Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

PlanetSide Community Takes Action to Market Game

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the if-you-want-something-done-right.. dept.

PC Games (Games) 93

Enilk Libb VII writes "Frustrated by Sony Online's lack of dedication to their game, the Planetside community has taken the initiative and started a 'Guerilla Marketing' campaign designed to attract new players to the game. Players know that Planetside is good - perhaps even a genre defining title - but that it often goes unnoticed in the gaming market, saturated as it is with FPS games. Forums dedicated to the discussion of computer games, it was decided, are the perfect places to advertise. A template was designed with links to a spectacular video of Planetside (made by a regular Planetside player), a 7-day free trial of the game itself, and a downloadable installer. A thread was started on the Planetside Forums and the players got to work. The effect of the campaign has been noticeable. Populations are growing noticeably. Due to the influx of new players, many veterans of the game have volunteered to be part of a team whose job will be to contact new players and 'buckle them in'." Now if they'd only lower the pricetag...

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You know... (2, Interesting)

EvilJohn (17821) | more than 9 years ago | (#11267949)

... maybe no one wants to play it because it isn't that good.

I played the game for awhile, and it doesn't take long to figure out having the achievements you made Monady Night wiped out while your at work make redoing the same thing on Tuesday Night not much fun.

Re:You know... (1)

Arngautr (745196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268212)

Exactly what got to me. A decent game, perhaps even innovative, but yeah when you conquor some land, log off content and happy that progress has been made, log back on only to see that land overrun by the opposing faction, blah, maybe the expansion or patches handled this, though I doubt it, I quit well before then.

Re:You know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289043)

PS is a good diversion from my primary love which is WWIIOL.

Keep up the good work guys!

We over at WWIIOL have done pretty much the same thing.

Re:You know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11268311)

Exactly. The ideal situation for all sides is to NOT encounter each other and instead take over continents unopposed; this maximizes experience gained at the expense of making combat(i.e. what should be the core of the game) frivilous.

Re:You know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11270119)

Except that if unopposed, no experience is gained - without combat, you get nothing, and since character development is at the heart of the game, encounters are a must.

Re:You know... (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268559)

Not only that, but the main thing that I think has driven many players away (myself included) is how poor of a FPS the game actually is.

People play FPS because they like the skill involved. That means living and dying by headshots, etc. In Planetside, you have the "cone of fire" which basically kills any skill involvement whatsoever.

That alone made me not want to play. I loved the concept, and I hope someone comes along and does it right, but Planetside definitely did NOT do it right.

Re:You know... (1)

Swanktastic (109747) | more than 9 years ago | (#11270802)

People play FPS because they like the skill involved. That means living and dying by headshots, etc. In Planetside, you have the "cone of fire" which basically kills any skill involvement whatsoever.

Honestly, though, some people DON'T like the twitchfest that most FPS's are these days. I liked Planetside precisely because it didn't appeal to 14 year olds with ADD who can't wait 60 seconds to respawn.

I think it boils down to the level of teamwork you like in your FPS. Designers need to decide how much a single, excellent player can affect the flow of battle. Cone of Fire limited their effect, which makes it more of a tactical game, rather than a shoot-em-up game.

Re:You know... (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 9 years ago | (#11272380)

you do realize that every other FPS on the market ALSO has a "cone of fire" right? counterstrike, ut2004, quake, etc. good games make it visible, through changing crosshair size. shitty games (*cough*cs*cough) make you guess. but its always there.

Re:You know... (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 9 years ago | (#11272457)

Except if you go prone and don't move too quickly, you are guaranteed a headshot if you click on someones head.

Re:You know... (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 9 years ago | (#11279239)

generally that isnt true. a zero-width cone exists for sniper rifles in a few games, but not the ones I play most (day of defeat, enemy territory).

Re:You know... (1)

pikakilla (775788) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268964)

mmmm glad to see they havent fixed the musical bases.

While they laud that there are no computer controled characters in the game; a game of this calabur needs some. There needs to be a bot system that can create battles in the middle of fields instead of right outside bases. I remember the few battles that took part inbetween bases were the best damn experiances i had in that game.

From what i gather in your post, they still havent addressed the repetative nature of the base network. This is the reason why planetside sucks. It is not because the concept sucks, it is the lack of any real, lasting objective (whether it be from the players or one injected by the developers) that kills this game.

Re:You know... (1)

antime (739998) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269285)

I used to play Planetside quite a lot, and while the lack of permanent progress annoyed me for a bit I eventually realized that "winning" wasn't the point, but rather the process of fighting the enemy and conquering bases. No other online game has matched the fun of being part of a well-organized squad/outfit assaulting some base, or the desperate fights to keep that single remaining tower on a continent against the enemy zerg.
The utter chaos of two armies clashing was also fun, especially when the third one would try to take advantage of the situation and sneak up on both. Sure the game was boring at times - during "off hours" a single player on foot could capture entire continents - but on the whole it was well worth the subscription fee.

Re:You know... (1)

Poseidon88 (791279) | more than 9 years ago | (#11270239)

The point of Planetside is not to "make progress." The war never ends, it will always go back and forth. The fun to be found in the game is the massive scale on which you can organize groups of soldiers. I played for over a year as part of a large outfit (over 300 active members). We used a hosted Teamspeak server to communicate and coordinate large-scale operations. Scenes like those you see in the movie were rare, but not unheard of. It's a beautiful thing when 10 assault tanks clear the roof of an installation just before 50 infantry do a simultaneous Galaxy-drop.

I'll admit that I got tired of the game, but it wasn't because it wasn't fun. I just couldn't keep up with all the changes they kept throwing at us. After they shipped the Core Combat expansion, they started to lose focus. Every patch seemed to completely change the core gameplay, and keeping track of all the changes while adapting our tactics was exhausting. I haven't played in about 8 months, and I understand that it has continued to change quite a bit, so I can't say what the game is like anymore.

Re:You know... (1)

shamowfski (808477) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274174)

I've been playing this game since beta, and have had very few breaks. When it was released it was revolutionary. There isn't an FPS that has ever had more players playing against each other at one time. I believe it's something like 3000 on may 31st of 2003 on the emerald server. The sheer sizes of the battles are what makes them fun to the people who play. I'm still an active player and I have witnessed first hand this influx in new players as it has made outfit recruiting much easier.

Re:You know... (1)

Tiger313 (848074) | more than 9 years ago | (#11307921)

... maybe it's not as good in your perception, EvilJohn. But you know... it may be good in other people's perceptions ? Maybe ? From what I read I think you haven't even stuck around long enough to know what you're talking about. Yeah, the enemy doesn't sit still while you're asleep or go to work. And when you come back the continents you took last night may have to be taken again. I've been playing over a year and still like the game. Tastes sure differ ! Tiger313 BR20 CR4 Trouble! Werner

Lower the price tag? (2, Insightful)

schild (713993) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268014)

In a market with no competition (save the Conquest mode in MechAssault 2 on the Xbox), why would they lower the price tag? They are the only MMOFPS afaik (Neocron and other shit notwithstanding). A 7 day trial is more than enough to decide whether you like it or not. Don't be a cheapskate.

Uninformed editorial comments hurt everyone, particularly the game in question.

Re:Lower the price tag? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268122)

Well, they have competition in the form of other games (say, Unreal Tournament 2004. Not persistent but many would take better gameplay over persistent worlds) and those other games apparently deliver more for the money.

Re:Lower the price tag? (1)

Donjo (797935) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268489)

Isn't this already one of the cheaper MMO's? I am not totally sure but I recall seeing that it was only 12 or 13 dollars a month (if you buy a month at a time). This may be wrong though.

Re:Lower the price tag? (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269670)

I am looking at gamerankings.com, and most sites rate this game a 80% out of 100%. Compared to UT2004 or COD or HL2 or Doom3, it's not even in the same league description wise.

Re:Lower the price tag? (0)

BeetleJuice101 (846768) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269859)

80% out of 100% Dont you know what % means? .. Per Cent! HELLO!

Re:Lower the price tag? (1)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 9 years ago | (#11293768)

so, 80% of 100% or 80% :)

Re:Lower the price tag? (1)

Stepping Razor (756775) | more than 9 years ago | (#11406763)

80% out of 100% is a bit harsh.

i'd rate planetside at 80% out of 110%

Re:Lower the price tag? (1)

Ayaress (662020) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269954)

I allow myself $20 a month in subscriptions to games, and $100 a month total for games. Right now, subscription wise, I'm paying $9 a month for an MMORPG, and $10 a month for an MMORTS. If I paid them six months in advance, I'd actually pay less for the two combined than for Planetside, I've had one wipe in three years with one game (which I actually could have avoided had I had the foresight. Shortly after I started, they did a major graphical and systems overhaul, but couldn't upgrade the existing server without causing massive imbalance, so they launched the new system on a new set of servers. I was level 15 at the time - a week's work in the old system, maybe a week and a half in the new, but relative to the monsters I'd actually be overall stronger due to the new combat system, so I would have lost little or nothing to change, but I didn't. The old server was eventually discontinued, and I had to start over from a much wider gap) and none in two with the other. My friend, who convinced me to take the trial on Planetside, confesses several wipes in less than a year.

The game play is not particularly refreshing or special, and the character "advancement" seems more like an artificial limiting factor on newbies than any actual advancement.

MMORTS? (1)

schild (713993) | more than 9 years ago | (#11271533)

I'm interested in what MMORTS you are playing. I didn't know there was one - and I should know. The only one that comes to mind is in development and it's Ballerium. Recently resuming it's development at years end. So what is this already released game you're paying $10 a month for?

Re:MMORTS? (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 9 years ago | (#11272397)

theres Shattered Galaxy, which has been out for years, but thats more of a normal rts wrapped up inside a rpg/tbs metagame. theres also a european game that i cannot for the life of me remember the name of that is VERY cool, truly MMO with hundreds of players in each game, and each game lasting for weeks-months.

Re:MMORTS? (1)

schild (713993) | more than 9 years ago | (#11272456)

Mmm? Shattered Galaxy isn't an MMORTS. I'd like to know what European game you're talking about.

Re:MMORTS? (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 9 years ago | (#11279307)

Time of Defiance [nicelycrafted.com]

Replace "PlanetSide" with "$BIG_EA_GAME" (2, Interesting)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268243)

Supposing that this were some struggling large game by some large manufacturer, would we be yelling "astroturfing" instead of "innovative marketing"?

Just a thought...since "astroturfing" was the first thing that came to mind when I was reading the summary.

Re:Replace "PlanetSide" with "$BIG_EA_GAME" (1)

UWC (664779) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268433)

Hm. Maybe, but the game experience itself here is very largely dependent on the player base. If you can substantially increase the number of dedicated players on a server, then the play experience is likely to improve as conflicts might grow in scope to seem more epic than small warring factions. It's not just spreading the brand; the people promoting it are attempting to improve their own in-game experience and maybe delay the potential eventual shutdown of the servers.

Grain of salt needed, as I've not actually played the game due to cost and time considerations. The game's concept has always struck me as interesting and innovative, though.

Re:Replace "PlanetSide" with "$BIG_EA_GAME" (1)

EddieBurkett (614927) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268486)

Sony doesn't count as a "large manufacturer"?

This is astroturfing, but not in the classic sense, since this is being done by the consumers in a volunteer grassroots effort. Now, if it turns out Sony is funding this whole thing behind the scenes...

Re:Replace "PlanetSide" with "$BIG_EA_GAME" (2, Informative)

bmd3k (596468) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268823)

Though the fact that this is an actual "grassroots effort" implies that it isn't astroturfing.

Astroturfing [wikipedia.org]

The term is wordplay based on "grassroots" efforts, which are truly spontaneous undertakings.

Re:Replace "PlanetSide" with "$BIG_EA_GAME" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11269457)

if SOE are behind this I can quit my day job then....

MarcoPolo.

Planetside's problem is SOE (3, Insightful)

inkless1 (1269) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268545)

Planetside is, in it's heart, a good idea.

SOE sucked so badly at delivering it that it's just not a good game. It was horrifically buggy when it launched (my game would crash about 5 times in an hour before I would just stop at times ... and then there were the times I would spawn as a wall). SOE's customer service is probably the worst on the planet. (post all your log files, do all our work for you, wait days for any kind of response - I never got help from any at SOE except for getting a refund).

Then, when they start to stabilize it - they start to change the gameplay.

Basically, they had a decent idea, made a beta of it and boxed it. Now that players have fled the scenes in droves, SOE isn't willing to stick up a fight.

My suggestion - don't give SOE any more money on this drek. They don't deserve it. Yes, an MMOFPS could work. Go play some Battlefield until someone figures out how to make one.

I used to play Planetside (3, Insightful)

Dragoon412 (648209) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268650)

I mean, just the concept of it seemed awesome: a futurisic, skill-based MMO with real-time wars!

In reality, the game falls flat. This is mainly because while the game is designed as a war sim, many (if not most) of the players play it like a MMO Quake deathmatch. People are absolutely obsessed with kill stats; rewards are based on kills, your status is based on kills. So while your side needs some (very limited, admittedly) logistics to win (such as driving AMSes, dropship pilots, medics, engineers, anti-aicraft), 9 out of 10 people are running around as infantry with the Heavy Assault weapons, reinforced exoskeletons, and personal shields, because it's the best setup for fragging (indoors; outdoors, most of them fly Reavers and spend all their time rocket-spamming infantry that can't really fight back).

Everything about the game just feels like it failed. There's no cooperation, no coordination, the devs don't even try to balance weapons (i.e. there's this weapon called the Maelstrom - a heavy assault weapon that fires a chain-lash grenade that can lash through doors - the end result is one weapon that renders all the special assault weapons obsolete, and allows one person to clear entire rooms and hallways of other people by firing through walls), there's no war being faught... it's just a giant frag-fast with a terrible engine and some of the worst, most frustrating net code I've ever seen.

So, thumbs up for Planetside's concept, but the devs took what could've been a truly unique and rewarding game, and stripped out all the unique and rewarding features so that they could compete with the likes of Quake. The game has the most arrogant, immature, and elitist community I've ever had the misfortune of experiencing, too.

Sure, there are outfits that are the exception: Glastonbury Brigade, Sturmgrenadier, and Warrior Nation (all outfits I've been a part of), but it's still hard for one outfit to make much headway in the face of a giant, swarming zerg of killwhores.

The best way I can convery the concept to anyone who hasn't played it is this:

Imagine you're playing a game of Tribes CTF. You've got 16 people on your team. 3 guys are genuinely trying to cooperate and get the other team's flag. 8 guys are completely ignoring the flag and are just trying to frag the other team, 1 idiot's running around TKing your guys and killing your own turrets, 2 more guys are arguing over a strategy to get the other flag, even though they're both, obviously barely-literate, mongoloid cock jockeys, the only guy with a vehicle is flying a bomber with no bombadier/gunner, and the last guy's AFK.

That's what Planetside feels like: a public CTF server. Except in Planetside, you have to pay a monthly fee.

Maybe some day they'll turn it around, but for the foreseeable future, I wouldn't recommend that game to anyone.

Re:I used to play Planetside (1)

fearanddread (836731) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269324)

I played PS for a couple of months but eventually I got tired of it for many of the reasons listed in the parent post. This game *could* be really good based on the scale of the battles. There were a few times I ended up just staring at the battle instead of fighting because of the epic mayhem going on. In the end though, it just comes up short on too many fronts.

My biggest gripe about that game was the empire jumpers who would go to whichever side had the "weapon of the week" such as the Jackhammer and later on the Lasher.

Re:I used to play Planetside (2, Insightful)

Scooter (8281) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269897)

Imagine you're playing a game of Tribes CTF. You've got 16 people on your team. 3 guys are genuinely trying to cooperate and get the other team's flag. 8 guys are completely ignoring the flag and are just trying to frag the other team, 1 idiot's running around TKing your guys and killing your own turrets, 2 more guys are arguing over a strategy to get the other flag, even though they're both, obviously barely-literate, mongoloid cock jockeys, the only guy with a vehicle is flying a bomber with no bombadier/gunner, and the last guy's AFK.


ROFL :) That's public CTF (or any teamplay variant really) in a nutshell - brilliant. Especially like the bit about the vehicles: with the fashion these days for FPS/CTF games to have multi-crew vehicles how frustrating is it to spawn, only to see them all leave the base with none on fecking board?!?! :]

How many times have you played RTCW, got to the door and realised no fecker is an engineer? Then no one's on defence - in the flag room, because they're all outside fragging each other in mid-field (at least in 3wave CTF you don't get any bonus points for this). I remember when JKII came out, playing CTF and everyone was in mid-field dueling with those light-up pointy sticks. Meanwhile I'm over the enemy base saying "er.. anyone mind if I take this then? No? Hello? OK thanks..". No frags but hundreds of points...

Oh - and there's always one guy who shouts "Camping lamo" at the one guy who's actually trying to defend something of strategic value.. A bit like saying "hey - you're not running about like a headless chicken at random - you must be cheating!!" And if you *dare* to possibly actually obtain and use a powerup or some other difficult to use, but deadly equipment...

Re:I used to play Planetside (1)

SandmanWAIX (674838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11270290)

You guys are missing the point. Since Planetside is persistent what you do is you go out and you find a group of like-minded guys that know how to get things done. Its pretty easy to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. You then team up with these guys (up to 30 in a platoon) and amazingly you have all the coordination and support you could possibly need. Load them all up in a couple of air transports and kick some ass! In a 16 player server a couple of lamers make a difference. In Planetside you dont even notice them.

Re:I used to play Planetside (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11270730)

Yeah, I got planetside about a year ago and played it for a couple months. It was okay, but nothing special. The RPG aspect of it (character building, stats building, etc) kind of does fall flat. Not enough variety. And it's difficult to find groups/fights/etc. Chances are you'll run around for two hours getting killed by things you can't even see, then find a fight to join only to find that everyone on your side IS SHOOTING AT YOU or JUMPING INTO YOUR LINE OF FIRE SO THEY CAN FIRE, TOO... thereby penalizing you (for friendly damage given).

The idea is great. The implementation is mediocre.

Re:I used to play Planetside (1)

Drgnkght (449916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11271208)

I used to play Planetside also. For the record, foot soldiers can shoot down the light fighter crafts. Bolt drivers (if I remember the gun's name correctly) were good for this. Granted it was a slow single shot weapon which you had to reload after each shot and it took many shots, but it definitely got their attention when you started putting holes in their armor. Of course you *had* to find good cover when trying this tactic.

Re:I used to play Planetside (1)

ChronoSphere (814014) | more than 9 years ago | (#11272815)

Dragoon, what was your name in Sturmgrenadier? I'm the recruitment officer for SG Planetside, and when I saw our name appear on a slashdot comment, I was surpised :)

Re:I used to play Planetside (1)

Dragoon412 (648209) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278240)

Sorry to say, but I took a while to think about it, and I can't remember. I remember when I tried to make a toon on Emerald, all my regular names were taken, and I had to make up something new. On Markov (Vanu), I went by Vex and sp3ctre, but I can't for the life of me remember what I used on Emerald.

I wasn't exactly a big part of Sturmgrenadier, though. I only stuck around for a few weeks. I was in Hornet - was a lot of fun having the coordinated hot drop of half a dozen (or more) Vanguards into some enemy base's back yard, and I can only imagine the "oh shit!" factor something like that has on the enemy.

But because of the way the channels were structured, there wasn't much of an opportunity to talk to people and get to know them. I didn't know voices, I didn't really know anyone, and still felt like a stranger, so I just stopped coming around.

It was a fun time, and really, had I stuck it out, I'm sure I would've enjoyed it, but I just had a hard time really getting integrated into the unit, and by the time I joined up, my interest in PS was waning, anyways.

Way to go guys! (3, Funny)

lobsterGun (415085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268737)

It's always nice to see someone stick up for the little guy!

Young aspiring companies like SOE need all the help they can get!

I remember beta... (4, Informative)

pikakilla (775788) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268763)

I remember playing beta of this game. The two major problems with this game right before launch were the musical bases/zerg rushing and the horrible cone of fire (you could stand point blank and miss a person). They said in the forums that they would never fix the cone of fire (i dont know if they have reversed this stance) and the musical bases is just a part of the game.

This game sucks not because of the lack of players, it sucks because the developers/community wanted an eq-fps. It does not appeal to the hard core fpser. If sony would have not taken such a noobie friendly stance and tweeked the major problems of the game early on they would be in a much better situation than they are in now. For example, have actual objectives instead of "capture the base, run away, recapture the base, run to next base, capture another base, recapture first base...". Instead they focused on the leveling aspect of the game instead of the actual gameplay.

Many fps vets, including myself, were turned off before the end of beta. The lack of a good aiming system and the lack of area damage was inexcusable. This plus the lack of any true obtanaible objective was the death warrant for this game. Planetside had its chance, and it believed that by just being a mmofps would be enough to intice all the gamers to play and stay. Sadly, that is not enough to take the vets away from their free multiplayer UT/Quake/HL and pay for musical base death match.

Re:I remember beta... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11269011)

Musical bases was fixed ages ago when they put in the links between bases, so now people actually fight over things instead of going after the base with the least amount of enemy and running away if anyone shows up.

I don't know what you mean by "lack of area damage" because there's plenty of weapons with splash damage.

Is that video linked supposed to excite me... (2, Interesting)

eviltypeguy (521224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11268810)

Is that video linked in the article supposed to make me want to play?

Sure, these points just reflect my tastes but:

1) Total lack of artistry in the game's artwork (the artwork looks like something a CAD student made, technical precision with no heart)

2) 100% PvP (sorry, no interest, I want the option of not doing PvP)

3) Oooh "shiny" disease seen everywhere

4) Everything looks so sterilised, yet another reason I despise futuristic games

Yes, flame me all you want. But, I think the above are glaring reasons why World of Warcraft has succeeded where others have failed.

Re:Is that video linked supposed to excite me... (1)

ThePiMan2003 (676665) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269269)

Your annoyed that a MMOFPS is PVP only... I know it was probably only a pro-WoW troll but still the games aren't even in the same genre.

Re:Is that video linked supposed to excite me... (1)

eviltypeguy (521224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269433)

Yes, I'm annoyed that it's PvP only.

I'm annoyed because I have yet to find a PvP mechanism that doesn't suck all of the fun right out of the game for more casual gamers.

Re:Is that video linked supposed to excite me... (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269874)

I am a casual gamer...I play maybe a few hours a week. I can get on any fps and be the #1 guy on the server in no time. Why? Because I have a lot of natural talant. In an FPS, it has very little to do with how hardcore you are. Yeah, there are hardcore versions of me out there that have the natural talant and can beat me in to the ground because they play non-stop, but they are few and far between. In a MMORPG, you may be right...the casual gamer is going to lose out...and that is true for WoW as well, I don't care how much of a fanboy you are. But you are talking about an RPG, this is a whole different genre...so it is rediculous to compare the two. Once you learn the mechanisms on how the game is played, you can beat someone with better stats and lesser skill in an FPS. FPSs are meant to be PvP because having bots suck all the fun out of it. They are either too stupid and easy to kill, or can hit with such accuracy that it is pointless. So your complaint is invalid for this type of game. And just because you don't like PvP, doesn't mean others can't love it and embrace it. Most MMORPG just have it as an option, not as a requirement...so it doesn't suck any fun up, it's just out there. And you can continue running on your quests and beating on NPCs for experience. I guess what pisses me off about your post is that you miss the whole point of this game (I only played the trial a long time ago...no fanboydem here) and that you assume that things should be removed that you think suck. Step out of your world and look at things from other people's perspective...it will make you a better, less-bitter person.

Re:Is that video linked supposed to excite me... (1)

wuchild (846766) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269915)

How does it 'suck the fun out' if you are playing the game because you want to take part in a battle that pits 100 of your team against 100 of the other team?

Re:Is that video linked supposed to excite me... (1)

Xylaan (795464) | more than 9 years ago | (#11270344)

To be fair to planetside, this game has probably one of the BEST PvP systems, because it was designed to be only PvP.

Simply put, the only difference between a 3rd level character (which is 5 minutes after you start, if you do the training) and a 20th level character was the amount of things you could do. The 3rd level character could use the heaviest infantry weapons, or an AA weapon, or the battle armor suits. At that low level, you can only really do one or two of the different things, but you could do them.

The 20th level had access to the same abilities, except they had the ability to use all of them. For example, they could have a loadout with the heavy infantry gun, and an Anti Vehicle gun. But the bullets from the 20th level player did the same amount of damage as the 3rd level player, and they took the same amount of damage too.

But, overall, the casual player would have the ability to play the game from nearly the instant they started.

Re:Is that video linked supposed to excite me... (1)

BeetleJuice101 (846768) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269618)

I seriosuly cannot beleive you are complaining about that fact an FPS is PvP... Maybe you need a break from the EQ world of attacking some random NPC Rat?

Re:Is that video linked supposed to excite me... (1)

Poseidon88 (791279) | more than 9 years ago | (#11270502)

Is that video linked in the article supposed to make me want to play?

No, it isn't. It's supposed to make people who get the concept want to play.

1) Total lack of artistry in the game's artwork (the artwork looks like something a CAD student made, technical precision with no heart)

The artwork is intentionally toned down (low poly, relatively low-res textures) to improve frame rates. This is an action game. When you have 200+ people all fighting in realtime over the same facility, and your video card is screaming for mercy, you'll be glad the artwork isn't more detailed. And for the record, the quality of a highly compressed video isn't the best representation of how detailed the graphics actually are. But that's fine because it isn't meant to be a technology demo. It is meant to give you a sense of what the gameplay is like.

2) 100% PvP (sorry, no interest, I want the option of not doing PvP)

That's the entire point of the game. This is not an RPG. It is all about pitting your skill, tactics, and strategy against that of other players. Players level up, but everyone has the same stats, and even the lowest level player can use the same equipment as someone who's been playing since release. If that doesn't appeal to you, fine, but you can't argue that it is a flaw in the game, since it is the concept the entire game was built around.

3) Oooh "shiny" disease seen everywhere 4) Everything looks so sterilised, yet another reason I despise futuristic games

That's... well, I don't even know what that means.

Yes, flame me all you want. But, I think the above are glaring reasons why World of Warcraft has succeeded where others have failed.

I played Planetside for over a year, and I play WoW now. Frankly, the two games aren't even in the same genre, but both are outstanding at what they set out to accomplish.

Re:Is that video linked supposed to excite me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11273942)

Do you also complain that Counter-Strike is PvP only? Sheesh.

PlanetSide is a first person shooter - not an RPG...

Re:Is that video linked supposed to excite me... (1)

Bad Ad (729117) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278383)

2) 100% PvP (sorry, no interest, I want the option of not doing PvP) pretty sure that option is hidden in the menu, look real close and you will see it, its called "then dont buy the god damn game"

Fanboys to the rescue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11268838)

So they start posting propaganda filled articles/stories on all the game sites they know, and register up on said places to do even more astroturfing.

Like others have said, it might not be that people don't know about PS, it just might be that they don't care about it at all. From the sounds of it Sony doesn't care about it, hasn't done much with it, and who wants to try it or invest their time in it if it seems like it is going to be caned? Plus from the reviews I have seen(i.e. noting from a fanboy or a fanboy game related homepage) most of them said it was ok, but noting that great or worth MY interest.

Plus I can't trust astrotufing fanboys trying to go out of their way to convince people that their game is as good as they say it is. Often they will not tell the truth, sprouting fanboyish praises or claims that could come from a PR release, and just ignore issues such as bugs and/or game play issues.

It maybe a great game, and the campaign seem to not to be a PR move backed by Sony(you can claim such, but companies doing astroturfing campaigns will just claimed not to be behind them), but I really don't care for the bullshit and PR fluff coming from the fans who have their own agenda(i.e. using us to make up for what Planetside lacks).

Re:Fanboys to the rescue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11269394)

What you call fanboys other people would call "experienced players" Just because someone plays doesn't make them an instant fanboy, marcopolo would be the first person tto admit that PlanetSide has it's flaws, just like every game but to dismiss what someone says because they play is plain stupid.

PC Gamer UK are big fans of PlanetSide and it's their profession to review games. Would you call them "FanBoys"? I think not. Play the free trial, consider a new style of gameplay (It's different so get over it BEFORE you try to play) THEN you can criticise.
- Psaldorn

Re:Fanboys to the rescue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11273976)

It certainly isn't astroturfing.

Many PS players are annoyed by the apparent lack of marketing support offered by SOE to the game. The latest release of the game PlanetSide:Aftershock wasn't even released in Europe.
This game is made unique by the massive scale of the battles, more players = better gameplay for all, so yeah, there is some self interest involved, but regardless, if you enjoy first person shooters / action games and maybe even strategy games then PlanetSide might scratch that itch like no other game yet made.

Either way, a few hours downloading for a free trial is a pretty good deal.

Ouch tough crowd! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11269371)

So I can't interest any of you in the free trial then? :)

+25,000 hits to my movie (the one in the link) over 10 days means people have been interested.

Player increases mean people didn't know about the 7 day trial as it's actually an EU offer from UbiSoft and a UK PCgames mag not a worldwide one.

Sorry if it put some of your nose's out of joint!

MarcoPolo.
Not an SOE employee.
Not even related to one.
Just somone who likes a game so much he want's to share the fun with others.

Re:Ouch tough crowd! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11269621)

I for one love planetside.

The thing is it makes all other online FPS's so small. How can you go back to 16 vs 16 battles when you could be having 166 vs 166 battles. Or sometimes even 166 vs 166 vs 166. It totally blows all other games out of the water. Even a 64 player game is still nothing compared to PS.

And then there's the character development. Not only do all your kills get tracked automaticly, you can actually gain ranks and show everyone that you've played for a long time.

And yes your fighting on the same continents all the time and there's no real sense of winning. But are other games different? How often have you CS people people played de_dust? I used to play tons of TFC, and god knows how often i played 2fort. With these maps one day you lose, one day you win. It's the same with planetside, only then you win a whole continent instead of one little map. Instead of winning 2fort you won cyssor, w00t :D

Captain_Duck

Re:Ouch tough crowd! (1)

TychoCelchuuu (835690) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269622)

Movie's down (although on /. thats a foregone conclusion). Where can I get it?

Re:Ouch tough crowd! (1)

wuchild (846766) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269676)

movie works for me

Re:Ouch tough crowd! (1)

BeetleJuice101 (846768) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269706)

Ditto

Re:Ouch tough crowd! (1)

Donjo (797935) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269736)

Make sure you save link as (or save target as if you are still using IE). I imagine it would be really slow if you tried to stream it.

Re:Ouch tough crowd! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11275129)

some of your nose's

"noses".

want's to share

"wants".

Valid criticisms (4, Informative)

wuchild (846766) | more than 9 years ago | (#11269636)

Some of you have valid criticisms for not liking the game itself.

- You would like to see your progress mean something
- You don't like the weapons or the art

But a lot of you really have only *heard* about the game, or played it early on and in limited amounts.

The primary reason *we* the players feel this game deserves attention now is that it is in a very good state of balance and is overall a great experience if you are looking for what PS has to offer. We all like big battles and many of them so we are all for getting new players to come join us.

The game itself is well done and provides battles that no other game can offer. The players who play it love it to death and I have personally trained 5 new players that will be subscribing this week.

The comments I read about the public CTF server are right on the money but they DO NOT describe a PS server. These people are serious about playing and working together to win territory and bases, even if it gets captured when they log out. The fun is in the process.

I'm happy this got slashdotted or whatever, I just hope people can see past the uninformed negativity of most of the comments.

If you had a negative experience early in PS, consider it once again for free and come kill me on Markov, I play TR as WuChild.

I really don't care if SOE backs our efforts or not, it's my $13 a month and I want more people to shoot.

Re:Valid criticisms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11286301)

I played this last night. And contrary to what others are saying, a level 2 character can NOT compete with a mech. I died so many times so fast I had a 15 second penalty added to respawns, and that is because said mechs were blasting through the DOOR OF THE SPAWN POINT.

I do not see myself paying $13 a month for that.

Re:Valid criticisms (1)

Kineel (315046) | more than 9 years ago | (#11295234)

I played PS in the Closed and Open Betas. Got excited and played it after retail, only to find that the Nerf bat was wielded too heavily, and every single fight began to feel like the last fight.

It was fun while it lasted, but it lasted only about two months. And yes, I was in a large player organization. In fact, I was silly and had a 6 months subscription. I did log in once a day or two before my subscription lapsed, and traveled across entire continents with nobody fighting on them. I guess it was about then that they had the 'performance' fix that allowed them to shrink the number of servers, wink wink.

Frankly, for a monthly fee I need more diversity in a game than PS offers. And so do a lot of people given the number of players who dropped out in those first months after retail.

And just think (2, Insightful)

aztektum (170569) | more than 9 years ago | (#11270140)

They're paying SOE to do this all for them. If I were paying a company a monthly service fee only to feel ignored and unwanted, I wouldn't keep paying them and also run an ad campaing.

I don't get those who are blindly loyal to SOE's crap. SWG, EQ/EQ2, and Planetside all suck. Yet there are these people that think they can fix it by sticking around and giving them time. I say cancel your acct. and you'll probably see it get fixed a lot faster. They're just milking you and going about their day to day.

Reality check: The more money you give them, the less they'll want to put into fixing it. If you're sticking around, why bother?

Re:And just think (1)

SandmanWAIX (674838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11270428)

Because its fun. I played CS:S for a week and although it looks awesome, it just didnt compare to Planetside. So 2 weeks after spending AU$110 on my HL2:Coll.Ed I was bored with it. So I resubscribed to Planetside.

I was interested until I read SOE... (0, Flamebait)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | more than 9 years ago | (#11270236)

MEMO
TO: SOE
FROM: ME

I bought SWG.

I will not even bother giving this a go. Don't trust you, not willing to fund your enterprise.

Bite me, you wont chump me twice.

Bitter...moi??? Never.

PS: Glad to see EQ2 is doing so well.

Re:I was interested until I read SOE... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11273418)

Your loss...

Re:I was interested until I read SOE... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11273703)

LOL! Troll! By the way EQ2 is NOT doing so well

Re:I was interested until I read SOE... (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | more than 9 years ago | (#11291933)

It was actually sarcasm, but feel free to miss the point as much as possible.

I am not a troll, I just stated my opinion. But I guess nowadays that is not allowed anymore...

Congrats to the mods at work here, you are really good at your job. I am sure you are like this post and missed the point too...

SOE will get a real boost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11271979)

if they would work with transgaming to get planetside running on linux..
Yes, I know this is probably the most repetitive comment, especially in the games section, but I played planetside when I was using you know what, and it was a fun game, but I can't play it now so sony isn't getting my money.
You'd expect a company with a product that isn't doing so well to try something new and innovative, but of course they won't.

You're missing the hook. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11272430)

A lot of the posts here are critical of the graphics, weapons or art style. These are valid criticisms. The game is almost 2 years old, a monolithic age for a first-person shooter and the community is already putting together "wish lists" for a sequel on the forums.

But if you're an FPS fan, you should still try Planetside if you've never played it. Because there is a secret ingredient that makes Planetside very, very special - the scale. It's huge! No other non-mmo first person shooter - including Tribes - comes close. A great number of huge military bases (that are easy to get lost in), set out across a huge continent - with forests, lakes, ravines, bridges, mountain ranges and fields in between. Then have huge battles with 700 players fighting against each other. Nothing else can come close. There's a genuine rush when you're advancing on a base with columns of tanks, wings of aircraft flying overhead and squads of grunts rushing through the forest.

In a game like Tribes, when the enemy takes your base the game is over. In Planetside, the enemy may have won that battle - but the war continues. You can choose to retreat to a nearby friendly base and regroup, plan a counter-attack, try and infiltrate to resecure - or any of a hundred different options. Unlike a typical FPS where all-out to-the-death charges are often the most effective, strategic play (where to respawn, where to regroup, where and when to attack, and even how to harass the enemy [with snipers, bombers, etc]) is also extremely important.

An analogy: Regular FPS games are like playing chess where the first piece taken determines the winner (then you reset the board and start again). In Planetside, you get to play through the entire game. In fact, the only time you're forced off a map (sort of an "endgame" condition) is when the enemy has occupied all of your respawn points and "locked" the continent (which disables moving to that continent from orbit or the "instant action" button). But then you either move to another battle, or regroup and come in on the ground from an adjacent continent to take back a foothold and launch a new offensive (or even stealthily sneak about and try to recapture bases behind their backs if they leave them undefended).

After Planetside, I'm even having a hard time getting into Half-Life 2 - the linearity feels claustrophobic and I don't have much interest in fighting against computer controlled AI fodder.

Re:You're missing the hook. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11275241)

ever played battlefield?

Grassroots (2, Insightful)

patternjuggler (738978) | more than 9 years ago | (#11272570)

A template was designed with links ... a 7-day free trial offered ... A thread was started on the Planetside Forums ...

And a slashdot story was submitted.

Don't all MMOGs die slowly a year or so after their release except for very rare games that are insanely popular? Only the speed at which it dies can be affected, perhaps, while increases in players just statistical noise, temporary deferrals of the inevitable. The only question is if the publisher knows that and adjusts expenditures accordingly to make a profit while not abandoning the game while there's still money to be made and repeat customers to piss off.

Not a MMOFPS (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11272752)

It also failed to be a first person shooter. The game play is a hybrid of third person and first person. Imagine Counterstrike where you can switch to third person and see around one or even two corners without moving and you'll get the idea.

Re:Not a MMOFPS (2, Insightful)

BeetleJuice101 (846768) | more than 9 years ago | (#11273518)

However you cant shoot, well aim in thrid person... The third person is there is a replacement for leaning. If other people do it you need tog et used to using it too. And officiaally the game is a MMOFPA(S)

Re:Not a MMOFPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11290294)

Like you say "If other people do it you need to get used to using it too.": If you play PlanetSide you're going to be switching between first and third person perspective as part of the gameplay. A significant part of the PlanetSide community like features that they perceive as giving them an advantage. Unfortunately this means that gameplay suffers. Consider the ideas of line of sight, cone of fire and suppressive fire all of which are good stuff for this genre and make for a good game. Now consider pressing your face up against a wall so you can get a virtual camera to move up into the corner of a room to enable you to see around the other side of that wall. This would be good too, if it made for a better game. It doesn't. It sounds more like a feature that SOE, in their wisdom, decided the game had to have regardless because "that's what the gamers want". If it was "there is a replacement for leaning" then it's overkill. Like the recent BFRs, it's there because the gamers asked for it, the same gamers that are probably now leaving because the gameplay isn't keeping them. I tried PlanetSide after leaving for a while, just before the BFRs came in (and left again not long afterwards). It was surprising how little SOE had actually done to address problems that existed months ago. The one thing they had changed was the ability to log into a hostile base (for example without having to penetrate any of its defenses). SOE, wisely in my opinion, removed this ability and I think the gameplay improved because if it (You could defend the base entrances and not be forced to stand at the CC/Spawns/Generator in case some random suddenly appeared after logging out 10 minutes earlier). It's a shame SOE didn't put gameplay first. But it's clear that new features will have priority regardless of how badly they affect gameplay: Core Combat and BFRs both being shining examples.

Re:Not a MMOFPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11274479)

Huh? I dunno about you, but the version of counter strike I have installed lets me see around as many corners as I like...oh wait...

I've been playing for over a year. (1)

DrStrangeLug (799458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11273794)

And I'm a 33 yr old IT veteran gamer (been playing comp. games since I had a Sinclair ZX81).

If you've played this game a year or more ago and given up, get a trial key and give it a try. It has evolved and changed.

If you've not playing it at all, give it a try - its 7 days for free. And squad up with players - this game absolutely sucks big time if you play solo, but is much much better with a group. I'm in an outfit (Starwolf on werner server), and I have to say without them I'd have quit a year ago.

All that said, there is still room for improvement, and someone other than SOE could come in and steal 90% of the playerbase if they do it right. Having 3 producers over a 12 month period didn't help. I think "The Next Planetside" needs a definite "win" scenario , something that can be achieved by one side and resets the whole game.

Re:I've been playing for over a year. (1)

Mofo196 (155076) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274432)

I'm with ya on this one. It's worth checking out. I played for quite some time and if you're not with a good outfit, the game can seem quite irritating. If, however, you get in with a good outfit th game can be very rewarding.

I was a founding member of the Wolverines (which actully had a bit of drama involved as we staged a coup from our previous outfit the ELH) and am still good friends with a number of people there.

Check it out. It's not a good a FPS, but it's not horrible. At the very least you don't have the f'ing level grind of most MMORPG's.

Advice from a veteran (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11275536)

I'd point out that most of the naysayers in this thread are those who post on the Planetside forums with bitterness and scorn. In a few cases, they are misleading summaries from people who want a game changed so their own playstyle becomes more potent.

Planetside is an experience that no MMOG or FPS fan can do without.

Rather then being a game about fancy graphics or reactive environments, Planetside is a FPS with tactics and teamplay that you can still easily play solo. The gameplay _itself_ is amazing, even if it looks slightly dated.

Rather then focusing on it's pros, I'll point out its 'cons'.

1) Planetside is pure PvP. To many people, this is a problem. But unlike most MMOGs, PvP is basically zero-loss. Equipment is easily replaced, respawn times are low, and you aren't penalized. Griefers are handled by an ingame mechanics, and fairly uncommon. PvP combat also has a _lot_ more to do with skill and planning then experience. All the PvP means is that every enemy is smart, every battle is a real contest, and defeat isn't shameful.

2) The game requires careful balancing. This is a big complaint. But when you see the varied content of the game (40ish infantry weapons/equipment, ATVs, light vehicles, strike aircraft, ground and air transport, tanks, mechs), you'll understand the obsession a little better.

3) Wins don't last forever. But would you want to play a game where every victory or defeat would be remembered forever? Sounds a little stressful.

If you have never tried the game, I _strongly_ advise you to give it a shot. I've been playing for over a year now, and I can't see quitting anytime soon.

Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11276099)

MMOG does not go with FPS shooters. One word:

LAG

The real reasons the population died... (1)

HellBat (413063) | more than 9 years ago | (#11279524)

Sorry for the long winded post, but I'm having a slow day at work.

I played (I still have an active account and character "HellBat", but haven't logged it for over a month.) Planetside for one of the top outfits (Hostile Takeover) on the Markov server and the reasons all of the top players have left the game are related to the constant nerfing and dumbing down the game has received since they added the core combat expansion.

The first thing they did to cause a mass player exodus was to nerf the surge implant. The surge implant would basically double the players movement rate while using stamina at an increased rate. This allowed players who enjoy fast paced (doomish footspeeds) fps fragging action to really get in the kind of gameplay they like.

They still have the surge implant, but your weapon auto-holsters when you activate it and has a cool off time in which you are essentially helpless/weaponless for somewhere around 2.5 seconds after you deactivate it. The reason for the nerf was twofold.
First all the inexperienced FPS players who came over from the MMORPG world would get worked by uber FPS'ers with ungodly aim, resource (stamina, medkit, medtool, repair tool) management, and situation management skills. (ie Dreamer) These players would then hjop onto the message boards and complain loudly that the people killing them had an unfair advantage.
Second and most importantly of all, due to the games horrific prediction netcode, players who move at high speed in a vertical direction would warp around on other players screens. Since the hit detection is client side in Planetside it leads to the obvious exploit of people intentionally warping up/down stairways, maintaining their ability to hit/aim, while making it very difficult for people to hit them. Obviously something needed to be done about it, but basically instead of repairing the netcode (obviously a very difficult proposition) SOE took the nerf bat out and essentially killed the implants usefulness as a combat implement and turned it into a way to just cover territory. This caused all the people who enjoyed the speed fps games to lose their enjoyment of the game and therefore cancel their subscriptions.

The second thing and what seems like the final nail in Planetside's coffin is the addition of BFR's into the game. BFR stands for BattleFrame Robotics aka Mechs. They took a game mechanic that was about infantry capturing and holding bases and introduced an uber weapon into it that made infantry useless in the field. In the past in Planetside infantry caught in the field against a vehicle was likely to get pasted if the pilot of said vehicle had half a clue, but a good squad working together could hold off a few vehicles for a while. They introduce the BFR and suddenly the field is filled with these gigantic uber weapons that were essentially invincible against infantry and most vehicles. The community cried out and SOE took the nerf bat out about 4 times in the first month trying to balance the BFR but the mindset was already in place. Giant robots standing around in enemy base courtyards waiting for any infantry stupid enough to come outside to pad their killcounts. Nobody will get out of their BFR's to cap a base (the objective of the game) because there is a lengthy timer (45 minutes I believe) to get another one and basically while you're in one it's free kill mode. I hear that in the time I've been gone that they planned on further nerfing them to make the one man variants less powerful but basically SOE crapped the bed so hard in adding them that the global population on their markov server in primetime dropped to probably 20% or less of the pre-bfr days.

Also, performance is a problem with this game. When on a continent with small scale battles of 30-60 players performance is generally good with framerates never really dropping below 75 for me. (AthlonXP 3200, Nforce2, 1G ram, GF6800GT, 1024x768 res, cable modem) Anytime the battles would ramp up to 100-200 players the framerates would drop down to the 20-30 range. The framerate wasn't being limited by my PC because the performance hit would happen regardless of whether I was in the middle of the fight or sitting in the basement staring at a wall. Basically Zerg fights, (the mm in mmofps) the thing the game was suppossedly designed for make the game unenjoyable due to performance problems.

The main issue with Planetside is SOE has basically taken a FPS game (generally played by hardcore gamers) and removed the features of it that the hardcore gamers enjoy. What they are left with is a fps that has replaced lead bullets with nerf darts. They adjust the competetive features of the game based on the whining of people on their messageboards who's post count is higher than bases capped or kills without taking into account the features of the people who are busy playing the game love.

Ultimately I believe Planetside will go down in history as a game that could have been great but was ultimately limited and killed by it's netcode, performance issues, and developer apathy towards the power gamer.

Re:The real reasons the population died... (1)

Reapy (688651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11280548)

I don't think pcs and the internet is ready for mm games yet. I have yet to see a "MM" themed game with 200+ players in the same area not lag or completly crash to desktop. The first game I saw with a huge crowd like that was daoc and my pc would give me a slideshow. The next game I tried was sb, and that just crashed to desktop. Planetside actually handled it the best so far, but the game was just a resource hog.

I had a p1.5, 512 ram and a geforce 3 when it came out and couldnt play the game. I got another 256 ram and saw a pretty big improvement. The latest pc, an amd64 3200+, 1024 ram, 9800pro, finally runs it at an acceptable fps. Amazingly with the new hardware I started killing people, amazed that everyone didnt jump around on the screen.

But planetside NEEDS client side hit detection. No way the server can handle all of that at once. Planetside NEEDS no body specific hit locations because there is no way the servers can handle that.

Technology isn't ready for 200 vs 200 players.

But if you are a gamer, get a squad, get voice, and just try planetside for a month. There really isn't anything else like it out there. But you do need a squad, as the joy is in moving around and finding conflicts with a unit.

It gets old very quick, and there are only a few base designs repeated on every continet, which means you'll fight over the same real estate all the time.

But it's worth trying once if you like fps games. It's a great preview as to what we can hopefully expect in the future.

Online FPS (1)

Digital-A (844879) | more than 9 years ago | (#11282117)

massively multiplayer online Fps is a tough market, Thats probably some of the real trouble for planetside. You have to have a gimmick to get the people to shell out money monthly, otherwise there is no reaon when you could just pay five dollars for a copy of Half life, and download DoD and counterstrike.

Still my favorite game (1)

dbmpage (556494) | more than 9 years ago | (#11282982)

Planetside has some of the problems brought up above. But I still love to play it and go back to it over all other games after playing most of them for a little while when they are new. Teamspeak coordinated outfit manuevers and the big scope (up to 498, 166 per side, on any one continent at a time) are just so much fun for me that I don't find smaller FPS titles satisfy me for nearly as long. It has outcompeted my other gaming interests (miniatures, boardgames, RPGS, and and assorted computer games) for a year and a half now. Sure, I'm looking forward to the next big thing that blows it away in this niche, but until then, it's where I'll be more evenings than my wife would like. If you do decide to buy it after tyring it, Fry's is selling Planetside for $5 or $10 and final clearancing the Core Combat expansion for $.90. That gives you the same full game as buying the new $20 Aftershock combo box. So you'll have a monthly fee, but the upfront cost is trivial, assuming your computer can handle it's resource hogging ways. If you are already playing EQ or EQII, even the subscription is is cheap, since you can get it as part of the combination sub price that will save you a good chunk from what you would pay separately for both. If you do go for it, find a good outfit that matches your playstyle, whatever style that is, and use the voice comms program your outfit uses. It makes the experience immensely better. WNxArgg, Warrior Nation, Markov VS

Re:Still my favorite game (1)

dbmpage (556494) | more than 9 years ago | (#11283022)

Darn, I'm a Slashdot noob. Apparently I should have set Plain Old Text so I lost my formatting.

what's new? (1)

teh_dg (800496) | more than 9 years ago | (#11293783)

There's nothing new in gamers "marketing" their current favourite multiplayer games, all the MP games I've played intensively I've seen players constantly try to nudge other people into the game via websites, forums, IRC. Admittedly few are that organised at spamming, but the result is liable to be at least as much exposure on at least as many forums, etc. (yes, including /. newsposts, most newsposts on current games are probably posted by their existing fans, right?)

Movies are hardly new either, though for the games I play they tend to be more of the nature of making a video really for the experience of making one, often under the guise of pimping their clan. This trailer [xfire.be] (for some clan "R3") was released yesterday and the quality of the edit and artistry is so far above that PS one (though at 7x the filesize).

Scoring a new 7day trial is an impressive acheivement, though the game video'd above is Enemy Territory which doesnt have a subscription. Or a retail price - it's totally free to download [splashdamage.com] .

Open-format version (1)

joeljkp (254783) | more than 9 years ago | (#11323675)

For anyone that doesn't want to deal with MS WMV files, I converted the vid to an open format (XviD/Vorbis/Matroska).

Get it here [ballsome.org] .

They're all right (1)

Nordakr (848990) | more than 9 years ago | (#11336368)

This is so late a post no one will read it but - I'm bored so ... Pretty much everyone posting here on both sides of the argument is right. SOE has provided terrible support for this game. The DuhEV's have ruined it. The Pure FPS guys hated the end to Surge - the rest of us loved it. PS was an attempt to make an FPS/RPG which is bound to make both groups unsatisfied. It's Graphics are not those of a D&D game - which some of us like. It is showing it's age. It is an MMO game that has a truly great scale to it. I think the count now, is 400-500 players in and Arena (Continent/Planet). With 10 Arena's per each of the three servers. I've quit about 4 times now but haven't really found another game I'm all that interested in. I've looked at WWII Online but it's about 3 years old and showing it's age. They finally eliminated the Standard BFR's but the Gunner and Flight models are still there. I'm not all that optimistic about the games long term survival but it has picked up some new people recently. I credit that to Christmas presents and the Guerilla Ad campaign that started this thread. It's funny to hear the FPS guys complaining about the DuhEV's catering to the RPG people (which there really aren't any of ...). Most of the changes I've seen (except finally giving up on Surge with Weapons) have been aimed at the FPS people. There has never been and (despite promises a year ago to the contrary) will never be anything for support people. We'll see how this works out but it's in a really bad situation now. SOE hasn't put any money into it since Core Combat failed.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?