How can anyone dislike Planet Side 2 ?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by megaspiderweb09 (3686 posts) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gvXlHyApxY

Watch this

Game looks massive and beautiful

#2 Posted by Chris_Williams (14882 posts) -

downloaded it, played it for a bit, uninstalled it, I didn't like it.

#3 Posted by Peredith (2288 posts) -

They have no friends

#4 Posted by kraken2109 (13211 posts) -

It runs like crap?

#5 Posted by GoldenElementXL (3800 posts) -

It runs like crap?

kraken2109
No offense but if you are running below recommended specs it will run like crap. The game is pretty demanding.
#6 Posted by PublicNuisance (4582 posts) -

Multiplayer gaming is just not my thing any more. I prefer an engrossing story these days and some gameplay that only involves me. I still like split screen gaming because having my friends right there adds to the fun.

#7 Posted by AcidSoldner (7051 posts) -
Pay2Win
#8 Posted by Plagueless (2569 posts) -

Because a battle like that happens once every blue moon. Normally it's just small skirmishes for the bases with long boring respawn times. I'll stick to BF3.

Pay2WinAcidSoldner

This too.

#9 Posted by BrunoBRS (73263 posts) -
it's not that hard. it's a pay to win shooter, and after a while the battles feel very samey.
#10 Posted by BrunoBRS (73263 posts) -
[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

It runs like crap?

GoldenElementXL
No offense but if you are running below recommended specs it will run like crap. The game is pretty demanding.

no offense but the game runs like crap. don't assume someone is running a sh!tty PC because an awfully optimized game is, you know, awfully optimized.
#11 Posted by GamerwillzPS (8531 posts) -

I've tried it, didn't like it and uninstalled it.

#12 Posted by MyopicCanadian (8345 posts) -

The game DOES run horribly. I cannot play an ADS shooter at 30 fps.

I'll probably come back when the game is properly optimized.

#13 Posted by Wasdie (50592 posts) -

Pretty easily actually. Considering there is no tutorial it takes players many frustrating hours to figure out what the heck to do. Once they figure it out, they quickly realize they can't really impact the game in any meaningful way all by themselves.

While PS2 is very much a modern shooter with a lot more streamlined mechanics for an overall better gameplay experience than it's predecessor, it's still a very unique game catering to a specific type of gamer. That's just how these kind of games are.

It's also not pay to win no matter what people here say. I've spent $189 on the game and yet I'm still using the default weapons because they are the best in the game.

#14 Posted by rjdofu (9171 posts) -

If everyone liked it, it would be game of the century by now.

Tbh, it's a nice game if you want a large scale battle, but the gun price is so damn high, it kills all the fun for me.

#15 Posted by kozzy1234 (35334 posts) -

Its a very well made game, does that mean I love it? No.

I understand how to play have logged in about 12 hours and while I do totally understand why people love it, its just not for me.

For awhiel its fun when u are workign well with you're team in big battles and its definatly alot better once you learn everything. But in the end, I dont have alot of fun playing it personally. Nothing to do with the game being bad, just not my cup of tea, id rather play TF2, ARMA2, Red Orchestra2, Halo4, DayZ or even BF3 personally. I use to love these types of games (Planetside 1 and the old Tribes games), but I think I have somewhat grown out of them (as I have with Dungeon Crawler rpgs, use to love diablo2 and many others but I am just flat out bored with this genre now).

Its like WOW, I respect it and realize its a well amde MMO, but its just not for me! I understand everything about it and have played a godo amount of it, I just dont like it much.

The only real issue I have with the game other them my personal prefence is that its horribly unoptimized. Other then that complaint its all just personal preference.

#16 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

lol if they don't like it who cares? There are still thousands of people playing at any one time. I love the game but I know where it falls short and where it's just plain bad in places.

#17 Posted by -Unreal- (24551 posts) -

I've tried it, didn't like it and uninstalled it.

GamerwillzPS

You played for about 40 mins according to Steam. :lol:

#18 Posted by locopatho (20798 posts) -
It's not any fun. You can't "win", you just keep playing. Same reason I dislike MMOs, pacing is crap, it's just a hamster wheel you're supposed to run on forever.
#19 Posted by ZetA_LatA (114 posts) -

Tis a very fun game however it can be a bit overwhelming and the amount of points it takes to get new weapons is disappointing.

#20 Posted by -Unreal- (24551 posts) -
It's not any fun. You can't "win", you just keep playing. Same reason I dislike MMOs, pacing is crap, it's just a hamster wheel you're supposed to run on forever.locopatho
Because a game never ends you are forced to play forever. Nice deduction.
#21 Posted by Armoured_Mage (766 posts) -

its boring

#22 Posted by locopatho (20798 posts) -
[QUOTE="locopatho"]It's not any fun. You can't "win", you just keep playing. Same reason I dislike MMOs, pacing is crap, it's just a hamster wheel you're supposed to run on forever.-Unreal-
Because a game never ends you are forced to play forever. Nice deduction.

I said "supposed to", not "forced to". I was perfectly free to try it, dislike it, and never play it again :)
#23 Posted by MBirdy88 (8999 posts) -
Because just like EVE it only looks like that 1% of the time and the rest of the time is boring?
#24 Posted by dommeus (9433 posts) -

I'm crap at it anyway. Tried it this morning. Not sure if I managed to kill anyone after 15 minutes of gettign bombed by planes as I made my way to the WARZONE. WELL FUN.

#25 Posted by Link3301 (1811 posts) -

Pay2WinAcidSoldner

Once again, it isn't. Everything you can get by paying is also attainable for free.

#26 Posted by Wasdie (50592 posts) -

If you want instant fun in your face, Planetside 2 isn't for you. Stike with Halo or CoD.

#27 Posted by LittleMac19 (1638 posts) -
Looks fun, I might try it later.
#28 Posted by Loegi (1692 posts) -
That video is crap. Half of it is him looking at the sunset with his girlfriend or whoever that is. And I think it's explaining outdated things. And for a lot of people it won't look gorgeous. It's pretty badly optimized, and it only looks nice on select computers.
#29 Posted by SkyRaid (2001 posts) -

It was released too soon, its pay to win, has no meta...


I liked it but it had no lasting appeal with me. I still have it installed, however.

#30 Posted by Truth_Hurts_U (9447 posts) -

Because it plays like COD... Everyone dies SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTT... Then you got resources on top of cool downs, which limit you even more combined with lack of everything.

It's nothing like Planet Side 1 when it comes to fun and enjoyment. For one you had way more vehicles and max suits. The classes weren't made out of paper besides the stealther class. More customization of your chars load out. Hacking was a fun game mechanic.

All of which PS2 doesn't have. It's a bare bones boring flop fest. I gave it plenty of time to appease me and it just doesn't do it for me.

#31 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

If you want instant fun in your face, Planetside 2 isn't for you. Stike with Halo or CoD.

Wasdie

Precisely. People can't seem to grasp that. And when they hear everyone else praising it they almost feel as if they should be liking it too. It's ok not to like it, it's not a game for everyone.

#32 Posted by psymon100 (6835 posts) -

How can anyone dislike PlanetSide 2?

Well for starters, it's not oxygen.

I like it, so what if other people dislike it? They do not even have to give a reason.

#33 Posted by glez13 (9016 posts) -

Pretty easily actually. Considering there is no tutorial it takes players many frustrating hours to figure out what the heck to do. Once they figure it out, they quickly realize they can't really impact the game in any meaningful way all by themselves.

While PS2 is very much a modern shooter with a lot more streamlined mechanics for an overall better gameplay experience than it's predecessor, it's still a very unique game catering to a specific type of gamer. That's just how these kind of games are.

It's also not pay to win no matter what people here say. I've spent $189 on the game and yet I'm still using the default weapons because they are the best in the game.

Wasdie

:shock:

#34 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43223 posts) -
Simple: it's not fun.
#35 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="GoldenElementXL"][QUOTE="kraken2109"]

It runs like crap?

BrunoBRS

No offense but if you are running below recommended specs it will run like crap. The game is pretty demanding.

no offense but the game runs like crap. don't assume someone is running a sh!tty PC because an awfully optimized game is, you know, awfully optimized.

I get 40+ FPS at 1440p max settings with 670 4 GB SLI and a 3570k @ 4.6. I just turned the render distance down, as it is unneccesarily high.

That isn't bad considering that it is a very good looking game with enormous scale and a giant player count.

#36 Posted by AcidSoldner (7051 posts) -

Pretty easily actually. Considering there is no tutorial it takes players many frustrating hours to figure out what the heck to do. Once they figure it out, they quickly realize they can't really impact the game in any meaningful way all by themselves.

While PS2 is very much a modern shooter with a lot more streamlined mechanics for an overall better gameplay experience than it's predecessor, it's still a very unique game catering to a specific type of gamer. That's just how these kind of games are.

It's also not pay to win no matter what people here say. I've spent $189 on the game and yet I'm still using the default weapons because they are the best in the game.

Wasdie

Yeah, f*ck that.

The game was advertised as not being a Pay2Win game, which after a couple of hours becomes an obvious lie. The problem is that on average you make about 25-30 credits per hour (about 1 credit per 4 kills) and upgrading a single perk to max level costs about 1500 credits; that's about 60 hours of gameplay for one f*cking perk on a single class on a single character. New weapon? No problem, 700-1000 credits + 200 credits for the mods. As you can see, fully unlocking a single class takes about an eternity. Either that or you end up buying weapons for 7-9$. Then there's the Air Units that aren't even viable unless you pump out cash forrocket pods and AA rockets which are both overpowered to hell.

Free to play for shooters, especially those with "persistent" rank & unlocks, is total bullsh!t. Leveling takes forever because they want you to buy either XP boosts or new weapons outright. The whole point of having unlocks is so you can mix and match different loadouts to switch up your tactics, so if the free weapons are the best, what's the f*cking point?

Give me a $60 game with a consistent stream of content. $189 dollars for a game is ludicrous and you should feel bad.

#37 Posted by Loegi (1692 posts) -

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="GoldenElementXL"] No offense but if you are running below recommended specs it will run like crap. The game is pretty demanding.Riadon2

no offense but the game runs like crap. don't assume someone is running a sh!tty PC because an awfully optimized game is, you know, awfully optimized.

I get 40+ FPS at 1440p max settings with 670 4 GB SLI and a 3570k @ 4.6. I just turned the render distance down, as it is unneccesarily high.

That isn't bad considering that it is a very good looking game with enormous scale and a giant player count.

Nvidea and Intel usually perform a lot better in this game. Comparable AMD/ATI hardware would probably perform quite a bit worse. And then there are the weird occasions where the hardware is almost the same, but gives radically different performance.
#38 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Pretty easily actually. Considering there is no tutorial it takes players many frustrating hours to figure out what the heck to do. Once they figure it out, they quickly realize they can't really impact the game in any meaningful way all by themselves.

While PS2 is very much a modern shooter with a lot more streamlined mechanics for an overall better gameplay experience than it's predecessor, it's still a very unique game catering to a specific type of gamer. That's just how these kind of games are.

It's also not pay to win no matter what people here say. I've spent $189 on the game and yet I'm still using the default weapons because they are the best in the game.

AcidSoldner

Yeah, f*ck that.

The game was advertised as not being a Pay2Win game, which after a couple of hours becomes an obvious lie. The problem is that on average you make about 25-30 credits per hour (about 1 credit per 4 kills) and upgrading a single perk to max level costs about 1500 credits; that's about 60 hours of gameplay for one f*cking perk on a single class on a single character. New weapon? No problem, 700-1000 credits + 200 credits for the mods. As you can see, fully unlocking a single class takes about an eternity. Either that or you end up buying weapons for 7-9$. Then there's the Air Units that aren't even viable unless you pump out cash forrocket pods and AA rockets which are both overpowered to hell.

Free to play for shooters, especially those with "persistent" rank & unlocks, is total bullsh!t. Leveling takes forever because they want you to buy either XP boosts or new weapons outright. The whole point of having unlocks is so you can mix and match different loadouts to switch up your tactics, so if the free weapons are the best, what's the f*cking point?

Give me a $60 with a consistent stream of content. $189 dollars for a game is ludicrous and you should feel bad.

It's a free to play MMO, there is obviously going to be a huge incentive to grind your way through it. Otherwise most people get bored and stop playing after a while. With something always in your grasp to get it makes you keep going. It's not the best system in the world but it's working for their business model so far.

That and unlocking new guns does fvck all anyway, most guns are the exact same as each other. Also getting cert points isn't that hard if you PTFO instead of just going for kills. You get a bunch of them for taking bases

#39 Posted by Chris_Williams (14882 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Pretty easily actually. Considering there is no tutorial it takes players many frustrating hours to figure out what the heck to do. Once they figure it out, they quickly realize they can't really impact the game in any meaningful way all by themselves.

While PS2 is very much a modern shooter with a lot more streamlined mechanics for an overall better gameplay experience than it's predecessor, it's still a very unique game catering to a specific type of gamer. That's just how these kind of games are.

It's also not pay to win no matter what people here say. I've spent $189 on the game and yet I'm still using the default weapons because they are the best in the game.

AcidSoldner

Yeah, f*ck that.

The game was advertised as not being a Pay2Win game, which after a couple of hours becomes an obvious lie. The problem is that on average you make about 25-30 credits per hour (about 1 credit per 4 kills) and upgrading a single perk to max level costs about 1500 credits; that's about 60 hours of gameplay for one f*cking perk on a single class on a single character. New weapon? No problem, 700-1000 credits + 200 credits for the mods. As you can see, fully unlocking a single class takes about an eternity. Either that or you end up buying weapons for 7-9$. Then there's the Air Units that aren't even viable unless you pump out cash forrocket pods and AA rockets which are both overpowered to hell.

Free to play for shooters, especially those with "persistent" rank & unlocks, is total bullsh!t. Leveling takes forever because they want you to buy either XP boosts or new weapons outright. The whole point of having unlocks is so you can mix and match different loadouts to switch up your tactics, so if the free weapons are the best, what's the f*cking point?

Give me a $60 with a consistent stream of content. $189 dollars for a game is ludicrous and you should feel bad.

get em
#40 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="GoldenElementXL"] No offense but if you are running below recommended specs it will run like crap. The game is pretty demanding.Riadon2

no offense but the game runs like crap. don't assume someone is running a sh!tty PC because an awfully optimized game is, you know, awfully optimized.

I get 40+ FPS at 1440p max settings with 670 4 GB SLI and a 3570k @ 4.6. I just turned the render distance down, as it is unneccesarily high.

That isn't bad considering that it is a very good looking game with enormous scale and a giant player count.

No, the game runs like sh!t and SOE know that too. The game has some fantastic ligthing effects but it's textures are horrendous.

But they know it runs bad and are releasing an optimisation patch in January that they said would help performance a lot

#41 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"] no offense but the game runs like crap. don't assume someone is running a sh!tty PC because an awfully optimized game is, you know, awfully optimized.Loegi

I get 40+ FPS at 1440p max settings with 670 4 GB SLI and a 3570k @ 4.6. I just turned the render distance down, as it is unneccesarily high.

That isn't bad considering that it is a very good looking game with enormous scale and a giant player count.

Nvidea and Intel usually perform a lot better in this game. Comparable AMD/ATI hardware would probably perform quite a bit worse. And then there are the weird occasions where the hardware is almost the same, but gives radically different performance.

I don't know if you can blame Planetside 2 for that, it might just be AMD's drivers. Plus, the fastest AMD CPU is nowhere near the speed of the fastest intel CPU in any game, so that isn't really bad optimization.

#42 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"] no offense but the game runs like crap. don't assume someone is running a sh!tty PC because an awfully optimized game is, you know, awfully optimized.seanmcloughlin

I get 40+ FPS at 1440p max settings with 670 4 GB SLI and a 3570k @ 4.6. I just turned the render distance down, as it is unneccesarily high.

That isn't bad considering that it is a very good looking game with enormous scale and a giant player count.

No, the game runs like sh!t and SOE know that too. The game has some fantastic ligthing effects but it's textures are horrendous.

But they know it runs bad and are releasing an optimisation patch in January that they said would help performance a lot

Ultra textures don't look THAT bad. The game also has FXAA forced on by default, which blurs the textures and misportrays them. I use SweetFX sharpening to balance out the FXAA blur (I know they said not to use it, but I don't care if I am banned).

#43 Posted by Jankarcop (10664 posts) -

Its too much for them. too complicated.

Hell half of the kiddies here think its "pay to win" because they got destroyed by another player using vanilla weapons. Its for more seasoned gamers, not CoD noobs.

#44 Posted by Jankarcop (10664 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Pretty easily actually. Considering there is no tutorial it takes players many frustrating hours to figure out what the heck to do. Once they figure it out, they quickly realize they can't really impact the game in any meaningful way all by themselves.

While PS2 is very much a modern shooter with a lot more streamlined mechanics for an overall better gameplay experience than it's predecessor, it's still a very unique game catering to a specific type of gamer. That's just how these kind of games are.

It's also not pay to win no matter what people here say. I've spent $189 on the game and yet I'm still using the default weapons because they are the best in the game.

AcidSoldner

Yeah, f*ck that.

The game was advertised as not being a Pay2Win game, which after a couple of hours becomes an obvious lie. The problem is that on average you make about 25-30 credits per hour (about 1 credit per 4 kills) and upgrading a single perk to max level costs about 1500 credits; that's about 60 hours of gameplay for one f*cking perk on a single class on a single character. New weapon? No problem, 700-1000 credits + 200 credits for the mods. As you can see, fully unlocking a single class takes about an eternity. Either that or you end up buying weapons for 7-9$. Then there's the Air Units that aren't even viable unless you pump out cash forrocket pods and AA rockets which are both overpowered to hell.

Free to play for shooters, especially those with "persistent" rank & unlocks, is total bullsh!t. Leveling takes forever because they want you to buy either XP boosts or new weapons outright. The whole point of having unlocks is so you can mix and match different loadouts to switch up your tactics, so if the free weapons are the best, what's the f*cking point?

Give me a $60 with a consistent stream of content. $189 dollars for a game is ludicrous and you should feel bad.

Its not pay to win, you were just bad at it.

#45 Posted by Loegi (1692 posts) -

[QUOTE="Loegi"][QUOTE="Riadon2"]

I get 40+ FPS at 1440p max settings with 670 4 GB SLI and a 3570k @ 4.6. I just turned the render distance down, as it is unneccesarily high.

That isn't bad considering that it is a very good looking game with enormous scale and a giant player count.

Riadon2

Nvidea and Intel usually perform a lot better in this game. Comparable AMD/ATI hardware would probably perform quite a bit worse. And then there are the weird occasions where the hardware is almost the same, but gives radically different performance.

I don't know if you can blame Planetside 2 for that, it might just be AMD's drivers. Plus, the fastest AMD CPU is nowhere near the speed of the fastest intel CPU in any game, so that isn't really bad optimization.

Yes I can. They didn't optimize the game for AMD, doesn't even look like they tried. AMD works fine for other games that, in my opinion, look better. And AMD CPUs should be fast enough, if it would use enough cores, which I think it doesn't.
#46 Posted by Loegi (1692 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

I get 40+ FPS at 1440p max settings with 670 4 GB SLI and a 3570k @ 4.6. I just turned the render distance down, as it is unneccesarily high.

That isn't bad considering that it is a very good looking game with enormous scale and a giant player count.

Riadon2

No, the game runs like sh!t and SOE know that too. The game has some fantastic ligthing effects but it's textures are horrendous.

But they know it runs bad and are releasing an optimisation patch in January that they said would help performance a lot

Ultra textures don't look THAT bad. The game also has FXAA forced on by default, which blurs the textures and misportrays them. I use SweetFX sharpening to balance out the FXAA blur (I know they said not to use it, but I don't care if I am banned).

They don't use FXAA, they probably use a custom edge detect AA.
#47 Posted by Puckhog04 (22693 posts) -

Didn't like it.

#48 Posted by Newhopes (4664 posts) -

Didn't play for long I found it really dull, reminds of those pay 2 win games where it's free to play but is designed to take so long to achieve anything you end up paying to speed it up.

#49 Posted by bobbetybob (19297 posts) -

Its too much for them. too complicated.

Hell half of the kiddies here think its "pay to win" because they got destroyed by another player using vanilla weapons. Its for more seasoned gamers, not CoD noobs.

Jankarcop
Actually it's an incredibly boring and frustrating game if you don't play in a team. That's perfectly fine for a big open FPS, but that's why lots of people don't like it.
#50 Posted by psymon100 (6835 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="Loegi"] Nvidea and Intel usually perform a lot better in this game. Comparable AMD/ATI hardware would probably perform quite a bit worse. And then there are the weird occasions where the hardware is almost the same, but gives radically different performance.Loegi

I don't know if you can blame Planetside 2 for that, it might just be AMD's drivers. Plus, the fastest AMD CPU is nowhere near the speed of the fastest intel CPU in any game, so that isn't really bad optimization.

Yes I can. They didn't optimize the game for AMD, doesn't even look like they tried. AMD works fine for other games that, in my opinion, look better. And AMD CPUs should be fast enough, if it would use enough cores, which I think it doesn't.

My results -

AMD Phenom II X4 840 w/ Radeon 7850 = unplayable at 15-30fps

Intel Pentium G860 w/ Radeon 7850 = Good. 40-50fps

Intel Core i3-3220 w/ Radeon 7850 = Also good. 50+ fps