Planetside is the one game that I'm waiting for. But I have a couple of questions.
My questions are:
1) How did this game look? Is it graphically on par with the Unreal 2 engine? Does it look good?
2) How closely related is this game to Tribes 2? Does Planetside play like Tribes 2?
3) In your opinion, do you think that this concept will work? Will they be able to get people to pay $10 a month so they can play an online FPS?
4) Is their anything else that you can tell me about Planetside?
thxs for input.....
I think the game almost HAS to succeed if for no other reason than it will have a kind of Monopoly for a while (only MMOG to be a FPS). Unless they totally mess it up it will be profitable.
A key to even more profitability is to do things in Planetside that are NOT available in games like Unreal Tournament or Counter-Strike.
One such thing is LARGE battles. Exploit the higher player cap per server.
Another is continuity. Long-term materials such as weapons and defensive structures to fight over. Character advancement in skills and abilities.
Constant updates, gaining steps on games that update only every year or so (non-MMOG FPSes).
Cheating will be easier to control since the servers are not distributed.
I suspect that Planetside will undergo more frequent sequels than other games (where Ultima Online never had one and Everquest's sequel comes out 4 years after the original). Being a FPS and very engine-intensive, they should have sequels every 2.5 to 3 years. That keeps them competitive against the UTs and Quakes engine-wise.
If they keep lag and cheating DOWN, keep their engine up, and keep key features going that distinguish them from non-MMOG FPSes, Planetside will be huge. I'm not aware of any other clones in development yet, so Planetside has a huge window open to gobble up cash.
There has been a MMOG FPS for about a year now: WWIIOL. They have struggled with technical and financial issues, but they are still going and are going to have a new boxed release. Unlike Planetside, WWIIOL is very sim-centric. It will be interesting to see if Planetside can handle the technical issues with large-scale battles better than WWIIOL. As I understand it, the limitation is primarily bandwidth if you want to make your game available to those with dial-up connections. WWIIOL solves the problem by only showing each client 64 avatars at a time, even if they are involved in a much larger battle, and having the client do lots of calculations for predicting the state of the game. In many ways, WWIIOL is the most technically demanding and sophisticated MMOG out there.
I won't be holding my breath.
MMORPGs where reflexes (aka lag) don't matter are the only thing Verant/Sony knows. These types of games are a piece of cake to implement compared to the complexity of a 64 player FPS match where you NEED sub-100ms response times to be competitive, ala Counter-Strike or whatever.
You're right... I pay a lot of attention to the MMOG industry but I somehow missed that fairly important piece of information. I'm a moron.Originally Posted by antlers
"MMORPGs where reflexes (aka lag) don't matter are the only thing Verant/Sony knows. These types of games are a piece of cake to implement compared to the complexity of a 64 player FPS match where you NEED sub-100ms response times to be competitive, ala Counter-Strike or whatever."
Yeah, and even if they are good at network code, which I don't doubt, I can't imagine a 100 player battle in Planetside that doesn't suffer from lag, especially if they allow dial-up players to play, which they probably will since broadband is still not the mass market yet.
I wouldn't be surprised if they end up making it a mission game where you log on, go to a computer and ask for an assignment, and get transported to an area with two teams and a limited number of players. Shooter fans won't tolerate a laggy game, especially if they have to pay monthly for it.
Actually, that sounds like a great idea to me. I've often wondered about an "Archon" style game design where smaller groups of players battle it out on small maps for strategic control of areas on a much larger map. Isn't that also the idea behind that game "Savage", or whatever the heck it's called? Sort of an RTS game where you control real people instead of AI?I wouldn't be surprised if they end up making it a mission game where you log on, go to a computer and ask for an assignment, and get transported to an area with two teams and a limited number of players. Shooter fans won't tolerate a laggy game, especially if they have to pay monthly for it.
It certainly would make all those random Counter-Strike battles I participated in a heck of a lot more relevant if each was a piece of a grander battle. Ideally, I'd like to see a huge continent with hundreds of potential "levels".
And whatever they come up with, it better not be anything like Tribes 2. There's a nice cautionary lesson in how not to design a game.
Didn't they do this at cavedog with TA just before they closed down. I think they used the term metagaming. It was an interesting idea and I think more MMPOGs will adopt this model in the long run.I've often wondered about an "Archon" style game design where smaller groups of players battle it out on small maps for strategic control of areas on a much larger map.
It looks okay. Unreal 2 looks better.1) How did this game look? Is it graphically on par with the Unreal 2 engine? Does it look good?
It seems very similar. So similar, in fact, that I think they are going to share some of the same drawbacks.2) How closely related is this game to Tribes 2? Does Planetside play like Tribes 2?
I doubt it. At least, I wouldn't--not based on what they had to show at E3. I really wasn't too impressed by this game. It seems a lot like Tribes 2 with some different (but mostly unmemorable) features and a monthly price tag. Since so few people seem willing to play this sort of game for free, I have trouble believing that they'll do it for $10 a month.3) In your opinion, do you think that this concept will work? Will they be able to get people to pay $10 a month so they can play an online FPS?
And...what exactly was wrong with Tribes 2, again? Everybody slags it for some reason, and I thought it was a good game and a step forward from the original.Originally Posted by wumpus
There will also be some competition from Neocron.
I dunno -- I wouldn't be surprised if Sony's a bit nervous about Planetside. They've sunk a lot of money into it (and Sovereign too, which looks like a complete bust at this point).
Well, if I had to condense it down into a single sentence, the problem with Tribes 2 is this: you spend too much time doing scut work and not enough time in combat. By scut work I mean stuff like equipping your character, obtaining a vehicle, just running around from point A to point B in order to prep for actual combat.Originally Posted by Kool Moe Dee
And then there's the fucking jetpack. The only thing worse than bunny hopping is jetpacking. And it's much, much worse.
I'm resurrecting this thread because it was the first thread ever about Planeside.
The interesting part is how Planetside appears to be exactly what it set out ot be, with none of the climbdowns that were thrown about in this thread.
The most utterly bizzare part is how much sense Brian Koontz made in this thread.
People actually PLAY this game? ;)
You mean this?? :)Originally Posted by Xpav
--- AlanOriginally Posted by Brian Koontz
You think that makes sense?? Look how far off wumpus was! What a shock. He thought Sacrifice was Quake.Originally Posted by XPav
I'm glad you dug this thread up, because I remember it, and I remember thinking at the time, "Hmmm...wumpus is usually right about this stuff. I guess Planetside will stink." In actuality, Brian hit it square on the head. And, I bet there are 500 designers out there right now saying to each other, "We've got to make a Planetside type game..."
I remember seeing Planetside at that E3 (the only E3 I ever went to). I thought the graphics looked decent, and I remember driving around a Harasser and thinking the world seemed pretty cool. But I remember being even MORE excited about WW2OL (which Ben and Jason Cross both correctly said was going to be lame because it was trying to do too many complex things). What a noob I was. Am. Whatever.
And that's why they're fabulously wealthy and talented professionals and you're a freakin' LAWYER, for God's sake.Originally Posted by Rywill
FWIW - I still think wumpus is right. And no, I don't think there's 500 designers out there saying that, I think they're still caught up on EQ and UO because those are still the big money makers.Originally Posted by Rob O'Boston
Except that almost every specific concern he raised is wrong. Lag is a non issue with the client side hit detection. There is no jetpacking or bunny hopping. It takes all of a split second to equip your character with favorites. Many battles take place within seconds of a respawn point. The heavier battles where you die a lot usually take place in/around the big bases, where it takes a whole 2 or 7 seconds to respawn.Originally Posted by Guido Jones
Granted, he may not like the game, you may not like the game. But I don't think any of his points are valid. Nothing against Wumpus of course. Most of those points were raised before release. ;)
If you were a designer, not a marketer, which model would you choose? Which would be more interesting and exciting? If designers are still caught up on a model from the 20th century then I think they're crazy. And so are you for thinking "wumpus is right" in the context above.Originally Posted by Guido Jones