How can anyone dislike Planet Side 2 ?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

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

Loegi

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.

The game does use FXAA, google it.

#52 Posted by Loegi (1692 posts) -

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

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).

Riadon2

They don't use FXAA, they probably use a custom edge detect AA.

The game does use FXAA, google it.

I really doubt a developer would lie about this. 8th post. http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/settings-question.56574/
#53 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

I think it's mostly gimmicky, people make a big deal about it's player size and that's it really. It has some cool vehicles and I like the factions but the gameplay is not as solid as I would hope. Also it has no campaign which sucks big time, but it's free so it makes up for it.

But it's not better than Black Ops 2, that's for sure. So many better shooters out there like COD, Killzone, Halo, Far Cry 3, Resistance......but at least Planet Side is better than Battle Field, the most boring shooter this gen.

#54 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="Loegi"] They don't use FXAA, they probably use a custom edge detect AA.Loegi

The game does use FXAA, google it.

I really doubt a developer would lie about this. 8th post. http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/settings-question.56574/

Blur is blur, why does it matter?

#55 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

I think it's mostly gimmicky, people make a big deal about it's player size and that's it really. It has some cool vehicles and I like the factions but the gameplay is not as solid as I would hope. Also it has no campaign which sucks big time, but it's free so it makes up for it.

But it's not better than Black Ops 2, that's for sure. So many better shooters out there like COD, Killzone, Halo, Far Cry 3, Resistance......but at least Planet Side is better than Battle Field, the most boring shooter this gen.

ShadowMoses900

You've never played it.

#56 Posted by McStrongfast (4277 posts) -
I dislike what F2P tends to entail. I want to play the game, not wait to unlock it as I hop around with my onelegged, naked soldier armed with a gun that fires bubbles. Although I'm making it sound fun now so that's a bad analogy. I like customization, not the gaining access to it as I'm restricted to the very base items.
#57 Posted by Loegi (1692 posts) -

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

The game does use FXAA, google it.

Riadon2

I really doubt a developer would lie about this. 8th post. http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/settings-question.56574/

Blur is blur, why does it matter?

It doesn't. Just don't say it's FXAA when it's not FXAA.
#58 Posted by lostrib (41096 posts) -

I just dont have the time. And the game does take a bit of time to learn and play. Plus, team work is pretty much necessary, and when the game finally released from beta there seemed to be mostly just a zerg, probably from new players trying the game out. Probably go back to it once things have settled down, and hopefully they've increased optimisation

#59 Posted by Maroxad (8616 posts) -

Many reasons

1. It is poorly optimized and for some players it does run terribly.
2. It is not an instant gratification type of game.
3. It does have a store which sells you weapons and exp boosts. Which is enough for some people to call it P2W
4. It does get repetitive quite fast to some players
5. Quite a fair ammount of changes from this to PS1. Some vets were not particulary pleased with this.
6. Some people just arent into FPS
7. Some people just arent into team battles
8. Some people prefer a smaller scale and scope
9. Some people just aren't good at the game
10. Some people just arent into the style

#60 Posted by GoldenElementXL (3691 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.

Wow. His specs are in his sig and they are well below recommended. I am not calling his machine anything. I just don't know how someone who can't run the game can say it runs like crap. Makes sense to me........
#61 Posted by FPSfan1985 (2174 posts) -

Once I realized that know matter how organized the group is the biggest zerg will dominate the continent, I started to really dislike the game. Also the net code and optimization are completely terrible.

#62 Posted by slimjimbadboy (1731 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.

[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"]Pay2WinPlagueless

This too.

None of this is true. Unless you also think the default spawn times are REALLY boring in BF3.

#63 Posted by mitu123 (154589 posts) -

It runs like crap?

kraken2109

I don't think your rig is capable of it going by recommended specs...

#64 Posted by Wasdie (50484 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 game with a consistent stream of content. $189 dollars for a game is ludicrous and you should feel bad.

I didn't have to pay a penny of that. I chose to pay every cent because I wanted to support the developer.

I'm still using the default weapons btw. They are the best ones in the game. No amount of money can make you blatently better than somebody else. If you don't want to believe me that's fine, but that's the truth.

#65 Posted by moistsandwich (0 posts) -

I think the game is a turd.... a boring, pointless turd.

I'll stick to CoD, Halo or BF for my FPS fragging needs thanks.

#66 Posted by savagetwinkie (7981 posts) -
Horribly Unbalanced No depth compared to planetside 1, Maps are designed to allow farming via aircraft, Designers believe there shouldn't be any hard counter to air except for more air... Generic bases all over the place, bad design, Rendering distance issue
#67 Posted by savagetwinkie (7981 posts) -

[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"]

[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.

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.

I didn't have to pay a penny of that. I chose to pay every cent because I wanted to support the developer.

I'm still using the default weapons btw. They are the best ones in the game. No amount of money can make you blatently better than somebody else. If you don't want to believe me that's fine, but that's the truth.

I spent $15, my liberator now has a dalton/walker combo, my lib wreaks havoc on ground units, and probably up until today no one had AA unlocked because its like 1000 certs, and most of the AA can't even reach me with the dalton's range...
#68 Posted by Jebus213 (8919 posts) -

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

Wasdie
Stop using logic...
#69 Posted by Jebus213 (8919 posts) -
[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]Horribly Unbalanced No depth compared to planetside 1, Maps are designed to allow farming via aircraft, Designers believe there shouldn't be any hard counter to air except for more air... Generic bases all over the place, bad design,

So did you just pull all this out of your ass?
#70 Posted by savagetwinkie (7981 posts) -
[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]Horribly Unbalanced No depth compared to planetside 1, Maps are designed to allow farming via aircraft, Designers believe there shouldn't be any hard counter to air except for more air... Generic bases all over the place, bad design,

So did you just pull all this out of your ass?

No its all on the planet side 2 discussion forums, theres not enought there is not enough incentive so your have most word's with excessive amounts of people in one team, mostly TR compared to planet side 1 I'd go check out some of the posts comparing the two games, the maps generally don't have top cover except for a 2 base types, the rest are open season for air craft, AA is for the most part a deterrant, so unless you stack AA, enemy ESF's are horribly effective. And the bases are all very generic, and very open, no doors, its stupid easy to farm with a vehicle.
#71 Posted by Jebus213 (8919 posts) -
[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]Horribly Unbalanced No depth compared to planetside 1, Maps are designed to allow farming via aircraft, Designers believe there shouldn't be any hard counter to air except for more air... Generic bases all over the place, bad design,

So did you just pull all this out of your ass?

No its all on the planet side 2 discussion forums, theres not enought there is not enough incentive so your have most word's with excessive amounts of people in one team, mostly TR compared to planet side 1 I'd go check out some of the posts comparing the two games, the maps generally don't have top cover except for a 2 base types, the rest are open season for air craft, AA is for the most part a deterrant, so unless you stack AA, enemy ESF's are horribly effective. And the bases are all very generic, and very open, no doors, its stupid easy to farm with a vehicle.

So you did pull all of it out of your ass.
#72 Posted by savagetwinkie (7981 posts) -
[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Jebus213"] So did you just pull all this out of your ass?

No its all on the planet side 2 discussion forums, theres not enought there is not enough incentive so your have most word's with excessive amounts of people in one team, mostly TR compared to planet side 1 I'd go check out some of the posts comparing the two games, the maps generally don't have top cover except for a 2 base types, the rest are open season for air craft, AA is for the most part a deterrant, so unless you stack AA, enemy ESF's are horribly effective. And the bases are all very generic, and very open, no doors, its stupid easy to farm with a vehicle.

So you did pull all of it out of your ass.

apparently you can't understand faults with a great game. I could see why a lot of people may not want to play, especially if your a foot soldier when 90% of the battles happen in extremely open areas.
#73 Posted by slimjimbadboy (1731 posts) -

I bet I know what Jebus should say next.

#74 Posted by Shottayouth13- (6846 posts) -

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

Chris_Williams
#75 Posted by princeofshapeir (14899 posts) -

I think it's mostly gimmicky, people make a big deal about it's player size and that's it really. It has some cool vehicles and I like the factions but the gameplay is not as solid as I would hope. Also it has no campaign which sucks big time, but it's free so it makes up for it.

But it's not better than Black Ops 2, that's for sure. So many better shooters out there like COD, Killzone, Halo, Far Cry 3, Resistance......but at least Planet Side is better than Battle Field, the most boring shooter this gen.

ShadowMoses900
You disgust me
#76 Posted by lightleggy (16075 posts) -
[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"] lol no

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.

[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"]Pay2WinPlagueless

This too.

lol no[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]it's not that hard. it's a pay to win shooter, and after a while the battles feel very samey.

lol no. STFU about it being pay 2 win and go play the game, because you really make it obvious that you havent played it.
#77 Posted by lightleggy (16075 posts) -

[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"]

[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.

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.

I didn't have to pay a penny of that. I chose to pay every cent because I wanted to support the developer.

I'm still using the default weapons btw. They are the best ones in the game. No amount of money can make you blatently better than somebody else. If you don't want to believe me that's fine, but that's the truth.

This. EVE online IS a pay 2 win game, planetside 2 is not. the only aspect of the game that is pay 2 win is the air-to-air combat.
#78 Posted by lostrib (41096 posts) -

I think it's mostly gimmicky, people make a big deal about it's player size and that's it really. It has some cool vehicles and I like the factions but the gameplay is not as solid as I would hope. Also it has no campaign which sucks big time, but it's free so it makes up for it.

But it's not better than Black Ops 2, that's for sure. So many better shooters out there like COD, Killzone, Halo, Far Cry 3, Resistance......but at least Planet Side is better than Battle Field, the most boring shooter this gen.

ShadowMoses900

I think you're playing Battlefield wrong

#79 Posted by lightleggy (16075 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.

SkyRaid
its not pay to win. seriously stop using that argument if you havent even played the game.
#80 Posted by lightleggy (16075 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 game with a consistent stream of content. $189 dollars for a game is ludicrous and you should feel bad.

Stuff like armor upgrades can ONLY be obtained with Certs (they are called certificates, not credits), they CANT be purchased with station cash (the in-game currency). you also CANT trade in SC for certs.

SC is only to buy weapons and camo (camo does nothing btw, it's just a skin change). the default weapons of all the classes are literally better than every single purchasable weapon, so you only need to buy the extra weapons for the vehicles, for example the rockets for the jet fighters.

your argument just failed and it proved you only played for 40 minutes or so.

Also you can get a membership whichgives you monthly amounts of cash, early access, queue priority and some other benefits.

#81 Posted by lightleggy (16075 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
Yeah. I saw a guy saying that it was pay 2 win because he got killed in 2 seconds...by a NC soldier at point blank :lol: not even hercules would last longer.
#82 Posted by princeofshapeir (14899 posts) -
I simply haven't played much of the game because I have an enormous backlog of other games that I have more interest in, but I'm not naive enough to dismiss PS2 entirely. From the brief time (literally 20 minutes) I spent, I could tell it was a game worth playing more of.
#83 Posted by FPSfan1985 (2174 posts) -
Game may not be P2W but it's damn sure P2play how you want. Or else you'll never get everything you want/need. Takes far to long to upgrade multiple guns/vehicles without spending money on some type of boost. Which for some like me who enjoying swapping classes alot the game just losses alot of appeal. Also did I mention the piss poor net code. Seriously some of the worse I've ever seen. Like seriously why on earth did they decide to use client side hit detection?
#84 Posted by LongZhiZi (2453 posts) -
I dislike it because I cannot login for some reason. I'm able to change my password, but never log in. :|
#85 Posted by Jankarcop (10242 posts) -

They are casual. Very simple.

#86 Posted by SpiralSmile (245 posts) -

coz its aoad of sh1t

#87 Posted by charizard1605 (60156 posts) -
It's simple, it does not appeal to their tastes.
#88 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -
Well if a person doesn't like FPS or sucks at Planetside 2, I could see how they could dislike it. Oh and it not being on their system is reason enough for some.
#89 Posted by GhoX (5217 posts) -

Pay2WinAcidSoldner
Only ignorant console fanboys would point at everything that's F2P as pay to win. PlanetSide 2 is as pay 2 win as Dust 514, if not any less.

You also absolutely need to join an outfit in order to have a great time. I suppose a solo sniper may get some fun, but generally speaking a solo experience is lameluster compared to organised group play.

#90 Posted by mitu123 (154589 posts) -

Battle Field, the most boring shooter this gen.

ShadowMoses900

:lol:Not even close, you have odd taste even for a troll!

#91 Posted by Jebus213 (8919 posts) -
especially if your a foot soldier when 90% of the battles happen in extremely open areas.savagetwinkie
lol.....
#92 Posted by Jebus213 (8919 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Battle Field, the most boring shooter this gen.

mitu123

:lol:Not even close, you have odd taste even for a troll!

He complains about how bad this community and claims IGN soo much better. Horrible troll....
#93 Posted by goblaa (19304 posts) -

It's a FPS. That alone makes me dislike it.

#94 Posted by FPSfan1985 (2174 posts) -

[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"]Pay2WinGhoX

Only ignorant console fanboys would point at everything that's F2P as pay to win. PlanetSide 2 is as pay 2 win as Dust 514, if not any less.

You also absolutely need to join an outfit in order to have a great time. I suppose a solo sniper may get some fun, but generally speaking a solo experience is lameluster compared to organised group play.

In my experience there is zero difference. Even solo you can still just follow the zerg. Outside of the zerg there really isn't much going on.
#95 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
Course people can. The biggest issue is the utter lack of tutorials for new players which is why -

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.

dommeus
This happens.
#96 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
Game may not be P2W but it's damn sure P2play how you want. Or else you'll never get everything you want/need. Takes far to long to upgrade multiple guns/vehicles without spending money on some type of boost. Which for some like me who enjoying swapping classes alot the game just losses alot of appeal. Also did I mention the piss poor net code. Seriously some of the worse I've ever seen. Like seriously why on earth did they decide to use client side hit detection?FPSfan1985
Eh? The netcode is largely excellent considering the **** ton of calculations going on. The problem is the lack of polish and the instability of certain servers. But otherwise, of course it's going to take long if you want everything. How else are SOE going to make any sort of money?
#97 Posted by ArisShadows (22664 posts) -
The current infestation of hackers..
#98 Posted by nutcrackr (12802 posts) -
I've tried it for a few hours, I don't think I enjoyed it at any point. I find the ground vehicle controls, weapons and handling pretty damn poor for a game so focused on them. The weapon handing is about as good, playing both the purples and reds I found they felt very similar and look the same to me. Had lots of netcode problems: players warping about, vehicles warping, flying through ground or objects. Players appearing out of thin air mere meters in front of you. Couple of big battles I was involved in were nothing but zergs. Huge army moves through tiny base to kill enemies and stand around to capture objective for an eternity - riveting. Or huge army charges up hill (the crown) while huge army above spams weapon fire from above while aircraft come in and mop up as they please. The engine / servers can't even seem to handle the big battles, just hide players if there are too many..
#99 Posted by KungfuKitten (21357 posts) -

Watch me dislike it:
Unlock system SUCKS. You have a progressions system that takes AGES to unlock anything. Even with all the boosts it can be a grind. And most the unlocks look the same as what you had, some of the descriptions are wrong and for vehicles you only find out how fuggly the upgrade looks after purchasing it. And that's another thing you purchase everything only for one character. If you delete the character they take all items away.

So you can say things like: it's written somewhere in their contracts and rules and lawbooks that this is so, so you should know better.
Well, consumers don't read that stuff. And it is a complete dickmove to require people to study your company laws to play your game.
Or you could say it has to be that way because it is F2P.
Not true, because a game like Tribes:Ascend exists and they have a way more reasonable unlock system where you can basically unlock a new weapon every day or two. Even if you don't have the points for that you can purchase other interesting upgrades instead. And after any real money purchase (ANY) you get a permanent serious xp boost. The systems resulted in me regretting my money spent in PS2, loving the money I spend on T:A, and I'm going back to Tribes/BF3.

They have a cool game going, but they bodged the money/xp system.

#100 Posted by ClassicRockFTW (1106 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.

LOL Excuses for a poorly optimized game.

I uninstalled the game the moment it dipped to 15 fps on my 7950