You were ‘skeptical’ about downloading a FREE game? Haha, lol @ you

tl;nr get better, son.

Your post highlights exactly what is wrong with current game design. Pandering. Newsflash; any art worth a dollar will not appeal to everyone. Moreover, it shouldn’t. If you’re looking for a ‘quick fix’, this really isn’t the game for you, and the fact that it says ‘mmo’ should be caveat enough.

Valkryie “chooser of the slain” Advanced Air support, recruiting VS
players on the server Waterson who are focused on flight and air
support. Our outfit will be focused on offensive/defensive support of
armor columns, base capture and base defense.

Currently looking for:

-dedicated gunners

-support scythe pilots

-liberator pilots

-Engineers

-Heavy Assault, equipped with surface to air missiles.

Teamspeak server.

Community website in the near future.

New players welcome as well. Certain nights will be dedicated for flight instruction.

Right now, with dedicated gunners I average between 50-60 certs an hour; so the points are there for pilots.

Feel free to contact me with any further questions.

IGN: Dhax

“War evolved”

A review doesn’t always have to be Good and the Bad if the reviewer doesn’t feel that way. A review just has to have enough accurate descriptions about the games core categories for a reader to be able to make up his/her mind. And I definitely think Asad has delivered on that.

Nonsense, I manage a LAN gaming center where we have machines by both manufacturers.

There is virtually no difference in performance between systems in the same range, they all run the game perfectly until you get close to a sizeable battle when the FPS just plummets to low 30s.

Sorry about the poor format, the site doesn’t seem to like my paragraphs.

This is a very unprofessional review, as a critic reviewing a game it’s your job to address BOTH GOOD AND BAD things about it, in depth. Especially the bad.

Not just skim over all the bad things in half a paragraph and spend all your time praising the game like a well spoken fan boy.

This looks like something that belongs on the SOE website as a commercial more than a review.

Here’s a few points that I feel need to be emphasized:

First of all, when you’re reviewing a free to play multiplayer game it’s critical to make an IN DEPTH ANALYSIS of the free to play system.

The optimization of the game is catastrophic, machines that run any other game at a solid 60 fps on max settings are struggling to pull 35 in this game in any of the major locations while there is a fight going on, regardless of the graphical settings (except shadows and lightning, those actually have some impact on the performance).

While this would normally be OK in MMOS, in an FPS this is unacceptable.

Planetside 2 uses a modified client side hit detection system, similar to one used in BF3. And without the ping limit and with open regional servers it’s even worse than the already terrible Battlefield 3 one.

The difference between your and your enemy’s screen is greater than one and a half second most of the time, that’s enough to unload half a clip on most automatic guns.

You constantly die by bullets curving around corners after you go to cover, you don’t get any indication that you are being shot until you’re already dead.

The way the game handles hit resolving the winner is the one that spots first. It just compresses all the fire into a split second and gives an illusion of instant death to the victim, even though the person who killed him fired 3 or 4 bursts into him.

This is also heavily abused by people who lag or burden their connections on purpose to gain an upper hand on enemies, in their lag they appear to teleport around on other people’s screen and they are virtually unkillable until they stop moving.

Character progression is almost non-existant, other than the few certification upgrades and the equipment most classes start without.

The alternative guns are almost identical to the starting ones, mainly the differences are minor like a bigger magazine size or faster reload speed. They even use the same exact skins. While acquiring them is a major grind for free to play players (20-25 hours for a good player for most of them), it doesn’t really disturb the level playing field because they are simply not more powerful than the starting ones.

However, such problem appears in vehicle/aircraft equipment.

Basically, you have to purchase a specialization. Be it anti infantry, anti tank or anti aircraft in every case you have an upper hand if you straight out buy the equipment in the cash shop, compared to players who will have to grind each of them for weeks.

The vehicle/aircraft/rocket weapons you start with just can’t decide what they want to be good against, and are only in rare cases comparable to alternative purchasable equipment. It’s like trying to play rock-paper-scizzors with a… fork?

Now to be clear, I know i focused on the bad things.

But this is in no way a bad game, but it isn’t nearly as good as you make it out to be either.

The one thing PS2 has an abundance of, is potential.
It could be one of the greatest games in existence if a couple of major issues were resolved.

PS: Why is there even a “story” section?

Make sure to do some research and get a system that is already optimized and don’t even think about getting ati or amd part the haven’t done a thing for getting those to run properly so pick your parts carefully or you will be dragging along at 20 to 10 fps.

Yes, but winning a short match of CoD (or whatever) does give you a tangible sense of victory whereas Planetside 2 is a never-ending tug-of-war that never ends – if you gain one territory, they might gain one back somewhere else, etc. Plus you can only ever drive them back to their warpgate, whereas in PS1 you could straight up kick them off the continent and they’d have to retreat to the sanctuary and invade that continent once more. You can expand your point into ‘what’s the point of playing any game’ – which is satisfaction and it all depends on where you get that satisfaction from. It’s fairly easy to get jaded with a battle that is ultimately pointless if your satisfaction comes from achieving strategic victory, like you could in PS1 by wiping someone off the continent. I find my satisfaction mainly from outwitting tanks and shooting them in the rear and simply playing large combined force battles – but you need layers of attraction, and the game will need more metagame than a simple hex-based tug-of-war to do well in the long term.

What’s the point of ANY online competitive multiplier game? Arbitrary win/lose or kill/death records?What’s the point of winning a round in CoD and ect.? The enemy is just going to come back and fight again the next round.
There are victories in this game. Just no next-map loading screens in between.

For example, if you’ve played BF, CoD, or CS, you may not like it as it’s a persistent world and there’s no end of the match. Even conquering an entire continent only delays your enemies from pushing out and retaking territory which may leave some feeling like there’s no point as no one ever truly “wins”.

Another one that is important to note, is that a high kill/death ratio means absolutely nothing. Sure you may be able to kill a bunch of people, but if you can’t take territory you’ll be stuck at the starting location (warpgate) and will be limited to the amount of resources you acquire to purchase vehicles and infantry consumables. Which means that logistics is immensely important as a large group that can get into good positions rapidly is a force to be reckoned with.