix of easy to find action (during the afternoon or weekends you could guarantee that there were at least two major invasions that each faction would be fighting for/againest) and downtime (typically weekdays were bore fests cause everyone was at work/school)
Reply

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 3:15PM real65rcncom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I hope PS2 does well, I really really do. But... seriously?

Comparing yourself to a console game is lowering the bar. I don't care what the game is or how awesome (and BF3 is pure awesome).

You're a AAA mmo. Act like one.

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 3:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
1st off, ARma is all instanced and DOES NOT have battles of 200+ in the same area. There might be 200+ total, across multiple areas on the same "map" however.

If Planetside or any new BF /Arma want to have REAL scale, they need to look at WW2ol and try to come close.

www.battlegroundeurope.com

Unlimited amount of players allowed on map
Its all ONE GIANT MAP, that is modeled after the terrain of MULTIPLE COUNTRIES during World War 2!!! Literally, the size of about 1/4 of western europe!

If PS2 can come close to that, then I'd be very impressed. I do think PS2 will do well because SOE has been slacking on promotion and development funding for Eq2 and the New DCUO(which SHOULD have been the new flagship title) but now they are waiting to release PS2 as the new flagfship title for soe gaming.

Posted: Oct 26th 2011 4:12PM Davevis93 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) Planetside is a bunch of "one giant maps" so sure its not a to-scale-model of europe omni-map but you still get that hugeness feeling ( especially when doing ANT runs ;) ).

The maps were all huge and persistent, a Tech Lab that was capped by the TR would stay TR unless capped by the other empires or drained of its energy.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW