*** Official Planetside 2 Thread ***

I understand all of this, I guess something is getting lost somewhere in what I'm saying, all your replies are exactly what I understand, but I was trying to say what OTHER people are assuming in other places.

I'll leave it here.

Edit: By the way I wasn't being sarcastic, it was genuine self humility, I don't appreciate the mimickry if that's what you are doing :/
 
Last edited:
Sin_Chase said:
It's an F2P.

It will suck.

You can quote me on this once the game is released and it inevitably sucks.

Game of the Decade? Not a chance.
Click to expand...

Generally it being Planetside 2 i'd disagree with this, but the fact that it's F2P imo is a HORRIBLE idea.

While you get your infinitely childish morons in subscription games like WoW, you're going to get all walks of morons in a F2P game, especially when that F2P game looks amazing and will appeal to the Modern Warfare community as well.

Because it's Planetside 2 I still hold hope for it as it looks incredible, but I really feel the F2P element will plague it - you will get pop locks on continents with people who don't give a **** about objectives and are just trigger happy shooting anything they see, whereas others will probably be stuck out not being able to join their friends in playing strategically and actually progressing.
Because of that I can forsee the game having as many servers as WoW, they won't change the financial model but I really really wish they would. F2P is going to really screw this up I feel :(
 
Im trying to find out when the next stage of testing is going to be, the PS2 forums are getting hammered, anyone know?
 
ArnieRambo said:
i played for a good 5 - 6 hours last night and 90% of players use tanks/aircrafts

it was fun for like the first 30 mins in the whole tank/aircraft wars...but then it got boring as hell
Click to expand...

Wow talk about missing the point, everything right now is on and free re resourcing, once the game is out, each side will only be allowed x amount of machines, be it air or ground before there is a resource problem, you will never see one quarter of the air/ground machines you see now.

m4rk84 said:
The 'mystique' was never 2000 people on your screen at once, it was 2000 people on a living breathing persistent map with battles breaking out all over it and 3 sides fighting to assume control of the majority. These 'hexagons' you speak of are nothing but visual boundaries on the map to give an indication of control.

The game is going to be great. So hit me up on release and let me know I was sooo wrong!

I could give a legit reason towards my statements, but I can't. (yet).
Click to expand...
Yup this be a 100% correct, or at least to my understanding.
 
ArnieRambo said:
lol you say something bad about a game and ppl spit dummies out
Click to expand...

There was no dummy spitting just pointing out the fact you have no idea what you talking about :D, they have clearly said on multi-able occasions that everything is on, as everything needs testing, a fact you seem to fail to understand:p
 
ArnieRambo said:
Runescape has millions of players...doesn't make it a good game
Click to expand...

Another extremely poor comments yes while I may not like runescape (never played it my so did) and you may not like it, the game has 100s, of thousands of players, that makes It successful.

Now do you need me to explain what successful means?

I mean your comment is a bit of a oxymoron, how can it have millions and not be successful :p
 
ArnieRambo said:
So if a game is successful that makes it a good game??
Click to expand...

Yes of course it does, well that unless you think that you are the only person who decides what's good and what is not, if so I'm sorry then yes ofc this game must suck.

And all those people playing runescape wtf are they thinking, you have decreed its a bad game, so there fore its a bad game.

I bow before your superiority :confused:
 
There are many criteria's which define success, having a large player base means a game is successful but it doesn't mean it's good.

McDonalds is very successful but it isn't the best restaurant.

On the other hand a game can be a success if it's critically acclaimed but if it doesn't have a lot of players does it really matter?
 
andy85wsm said:
An opinion makes something a good game. That is all.
Click to expand...

For me only one thing defines a successful game, if it makes millions and both other games mentioned on here has done that in spades.

It does not mean I think they good games as that's the only part that subject to opinions.

Think cod is one if the the biggest selling pc games ever (not all the versions but most of them)

That people makes the game hugely successful.
 
ArnieRambo said:
Runescape has millions of players...doesn't make it a good game
Click to expand...

If a game can retain a decent amount of players over an extended period of time, it IS a good game.

5 years is a long time for any game, and the fact that an FPS game has 55k people playing it all at once still after all this time, means it's still a good game, whether or not you agree with it. BF3, a game released the end of last year has 60k people playing it at once right now, in 4 years time the number wont be anywhere near that and the number of retained players won't be anywhere near what TF2 has, but a F2P model would encourage more people back into playing it and keeping the community active.

F2P works, as long as the game doesn't encourage pay to win. As soon as it does, people lose interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom