92 replies to this topic

[KharnZor]

JayTac, on 12 January 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

If I'm wrong, I'd honestly like to know. Maybe they've improved the game since I played. I haven't installed since beta closed despite having an Alpha kit. PS2 was never meant to be a skill based game though. Skill based FPS would fall along the lines of CS, Quake, UT, Nexuiz, etc - Planet Side obviously isn't that style of game.

Yea you are wrong on that one. I've been in since closed as well and the game is ALOT more polished than it was back then.
How is it not a skill based game? To do well you got to have a certain degree of skill with the many and varied rolls you can assume in the game be it the simple ground pounding light assault all the way up to flying the attack craft so i dont really understand how you can make such a statement.
Don't judge a game by what it was like weeks/months ago

[Nauht]

He's been here since June and he's been complaining since then as well.

I'm surprised you lasted this long... if you're really quitting (not). I think it's your obligatory "this sucks, I'm leaving" post quota for the month.

See you next game.

[DJMarine]

KharnZor, on 12 January 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Yea you are wrong on that one. I've been in since closed as well and the game is ALOT more polished than it was back then.
How is it not a skill based game? To do well you got to have a certain degree of skill with the many and varied rolls you can assume in the game be it the simple ground pounding light assault all the way up to flying the attack craft so i dont really understand how you can make such a statement.
Don't judge a game by what it was like weeks/months ago

I'm not really concerned about the polish of the game, which I felt was fine in the closed beta phase. I'm just speaking to the core gameplay mechanics, which usually doesn't change a lot from open beta to full release. Unless PS2 has bucked that trend?

I'm also just referring to the soldier vs soldier combat. It doesn't really demand a lot in the way of aiming, reflexes, or positioning/movement. But, again it's not really meant to be that sort of game, which is why I thought it was weird that you called someone out for not being good enough at the game as their basis of not liking it.

FWIW I'd probably have the game back on if I had room on my SSD.

[Budor]

I think its a great game allready.

[Lycan]

Oy of MidWorld, on 12 January 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

Probably can't help someone who likes Planetside 2 and Hawken... Wrong breed... Lol, no offense if someone actually likes all of them, if so, YOU are the future!

Can't say anything for PS2 as I haven't played that but I have looked over Hawken and oddly enough, Hawken is a FPS shooter that features giant robots blasting the crap out of each other. Hey, what do you know, MWO is a FPS shooter that features giant robots blasting the crap out of each other.

[o0Marduk0o]

A new Abrahms thread... *grabs coke and popcorn*

[HawkMan79]

Lycan, on 12 January 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Can't say anything for PS2 as I haven't played that but I have looked over Hawken and oddly enough, Hawken is a FPS shooter that features giant robots blasting the crap out of each other. Hey, what do you know, MWO is a FPS shooter that features giant robots blasting the crap out of each other.

Except the only part of Hawken that is anything mech like is the look of your avatar. playing the game there is nothing mech like about it, it's more like playing Unreal tournament. There's nothing about it that feels like your piloting a giant mech, heck you can do mega dodges instantly and fly forever(you know, relatively). So if I was to play Hawken, I might as well play UT3, then I wouldn't have to pay for every damn mech that can't be bought with in game currency either.

PS2 is also a completely different game, and honestly it didn't engage me at all when I played it.

while MWO has it's issues, it's still the only true Mech game there is currently.

[Vassago Rain]

Someone DARES say something remotely bad about my mech game! I'll show them by mocking the other mech game in their thread. That'll teach them!

[Mercworks]

This is the first online game i've played since warcraft. Are all of the people on the internet such whiners? Also, if you don't like the game, why comment on the forums every week about how much you don't like the game. Go play something else, then. Or do you guys just enjoy the complaining more the an big stompy robots.

[KharnZor]

JayTac, on 12 January 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

I'm not really concerned about the polish of the game, which I felt was fine in the closed beta phase. I'm just speaking to the core gameplay mechanics, which usually doesn't change a lot from open beta to full release. Unless PS2 has bucked that trend?

I'm also just referring to the soldier vs soldier combat. It doesn't really demand a lot in the way of aiming, reflexes, or positioning/movement. But, again it's not really meant to be that sort of game, which is why I thought it was weird that you called someone out for not being good enough at the game as their basis of not liking it.

FWIW I'd probably have the game back on if I had room on my SSD.

The polish in closed was bad.
The difference game play wise between closed beta and launch was huge, almost as if their build was far ahead of what it was before launch (Funny that eh).
Core mechanics as such have improved somewhat although the lingering memory leak is still evident. As for soldier vs soldier combat well you need to aim in order to kill something and you do need high reflexes so i dont really know where you are comming from there. Positioning is as important in this game as with any other fps game and if you dont move you just die (as with any other fps game) As to calling out someone i'll put a disclaimer in the next post i make as to weather or not i'm being serious, my apologies.

[Kousagi]

We all know MWO is lacking a bit right now, but does not make it bad. Its still good in its current state, and its still growing. So give it a bit more time and we'll have a great game to play. Though compared to any other FPS it has just as much content as them. As much of people hype up CoD/BF games, they are just the same thing over, and over and over again. They have not changed the way the game is played since pretty much their creation, sure they add like one new feature per next release of them but meh, they just be milking your money.

On the topic of PS2. As a Planetside vet, PS2 failed to grasp what made that game great. So even though its like 10 years old at this point Planetside is still far better then Planetside 2. On the comment that PS2 take skill, eh, it kinda does, but not too much. I mean your a Ant in the world, you alone do not effect much. You depend on the people around you, So your teamwork skills come far more in to play then personally combat skills. As no matter how good you are at shooting things, 1 guy can't beat 10 people blasting him in the face at once.

[Shiney]

Gotta agree with the OP, I check the patch notes hoping things have changed dramatically and I've gone from 2-4 hrs a day, perhaps 10000 games all told to zero, haven't played for a month, simply it's just NOT there. The numbers on Teamspeak are well down and it's just laughable that bugs that have been around for 6 months have still not been addressed. You could say bye to me, but I've already left, so it's kinda moot. Maybe if this game lasts 2-3 years [unlikely] it will reach a point of development that is worth playing again. I will check in from time to time, I still have a crap load of MC that are going to waste and I really hope it turns into something great... eventually.

[Lycan]

HawkMan79, on 12 January 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Except the only part of Hawken that is anything mech like is the look of your avatar.

You mean like in MWO?

Quote

playing the game there is nothing mech like about it, it's more like playing Unreal tournament.

Again, like in MWO? So you're mechs move a tad slower than they do in Hawken . . . you're still playing an Unreal Tournament Team Death Match . . .

Quote

There's nothing about it that feels like your piloting a giant mech, heck you can do mega dodges instantly and fly forever(you know, relatively).

So, Hawken is an anime based mecha game. The thing is, you're STILL playing a first person shooter with the skin of a mech. In both games. .

The core of the game is the exact same. Yes, play style of the games differ but both the games are about piloting huge stomp robot death machines.

Trying to prop one up as "better" than the other is just a matter of opinion and isn't solid "fact".

Quote

So if I was to play Hawken, I might as well play UT3, then I wouldn't have to pay for every damn mech that can't be bought with in game currency either.

Hmm, my understanding is that you don't have to pay for all your mechs in hawken either. You've got the "free to play" mechs (hey, like in MWO) and then you have your "premium currency" mechs (again, like in MWO) so . . . still can't see your point.

Quote

PS2 is also a completely different game, and honestly it didn't engage me at all when I played it.

Eh, not really. It's a FPS shooter, MWO is a FPS as is Hawken.

The thing that would make MWO actually stand out from the rest of the FPS out there is so rabidly looked down upon by the twitch crowd that MWO will always be just another FPS . . . . Admittedly with stellar graphics.

Quote

while MWO has it's issues, it's still the only true Mech game there is currently.

No it's not but you keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better at night.

Edited by Lycan, 12 January 2013 - 06:10 PM.

[Abrahms]

Yes, actually, the latest patch was quite the FPS boost for me. I typically get 70-90 frames in BF3 on high with 64 players and destruction. The game is beautiful, and every time I load it up I'm still amazed that a single 6950 powers through it with ease. I thought I would need to crossfire at a minimum 2x6970 (this was back when it was released, 7xxx series not out yet) but the game is extremely well optimized.

All crysis games though on my PC look half as good as Frostbite 2 and run half as fast. My friends with Nvidia rigs usually have similar results. Its just a poor engine - though I think the cheapest... any ideas why? tehe

I will NOT be playing Planetside2 or Hawken. I downloaded them to compare. BF3 is better than PS2 and fills the mass scale niche for me, so PS2 is out the window, and Hawken just isnt my playstyle. Tons of fun nonetheless, but I much prefer mechwarrior's robot gameplay.

MWO just isnt cutting it. Too many cash grabs, not enough fixes, and frankly the balance is probably the biggest deal breaker for me.

Guess what, as soon as I loaded Hawken, I saw a LIST OF SERVERS!!!!! Not everyone played on the same ratty asrse server with stupid pings. Its no fun when you have to guess whether the Jenner will need a lead of 15 meters or 50 meters because the lag isnt even consistent. It just downright takes the awesome art/franchise and murders it.

Give me better servers, less 1995 lag, and better weapon balance and Id be right back in the firefight.

[Pootis meister]

The netcode and the fact that there is only one server are the biggest problems for me right now.

That, and that lack of collisions, make lights much more annoying than they have to.

Why don't other games have as much lagshield as MWO?

[Treckin]

/signed

Agree with almost everything you said, and I should add the the game has become boring - there just isnt enough to do.

[Mavairo]

Crysis is a terrible engine eh?

And you can't run it at high FPS?

There must be something wrong with your rig then.

My rig is a fairly modest gaming rig.

I can play Crysis 2 on highest settings and run 50 to 60 FPS with no problems.

This game on the other hand........... 25 to 35 on average.

Crysis 2's graphics are jaw dropping on max settings to me, while this game.... looks like a high end playstation 2 or xbox 1 game.

Otherwise, second Ihasa's post completely. I'm a STO refugee. And the difference between the games is night and day, starting with the devs and how they handle things (most of the time)

There are major issues with this game, (netcode and very poor optimization and graphic quality) but it IS making progress.

Balancing things out can come later, you really shouldn't be trying to fix more than egregious balance problems with as early into the games development they are. They can say this is Open beta all they like but it's not. The game's not even through basic optimization yet. And I know full well this game isn't using CryEngine 3s full graphical ponies either.

I'm more concerned with Netcode, engine optimization and the graphics right now than anything else.

Edited by Mavairo, 12 January 2013 - 08:47 PM.

[Demoned]

my 2 cent's

Whiners never quit, quitters never whine.

[Kaspirikay]

>1337 posts


Lol

[Abrahms]

Mavairo, on 12 January 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

Crysis is a terrible engine eh?

And you can't run it at high FPS?

There must be something wrong with your rig then.

My rig is a fairly modest gaming rig.

I can play Crysis 2 on highest settings and run 50 to 60 FPS with no problems.

This game on the other hand........... 25 to 35 on average.

Crysis 2's graphics are jaw dropping on max settings to me, while this game.... looks like a high end playstation 2 or xbox 1 game.

Otherwise, second Ihasa's post completely. I'm a STO refugee. And the difference between the games is night and day, starting with the devs and how they handle things (most of the time)

There are major issues with this game, (netcode and very poor optimization and graphic quality) but it IS making progress.

Balancing things out can come later, you really shouldn't be trying to fix more than egregious balance problems with as early into the games development they are. They can say this is Open beta all they like but it's not. The game's not even through basic optimization yet. And I know full well this game isn't using CryEngine 3s full graphical ponies either.

I'm more concerned with Netcode, engine optimization and the graphics right now than anything else.

Crysis 2 is a console abomination ported over. Crysis 1, which looks vastly inferior to Frostbite 2, still runs SLOWER than Frostbite 2.

Crysis engine has always looked good for its time, but its a failure - other companies choose NOT to do it. It does as much as it can to make things look pretty but without ANY optimization. You could take any 10 year old graphics engine and add 1000 bells and whistles to it and increase the poly count to make it look good, BUT, if it cant run well, it isnt worth it.

That is why Frostbite 2 is the closest thing we have to next gen. In fact, any company could make a game look good, but whether or not it runs well is an entirely different story.

Rumor has it that PGI chose crysis engine because of cost. Superior engines like Frostbite simply are not even on the market for other companies.