PS2 is not a MMO lets get that straight. It shows the obsessive desire of marketing in these companies that everything is called a MMO. PS2 is an online shooter with RPG style development. As such it is a rare beast and that is to its credit.
I do not think you need great graphics in a shooter, I think it is a bit of a waste in fact. Leave the fabulous graphics to the fantasy MMO’s. We are here to shoot not appreciate the vistas. When I first played B3 I thought lovely graphics but do we need it? Do I need to see a small haze of dust as a vehicle crests a rise in a dirt track? It seemed superfluous for B3 and the same for PS2.
This game will live or die by how good you think the combat and faction dynamics are. Not by how pretty you think it is.
I do not think you need great graphics in a shooter, I think it is a bit of a waste in fact. Leave the fabulous graphics to the fantasy MMO’s. We are here to shoot not appreciate the vistas. When I first played B3 I thought lovely graphics but do we need it? Do I need to see a small haze of dust as a vehicle crests a rise in a dirt track? It seemed superfluous for B£ and it would for PS2.
This game will live or die by how good you think the combat and faction dynamics is. Not by who pretty you think it is.
Originally posted by iamrta Great game if you get a kick out of being run over by your own tanks every 15 seconds.
LOL, Tried the game last night, well tried 6 times, either I was shot instantly or I got run over by something, couldn't even notice what it was that ran me over hahaha. But the glimps I saw ingame is definitly worth checking out again. Think not getting in at peak times might give me some experiance to atleast play a little longer.
2000 players on one map is a Massive amount of Players Online at the same time and the world is persistent it changes when you are offline. So yes it is an MMO.
PS2 graphics are crap. They stick a blur filter over it to "clean" it up so you don't notice the artifacting.
Not even a bloom filter, is it straight up blurring. Sorry I don't like feeling like I am squinting when I play a game.
Also there is so little feedback in that game that you can't say it IS successful at open world PvP. I loved Plantside 1 when it came out and played the heck out of it. PS2 I couldn't stand.
Originally posted by kevjards have to say this game looks atonishingly good and runs really smooth on my pc.only problem i have is staying alive..i had to laugh i created my char,thought right,someone is going to get a can of whoopass,yeah me..i was dead 10 times in 5 mins rofl..its insane and so fast that i dont know wether or not an old timer like me will be able to keep up.
I have the same problem,maybe because I don't play fps games very often ,so I started to play as combat medic,at least I can help my faction while getting used to the game.
Originally posted by grimgryphon PS2 is an MMO? Huh.
Yup. Because there are Massive Multiplayers Online. But it might be an MMOFPS. Still though, why cant the MMORPG's take note of this game and make open world pvp like this? And graphics look amazing too.
Do you think its worth the download in terms of gameplay? It's been taunting me on the Steam front page for a couple days now and I just haven't had time to pay attention.
You should definitely try it. There is a learning curve but once you get into it it is great. It is completely free so why not?
Originally posted by grimgryphon PS2 is an MMO? Huh.
Yup. Because there are Massive Multiplayers Online. But it might be an MMOFPS. Still though, why cant the MMORPG's take note of this game and make open world pvp like this? And graphics look amazing too.
Because IT'S NOT an MMORPG...
It's an MMOFPS, so it can't be fit into an RPG genre...
Besides that, the game isn't much and gets boring pretty fast. To me atleast.
And the textures are horrible.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
It's not at all, it's average at best, the textures are washed out and pixelated.
The terrain is also super blocky.
Especially the textures were bothersome, they are very low resolution, even on the highest settings.
Price game have to pay if it is open, big seamless and persistant with lot of players on the screen.
I guess, but I wonder if the game having no 64-bit has anything to do with it. Even though the game is very CPU intensive, it uses a very low amount of RAM.
Also the difference between max and min graphics is not that big, I had a hard time noticing anything different.
They've actually turned down the graphics also, so they will be able to make it even shinier in the future when the code allows and more players rigs catch up with the current tech, so the future for PS2 graphically is secure.
It's not at all, it's average at best, the textures are washed out and pixelated.
The terrain is also super blocky.
Especially the textures were bothersome, they are very low resolution, even on the highest settings.
Price game have to pay if it is open, big seamless and persistant with lot of players on the screen.
I guess, but I wonder if the game having no 64-bit has anything to do with it. Even though the game is very CPU intensive, it uses a very low amount of RAM.
Also the difference between max and min graphics is not that big, I had a hard time noticing anything different.
Yeah. I noticed those two things too. I also hope games will start taking advantage of 64-bit and huge amount of ram rather sooner than later. Still that will propably be true not earlier than after new Consoles release. Games released now and most that will be released in next 2 years will still be games that are done with 32-bit limitations in mind
Huge world and awsome graphics. And I cant believe it is free to play. You don't even have to purchase the game. Just download it and play lol.
So, do you think Planet Side 2 has the best graphics out of all mmo's? And why do other mmo games(SWTOR Ilum) fail at huge, non-instanced, open world, epic pvp battles like what PS2 has?
First : The graphics aint that great. Animation is stiff and variation very low.
It's not at all, it's average at best, the textures are washed out and pixelated.
The terrain is also super blocky.
Especially the textures were bothersome, they are very low resolution, even on the highest settings.
Price game have to pay if it is open, big seamless and persistant with lot of players on the screen.
I guess, but I wonder if the game having no 64-bit has anything to do with it. Even though the game is very CPU intensive, it uses a very low amount of RAM.
Also the difference between max and min graphics is not that big, I had a hard time noticing anything different.
It's using over a gig of GPU VRAM and 2.3GB of system RAM on my system, i wouldn't call that low but around normal. 64bit doesn't really have anything to do with anything, most games are still 32bit.
It's not at all, it's average at best, the textures are washed out and pixelated.
The terrain is also super blocky.
Especially the textures were bothersome, they are very low resolution, even on the highest settings.
Price game have to pay if it is open, big seamless and persistant with lot of players on the screen.
I guess, but I wonder if the game having no 64-bit has anything to do with it. Even though the game is very CPU intensive, it uses a very low amount of RAM.
Also the difference between max and min graphics is not that big, I had a hard time noticing anything different.
It's using over a gig of GPU VRAM and 2.3GB of system RAM on my system, i wouldn't call that low but around normal. 64bit doesn't really have anything to do with anything, most games are still 32bit.
Well I was talking about 64-only games that might have been designed in example to pre-cache in ram big amounts of data.
With 64-bit you don't have adress problem limit, so you could design a game with in example 8-16 GB ram requirements. Since 16 gb of ram cost around 50$... and current generation video ram cards have 2-3 GB in standard. Then that kind of ram will be normal in 2-3 years. Would be a shame not to use it.
However, the devs really needs to optimize the graphics engine. It is doing horrible frame rates even on decent machines (just go to their tech forums, and you will see the complaints).
I am still playing though .. the game is fun .. but it is really frustrating when enemies in my site "teleport" around because of lag and low framerates.
The graphics is no better than any console sci-fi shooters. However, that is not its strong points. ITs strong point is big battle with vehicles (allowing multiple players manning the vehicle) and territory control. It also let you teleport around so you are not stuck with walking endlessly in a big zone.
I had that issue and I notice I had one silly setting on my graphics card, it was set to adaptive mode rather than performance mode. Runs tons better now. That and I disabled threaded optimization and cuda. Helped me a ton personally. Though I am using nVidia.
Comments
PS2 is not a MMO lets get that straight. It shows the obsessive desire of marketing in these companies that everything is called a MMO. PS2 is an online shooter with RPG style development. As such it is a rare beast and that is to its credit.
I do not think you need great graphics in a shooter, I think it is a bit of a waste in fact. Leave the fabulous graphics to the fantasy MMO’s. We are here to shoot not appreciate the vistas. When I first played B3 I thought lovely graphics but do we need it? Do I need to see a small haze of dust as a vehicle crests a rise in a dirt track? It seemed superfluous for B3 and the same for PS2.
This game will live or die by how good you think the combat and faction dynamics are. Not by how pretty you think it is.
I do not think you need great graphics in a shooter, I think it is a bit of a waste in fact. Leave the fabulous graphics to the fantasy MMO’s. We are here to shoot not appreciate the vistas. When I first played B3 I thought lovely graphics but do we need it? Do I need to see a small haze of dust as a vehicle crests a rise in a dirt track? It seemed superfluous for B£ and it would for PS2.
This game will live or die by how good you think the combat and faction dynamics is. Not by who pretty you think it is.
LOL, Tried the game last night, well tried 6 times, either I was shot instantly or I got run over by something, couldn't even notice what it was that ran me over hahaha. But the glimps I saw ingame is definitly worth checking out again. Think not getting in at peak times might give me some experiance to atleast play a little longer.
lol@people who don't even know what MMO means.
2000 players on one map is a Massive amount of Players Online at the same time and the world is persistent it changes when you are offline. So yes it is an MMO.
PS2 graphics are crap. They stick a blur filter over it to "clean" it up so you don't notice the artifacting.
Not even a bloom filter, is it straight up blurring. Sorry I don't like feeling like I am squinting when I play a game.
Also there is so little feedback in that game that you can't say it IS successful at open world PvP. I loved Plantside 1 when it came out and played the heck out of it. PS2 I couldn't stand.
I have the same problem,maybe because I don't play fps games very often ,so I started to play as combat medic,at least I can help my faction while getting used to the game.
You should definitely try it. There is a learning curve but once you get into it it is great. It is completely free so why not?
Because IT'S NOT an MMORPG...
It's an MMOFPS, so it can't be fit into an RPG genre...
Besides that, the game isn't much and gets boring pretty fast. To me atleast.
And the textures are horrible.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
1. Shills
2. Trolls
3. Fanboys
Yep!
PigEye McNasty
DFOUW NA
I played it just to see the graphics.
It's not at all, it's average at best, the textures are washed out and pixelated.
The terrain is also super blocky.
Especially the textures were bothersome, they are very low resolution, even on the highest settings.
Price game have to pay if it is open, big seamless and persistant with lot of players on the screen.
I guess, but I wonder if the game having no 64-bit has anything to do with it. Even though the game is very CPU intensive, it uses a very low amount of RAM.
Also the difference between max and min graphics is not that big, I had a hard time noticing anything different.
My gaming blog
It's PVP, it's an FPS really. I didn't play it for the gameplay, just wanted to see the engine because EQNext will use it.
You basically have a bunch of bases spread out on the map, and you fight for control of them and get points doing so.
It's like domination from Unreal tournament, only bigger.
(actually I should have said Onslaught, it's more like that)
They've actually turned down the graphics also, so they will be able to make it even shinier in the future when the code allows and more players rigs catch up with the current tech, so the future for PS2 graphically is secure.
Yeah. I noticed those two things too. I also hope games will start taking advantage of 64-bit and huge amount of ram rather sooner than later. Still that will propably be true not earlier than after new Consoles release. Games released now and most that will be released in next 2 years will still be games that are done with 32-bit limitations in mind
PvP only. Just imagine Battlefield 3 in future on persistant huge map and you'll get the picture more or less.
It is just shooter.
First : The graphics aint that great. Animation is stiff and variation very low.
Second: Epic battles are epic. Thats why.
If you want PvE shooter, go play with the FireFall beta.
It's using over a gig of GPU VRAM and 2.3GB of system RAM on my system, i wouldn't call that low but around normal. 64bit doesn't really have anything to do with anything, most games are still 32bit.
Well I was talking about 64-only games that might have been designed in example to pre-cache in ram big amounts of data.
With 64-bit you don't have adress problem limit, so you could design a game with in example 8-16 GB ram requirements. Since 16 gb of ram cost around 50$... and current generation video ram cards have 2-3 GB in standard. Then that kind of ram will be normal in 2-3 years. Would be a shame not to use it.
I was only informing Yamota, not claiming what I prefer.
I had that issue and I notice I had one silly setting on my graphics card, it was set to adaptive mode rather than performance mode. Runs tons better now. That and I disabled threaded optimization and cuda. Helped me a ton personally. Though I am using nVidia.