Actually Planetside (and any other team-based, PvP, mutliplayer game, to a lesser extent) is a really good example of a game that doesn't revolve around you. Your actions may, or may not, make a difference to the world.
Of course this makes those occasions where you *do* change the course of the battle especially worthwhile, not least because of the potential to receive recognition of your contribution from your peers.
I'm a veteran Planetside player, its a game that has its flaws like any other but it has some amazing innovations in gameplay that could really move the MMOG genre along.
1) Starting characters can compete with, or cooperate with, characters of any level without being useless. What an amazing idea! Imagine if 'newbies' in other MMOGs were useful right away! (and not just so you can PK them and take their gold). PS doesn't load high-level characters down with unbeatable bonuses, they have access to more of the game's equipment but a few solid hits will kill them just as dead, this means that characters of all levels are useful on the battlefield. Net result: levelling up is worthwhile but being low-level isn't depressing and dull.
2) Both character level (time spent playing) and player skill have a part to play in success. Whether or not you think that selecting the right attack or casting the proper spell is skillful or not, hand-eye coordination can be added into the mix to make the game even more skill-based. In PS your character will have access to more toys as he levels up, making him overall more effective, but your skill is always key - from level 1 to level 20.
It seems to me that there's no reason that these two key features couldn't be included in future MMORPGs... allowing a more interactive experience for characters of all classes and levels and allowing players who are new to the game, or have less time to spend on it, to enjoy the game alongside the more experienced or obsessive gamers. It also breaks down the divide between casual and hardcore players and lets them play side by side.
For my money it seems that games like Anarchy Online or Starwars Galaxies are crying out to be played using a Planetside-like system and although it would need to be quite different for fantasy-themed games (all those melee weapons make FPS mechanics less useful) the core concepts of player skill and gameplay balance accross levels could still be included.
You're correct that PS doesn't have location-based damage but I think thats more down to concerns over lag-related and server-load issues than anything else. Although weapons have a 'cone of fire' this just means that some weapons are more accurate (have a tighter CoF) than others or that a crouching soldier who fires in bursts will have a tighter CoF than a running and jumping soldier who is firing full-auto. There's still a lot of skill involved, although some weapons require more skill than others.
As for XP counting for a lot in PS; it counts a lot less than it does in most MMOGs... you don't get any more hit points or get any faster or more accurate or anything of the kind through XP. The two things you gain from XP are access to a broader range of equipment and the ability to use more cybernetic 'implants' (1 at level 6, 2 at level 12, 3 at level 18). A level 1 character can quite easily kill a level 20 (max level) character in Planetside, it just depends on the situation. If you're level 1 and you shoot a level 20 character with your tank then he's just as dead as anyone else. You could even just gun him down with the basic machine gun, you'd just have to find him when he's wounded, not paying attention or when numbers are on your side. Or you'd have to be *really* good.
As for commanders, planetside has two ranking systems; Battle Rank (the 'levels' I mentioned earlier) and Command Rank. You earn Command Rank by leading squads to victory rather than by killing people directly and with Command Rank comes the ability to place way-points for your squad-members, draw battle plans on the map and ultimatley call in orbital strikes on key enemy troops emplacements.
It sounds like Planetside might actually be the game you've been waiting for...;-)
Thank god! I was starting to think I was the only person on Slashdot that actually plays PS. There are certainly a lot of people who want to slag the game off based on (apparently) very brief experiences with it or who slate it for flaws that all MMOGs have, but which PS suffers from less.
It just goes to show that as much as gamers claim they want innovation in games they really don't - PS is a really bold new direction in MMOG gaming, it has elements of FPS and elements of RPG and it proves that a skill-based MMOG is not only possible but can be great. And so people dismiss it as a waste of space because it doesn't work like their favorite FPS/RPG. *sigh*
BTW I also play Vanu on Werner, as part of the Purple Valor outfit...
The certificate system in Planetside means that characters of maximum level have no advantage over starting players other than the equipment they have, and starting players have access to the same equipment in theory just a smaller selection of it - they can have a big gun or some decent armour but the high-level character will have both. Compared to most MMOGs that's an amazing boost for starting players, try killing a level 20 character with a level 1 character in Everquest.
People group together in Planetside because a coordinated force has a much better chance to assault or defend a base than a leaderless mob. Seems like common sense to me. There are still plenty of 'lone wolf' players - it just depends on what you're trying to achieve. You won't take a well defended enemy base on your own, but you might weaken their defences, snipe key targets, sabotague rear areas or keep your own bases well supplied... just to list a few of many examples.
Finally, if you've never seen a big, hectic battle over a base with attackers swarming through the gates (or jump-jetting over the walls) with massive casualties on both sides and vehicles and equipment of all sorts being used then you've been playing a different Planetside to me. Actually you've just not being playing Planetside, or at least not for long.
I can't help feeling that if you're basing your opinion on time you spent during the beta-test, time you spent eating and surfing the net apparently, then you really have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the live game.
Actually Planetside has three competing factions, not two, which makes things considerably more interesting since no matter how well you think you're doing there's always room to be suddenly thwarted by a second front being opened up at the rear of your territory...
Personally the fact that you don't ever win the war doesn't bother me - it wouldn't be much of a MMOG if you could win now would it? Nobody ever wins at Everquest or any other MMOG so I don't see a problem here and at least in Planetside you can win or loose each individual battle.
Frankly I don't find Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament any more meaningful simply because after a certain number of frags the game is over. In Planetside the global balance of power shifts constantly and knowing that you and your squadmates can make a big difference to that makes the game a lot of fun.
Hmmm.. so you're suggesting that gamers who play a lot of sports games will develop keen sporting instincts? Or gamers who play platform games will become expert at running, jumping and climbing?
Practicing with virtual weapons in a virtual environment will indeed train certain responses in a gamer - but those responses will be the expert use of a mouse and keyboard, and not the expert use of a gun.
I've played all kinds of violent computer games since I was a kid and my first instinct in an argument is never to resort to violence of any kind. The same can be said for all my friends. Indeed, despite all those hours of virtual violence I have never held a gun in my life and any guesses I could make about how to fire one would be based entirely on Hollywood movies. So have I missed the games that should teach me 'to use weapons quickly and easily'?
Do you have some kind of evidence to back up your assertation that fantasy violence leads to real violence? I rather think not.
Despite his childishness the guy has a point; Nintendo really aren't delivering on their promises for innovation and, more than that, they aren't producing solid sequels either. With the rarity of third party games and a total lack of support for online gaming its difficult to see anything the Gamecube has done right.
Don't get me wrong; I own a Gamecube and I like a lot of Nintendo games. I own a SNES and an N64 as well. He's right that Mario Sunshine is a weak re-tread of Mario 64 though - its a fun game in its own right but it lacks the innovation, imagination and sheer fun of Mario 64. I've heard that Sunshine is based on re-worked N64DD code and I think that makes a lot of sense - its basically a stop-gap rather than a true sequel. The Wind Waker suffers from similar flaws; its got an innovative graphical style but beneath that it plays like Ocarina of Time with a boat tacked on - much like the tacked-on squirt-gun in Mario Sunshine. Given how clunky the water-based combat is and how dull the treasure-seeking is, its hard to see what the sailing really adds to the game. At its core The Wind Waker is about puzzle dungeons, just like any Zelda game, but its dungeons are less interesting and much easier than those we've seen before and it doesn't really add anything new to the mix. Even the titular 'Wind Waker' is essentially just the Ocarina of Time by a new name.
I think ultimately Nintendo's problem is this: innovation is its major selling point. Sony has a massive catalogue of games, including many fantastic new ideas and many great sequels and Microsoft have enough money to buy up anything that Sony overlooks - so if Nintendo wants to compete it needs not just a few good games, but some really unmissible ones. Currently the Gamecube is struggling to outdo the N64; how can it hope to compete with next-generation offerings?
Actually I have every right to criticise whatever I please. Trying to stop me would be rather un-American of you wouldn't it?
In any case, after all the many good deeds of the US, its only natural that foreigners like me would want to return the favour. I'm just trying to help save your asses from your own creation (a fascist corporate-state disguised as a democracy).
I'm not talking about a right-wing conspiracy here; just straight forward corruption on a massive scale. Bush is president because he has rich friends and family members in positions of power. If you can buy the presidency then its no longer a democracy - instead it becomes a plutocracy (government by the richest). If you prefer that then fine, but I think I'd be upset if my vote counted for nothing.
Because of course your nation having once given another nation money means that the citizens of that nation no longer have any right to criticise your corrupt, failing 'democracy'.
Besides which we colonised your country in the first place; so by your logic I imagine that means you should shut up and be grateful to us.;-)
Perhaps you should try thinking a little harder before you post.
I think the point he was trying to make is that US democracy is fundamentally flawed.
When the son of an ex-president wins the election then you should begin to worry that nepotism and corruption are undermining your system.
When the state that proves key to the election sides in favour of that man and his brother is the governor of that state then there is no room left for debate.
Stop singing the praises of your ECs, stop pretending that your nation is inately superior to all others and actually address the situation. Or don't you value your own right to vote?
Re:PS2 Computer would never work -- Here's why
on
PS2 As PC
·
· Score: 1
You're suggesting that if people use it for other things that they won't buy games - this doesn't seem to be Sony's opinion else they wouldn't have desgined the PS2 to play DVDs.
Adding more features means selling more PS2s, selling more PS2s means more developers willing to commit to the platform, which means more games available and more money for Sony.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Planetside (and any other team-based, PvP, mutliplayer game, to a lesser extent) is a really good example of a game that doesn't revolve around you. Your actions may, or may not, make a difference to the world.
Of course this makes those occasions where you *do* change the course of the battle especially worthwhile, not least because of the potential to receive recognition of your contribution from your peers.
I'm a veteran Planetside player, its a game that has its flaws like any other but it has some amazing innovations in gameplay that could really move the MMOG genre along.
1) Starting characters can compete with, or cooperate with, characters of any level without being useless. What an amazing idea! Imagine if 'newbies' in other MMOGs were useful right away! (and not just so you can PK them and take their gold). PS doesn't load high-level characters down with unbeatable bonuses, they have access to more of the game's equipment but a few solid hits will kill them just as dead, this means that characters of all levels are useful on the battlefield. Net result: levelling up is worthwhile but being low-level isn't depressing and dull.
2) Both character level (time spent playing) and player skill have a part to play in success. Whether or not you think that selecting the right attack or casting the proper spell is skillful or not, hand-eye coordination can be added into the mix to make the game even more skill-based. In PS your character will have access to more toys as he levels up, making him overall more effective, but your skill is always key - from level 1 to level 20.
It seems to me that there's no reason that these two key features couldn't be included in future MMORPGs... allowing a more interactive experience for characters of all classes and levels and allowing players who are new to the game, or have less time to spend on it, to enjoy the game alongside the more experienced or obsessive gamers. It also breaks down the divide between casual and hardcore players and lets them play side by side.
For my money it seems that games like Anarchy Online or Starwars Galaxies are crying out to be played using a Planetside-like system and although it would need to be quite different for fantasy-themed games (all those melee weapons make FPS mechanics less useful) the core concepts of player skill and gameplay balance accross levels could still be included.
You're correct that PS doesn't have location-based damage but I think thats more down to concerns over lag-related and server-load issues than anything else. Although weapons have a 'cone of fire' this just means that some weapons are more accurate (have a tighter CoF) than others or that a crouching soldier who fires in bursts will have a tighter CoF than a running and jumping soldier who is firing full-auto. There's still a lot of skill involved, although some weapons require more skill than others.
;-)
As for XP counting for a lot in PS; it counts a lot less than it does in most MMOGs... you don't get any more hit points or get any faster or more accurate or anything of the kind through XP. The two things you gain from XP are access to a broader range of equipment and the ability to use more cybernetic 'implants' (1 at level 6, 2 at level 12, 3 at level 18). A level 1 character can quite easily kill a level 20 (max level) character in Planetside, it just depends on the situation. If you're level 1 and you shoot a level 20 character with your tank then he's just as dead as anyone else. You could even just gun him down with the basic machine gun, you'd just have to find him when he's wounded, not paying attention or when numbers are on your side. Or you'd have to be *really* good.
As for commanders, planetside has two ranking systems; Battle Rank (the 'levels' I mentioned earlier) and Command Rank. You earn Command Rank by leading squads to victory rather than by killing people directly and with Command Rank comes the ability to place way-points for your squad-members, draw battle plans on the map and ultimatley call in orbital strikes on key enemy troops emplacements.
It sounds like Planetside might actually be the game you've been waiting for...
Thank god! I was starting to think I was the only person on Slashdot that actually plays PS. There are certainly a lot of people who want to slag the game off based on (apparently) very brief experiences with it or who slate it for flaws that all MMOGs have, but which PS suffers from less.
It just goes to show that as much as gamers claim they want innovation in games they really don't - PS is a really bold new direction in MMOG gaming, it has elements of FPS and elements of RPG and it proves that a skill-based MMOG is not only possible but can be great. And so people dismiss it as a waste of space because it doesn't work like their favorite FPS/RPG. *sigh*
BTW I also play Vanu on Werner, as part of the Purple Valor outfit...
Nonsense.
The certificate system in Planetside means that characters of maximum level have no advantage over starting players other than the equipment they have, and starting players have access to the same equipment in theory just a smaller selection of it - they can have a big gun or some decent armour but the high-level character will have both. Compared to most MMOGs that's an amazing boost for starting players, try killing a level 20 character with a level 1 character in Everquest.
People group together in Planetside because a coordinated force has a much better chance to assault or defend a base than a leaderless mob. Seems like common sense to me. There are still plenty of 'lone wolf' players - it just depends on what you're trying to achieve. You won't take a well defended enemy base on your own, but you might weaken their defences, snipe key targets, sabotague rear areas or keep your own bases well supplied... just to list a few of many examples.
Finally, if you've never seen a big, hectic battle over a base with attackers swarming through the gates (or jump-jetting over the walls) with massive casualties on both sides and vehicles and equipment of all sorts being used then you've been playing a different Planetside to me. Actually you've just not being playing Planetside, or at least not for long.
I can't help feeling that if you're basing your opinion on time you spent during the beta-test, time you spent eating and surfing the net apparently, then you really have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the live game.
Actually Planetside has three competing factions, not two, which makes things considerably more interesting since no matter how well you think you're doing there's always room to be suddenly thwarted by a second front being opened up at the rear of your territory...
Personally the fact that you don't ever win the war doesn't bother me - it wouldn't be much of a MMOG if you could win now would it? Nobody ever wins at Everquest or any other MMOG so I don't see a problem here and at least in Planetside you can win or loose each individual battle.
Frankly I don't find Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament any more meaningful simply because after a certain number of frags the game is over. In Planetside the global balance of power shifts constantly and knowing that you and your squadmates can make a big difference to that makes the game a lot of fun.
Hmmm.. so you're suggesting that gamers who play a lot of sports games will develop keen sporting instincts? Or gamers who play platform games will become expert at running, jumping and climbing?
Practicing with virtual weapons in a virtual environment will indeed train certain responses in a gamer - but those responses will be the expert use of a mouse and keyboard, and not the expert use of a gun.
I've played all kinds of violent computer games since I was a kid and my first instinct in an argument is never to resort to violence of any kind. The same can be said for all my friends. Indeed, despite all those hours of virtual violence I have never held a gun in my life and any guesses I could make about how to fire one would be based entirely on Hollywood movies. So have I missed the games that should teach me 'to use weapons quickly and easily'?
Do you have some kind of evidence to back up your assertation that fantasy violence leads to real violence? I rather think not.
Despite his childishness the guy has a point; Nintendo really aren't delivering on their promises for innovation and, more than that, they aren't producing solid sequels either. With the rarity of third party games and a total lack of support for online gaming its difficult to see anything the Gamecube has done right.
Don't get me wrong; I own a Gamecube and I like a lot of Nintendo games. I own a SNES and an N64 as well. He's right that Mario Sunshine is a weak re-tread of Mario 64 though - its a fun game in its own right but it lacks the innovation, imagination and sheer fun of Mario 64. I've heard that Sunshine is based on re-worked N64DD code and I think that makes a lot of sense - its basically a stop-gap rather than a true sequel. The Wind Waker suffers from similar flaws; its got an innovative graphical style but beneath that it plays like Ocarina of Time with a boat tacked on - much like the tacked-on squirt-gun in Mario Sunshine. Given how clunky the water-based combat is and how dull the treasure-seeking is, its hard to see what the sailing really adds to the game. At its core The Wind Waker is about puzzle dungeons, just like any Zelda game, but its dungeons are less interesting and much easier than those we've seen before and it doesn't really add anything new to the mix. Even the titular 'Wind Waker' is essentially just the Ocarina of Time by a new name.
I think ultimately Nintendo's problem is this: innovation is its major selling point. Sony has a massive catalogue of games, including many fantastic new ideas and many great sequels and Microsoft have enough money to buy up anything that Sony overlooks - so if Nintendo wants to compete it needs not just a few good games, but some really unmissible ones. Currently the Gamecube is struggling to outdo the N64; how can it hope to compete with next-generation offerings?
Actually I have every right to criticise whatever I please. Trying to stop me would be rather un-American of you wouldn't it?
In any case, after all the many good deeds of the US, its only natural that foreigners like me would want to return the favour. I'm just trying to help save your asses from your own creation (a fascist corporate-state disguised as a democracy).
I'm not talking about a right-wing conspiracy here; just straight forward corruption on a massive scale. Bush is president because he has rich friends and family members in positions of power. If you can buy the presidency then its no longer a democracy - instead it becomes a plutocracy (government by the richest). If you prefer that then fine, but I think I'd be upset if my vote counted for nothing.
Because of course your nation having once given another nation money means that the citizens of that nation no longer have any right to criticise your corrupt, failing 'democracy'.
;-)
Besides which we colonised your country in the first place; so by your logic I imagine that means you should shut up and be grateful to us.
Perhaps you should try thinking a little harder before you post.
I think the point he was trying to make is that US democracy is fundamentally flawed.
When the son of an ex-president wins the election then you should begin to worry that nepotism and corruption are undermining your system.
When the state that proves key to the election sides in favour of that man and his brother is the governor of that state then there is no room left for debate.
Stop singing the praises of your ECs, stop pretending that your nation is inately superior to all others and actually address the situation. Or don't you value your own right to vote?
You're suggesting that if people use it for other things that they won't buy games - this doesn't seem to be Sony's opinion else they wouldn't have desgined the PS2 to play DVDs.
Adding more features means selling more PS2s, selling more PS2s means more developers willing to commit to the platform, which means more games available and more money for Sony.
Actually I did follow his link and his logic seemed pretty sound.
If you have a counter-proof then why don't you share it with us?