The Lavish And Lovely GDC Planetside 2 Gallery

By Jim Rossignol on March 9th, 2012 at 10:00 pm.

Yes, THIS.
So, I am basically posting this because I am ludicrously excited about Planetside 2. I realise it’s partly nostalgia for my MMO summer of 2003 kicking in, but there’s still a part of me that thinks this could be the event game on PC this year. I can hardly bare to watch the half hour of footage that came out, but I can handle these still images that were release for GDC. You can click on them for a larger size.













Yeah. That’s the stuff.

__________________

« | »

, .

62 Comments »

  1. Lone Gunman says:

    Can’t wait.

  2. marlin says:

    Oh good…another game where I’ll spend my entire time getting shot and achieving absolutely nothing!
    BF3 – I’m looking at you!!

    • Herr Dr. Face Doktor says:

      You COULD specialize in vehicles (like airlifting troops into the battlefield and out if the troop transport vehicles make it in the sequel) and not have to deal with combat at all while still being credit to team.

      • MadMatty says:

        Well, theres a load of transports in the picture, the little “battle-busses” – im sure it will have the old dropplanes aswell.

        Edit: yeah, transport aircraft in the background in picture 10

        • Grape says:

          Yeah! Great idea! Because when I see screenshots of power-armoured futuristic soldiers shooting each other to shit, I think “Whoo! I get to sit about and play taxi while everyone else has all the fun!”

          • Fiatil says:

            Clearly you’ve never played Planetside 1. There were plenty of people who loved just piloting the Gal, and I enjoyed it myself from time to time.

          • lurkalisk says:

            I think more than a few would agree that murder isn’t the only fun thing to do it videogames. Personally, I have a great time in games like BF2 (haven’t gotten around to the new ‘un yet) carefully weaving about in transports, trying to make sure everyone gets where they need to go. It’s usually more challenging, if you’re doing it right.

        • yasdsam says:

          However the only thing better than a Vanguard is a hacked Vanguard in a black/red color scheme leading a bunch of Prowlers into battle. http://zna.me/8465

      • Gap Gen says:

        Yeah, the screenshots’ obsession with armoured school buses is a little odd.

    • Aaarrrggghhh says:

      As others said, there are air and ground support vehicles like the Galaxy or the Sunderer which are absolutely crucial for taking enemy positions. Someone can always specialize in those and be a vital asset to their team, even without firing a shot. Although that helps too ;)

    • Docslapper says:

      well if it’s anything like the original, and I think it is in this respect at least, then you can do useful things with support roles.
      Medic roles keep people alive. This is really really important. The zerg will continually respawn and charge in, the pros go from room to room and med up and rez once they control a room..
      Engineers repair stuff and build turrets. Again, really important for the tank battles, because the vehicle spawner gets really crowded and becomes a priority target so keeping tanks already in the field in fighting condition becomes really important.
      Squad leaders have a bunch of weird abilities that means they spent a lot of time typing instead of shooting. But having a good squad leader was really important, I hope it remains so.

      Then there’s gal pilots, lone scouts who would take isolated towers to prevent the enemy respawning there, patrollers who’d zoom over conquered territory and spot enemy movements, all of whom were actually more effective than the endless stream of Counterstrike players running from the spawn to the action in a mindless stream.

      It really was tactical in the best sense of the word, for those that liked more than just zerging. I hope they keep this for PS2.

    • fenriz says:

      totally agree. I see those screenshots and i know that all i’m gonna get is violence, bodycounts and new graphics. The better graphics are getting the less i like violence. Ooh im gonna write this down actually.

      So: can i expect to be able to do something more constructive than killing fathers and mothers in this game? And no it’s not driving either. It seems modern action games can only give you 3 things: shooting, driving and running. Is this all we can get from the infinite instrument of interactivity? Oh and please don’t give me “you can squirt healing spells”. How bout i infiltrate a base and have to solve mini-puzzles(dealing with computers, wires, panels, keycards and bribable guards) in order to get to the main room and deactivate the generator? The Fallout last-level way.

      • Tssha says:

        Nope, nothing like that! Pretty much, this is a pure war game, and if you don’t think war is a productive use of your time then it isn’t for you. Quite frankly, this is my most eagerly anticipated game of the year and even I’m going to recommend to you to avoid it. It’s gonna be nothing but disappointment for you. Sorry!

        And I wouldn’t change Planetside 2 for the world. I loved Planetside in 2003, I’m gonna love Planetside 2 (assuming it isn’t completely botched) and I wouldn’t change this winning formula for the world. It was the only game I ever played that let me command troops and friends into battle and there’s no feeling in the world like that.

        Though I am looking forward to gunning a Magrider again too. Too bad I’ll never fire my beloved Lancer again… *single, solitary tear*

        • fenriz says:

          Oh very well. I’ll come back when online games can offer both battlefields and Space Quests.

          I think i’ll get into Mortal Online. The game’s growing immensely due to the feud-style pvp content.

  3. canadiancontent says:

    Love this new delayed posts. Feels like I am getting more news now :)

  4. Cooper says:

    Finally, the game to definitively decide which colour is best.

    (The answer is purple, of course)

    • Jahnz says:

      I don’t know. I spent 90%+ of my Planetside 1 game time as loyal Vanu soldier and usually mag driver. I think the NC may have won me over. I don’t like look of the Vanu armor so much, but they may still keep me if only for the energy weapons.

      • tungstenHead says:

        IT’S BLUE, YOU DAMN BARNEY DINOSAUR!! WWWWAGH! WAGH! WAH! AAAUUGH!

        *charges out of cover with a mag cutter; is promptly lashered to death*

        • Davee says:

          Brother, NOOOO!

          *Fires all Jackhammer barrels into bunker containing the enemy purple-lovers – dies from enemy AOE damage*

    • Aaarrrggghhh says:

      Thats my problem. I love Vanu by design, but I cant stand purple!

      • Tssha says:

        That’s okay; I didn’t love purple before I played Planetside but now it’s one of my favourite colours! You’ll learn to love it!

        one of us, one of us…

  5. CaLe says:

    Screens look great. Now, I wonder how good the animation is..

    Edit: missed the videos! Yeah, looks good overall. Might have to check this out.

  6. PleasingFungus says:

    So many colors! Blue, green, yellow, purple! Other colors! In an FPS!

    It… it’s like a dream come true…

    Stop looking at me! I’ve just… I’ve got something stuck in my eye, that’s all.

  7. DaftPunk says:

    Why is everyone running around with just pistols :x

  8. DarkFenix says:

    I like the magrider’s makeover. Do want.

    Something’s wrong with those NC guys though, they aren’t all standing behind rocks firing phoenixes like pussies.

    • Davee says:

      The Phoenix was probably the weapon I hated most no matter what side I happened to be on – and especially when I was playing NC and in need of a good AT weapon. That thing broke the general NC rule of “more boom, less shooty”. So little damage. So unsatisfying. So annoying!

      I hope they don’t bring it back.

      • Docslapper says:

        agree completely. While I loved hiding behind a rock and guiding missiles into faces, it was completely broken if you actually had a hostile tank in your way and had to deal with it.

  9. Bhazor says:

    Any word on pricing yet? With a game this focused on teamwork and balancing F2P could be a big mistake.

    My idea would be two hours a week free and then either $1 an hour after that or $15 for unlimited hours month. All the benefits of F2P, zero cost entry/expansive demo/constant stream of new guys, but without the unbalancing of people paying for premium weapons when they’re released. Anyone whose played TF2 the week a new weapons been added will know about that.

    • Lone Gunman says:

      Well if the unlocks are side grades than you shouldn’t be at a disadvantage, just like tf2. I have never felt like I was at at a disadvantage in that game.

      • Bhazor says:

        Remember the Backburner? Or when it seemed everyone got the sandman the day it launched?

        No. Players buying the new weapons before you can unlock them is a top drawer dick move. There are always exploits in the first week or two and then its nerfed by the time you get it.

        • Jutranjo says:

          Remember how those got added before they made the cash shop? You could only get them via achievements, maybe the bat was a possible random drop but there was no trading on either. Also the achievements needed weren’t even that extreme, compared to the medic ones.

          Pay2win has got lots of examples but TF2 ain’t a good one ;)

          • Bhazor says:

            Those are two biggest examples. An example that still applies for newcomers.

            Are you saying there are no overpowered weapons?

        • nizzie says:

          How is it bad? Explain that to me. The players who spend money to avoid the grind get access to some stuff earlier, but eventually you will catch up. It’s not pay 2 win, if it were these OP weapons were exclusive to paying customers. Everybody eventually win have them. And I’m pretty sure it won’t take long.

          You think it’s unfair? Well, then stop complaining and start spending money, too. I’m sick of people who feel entitled to playing video games FOR FREE and think they deserve the same as paying customers.

          Imo there’s one big part of making the f2p model work, and that’s ‘pay to reduce the grind’. That needs to be exploited. I doubt that fancy skins for vehicles and weapons are profitable enough, in order to make a real profit they gotta appeal to their players’ lazyness.

          • MadMatty says:

            Well, that would obviously be pay2win, until the other player reaches the unlock, while youre just massacring new players with your OP gun.
            Doesn´t sound fun to be a new player, and what kindof Demo is that anyway, where you have to line up as cannonfodder to some guy who paid up early.

            Edit: it kindof depends, ofcourse, of the LENGTH of the grind, but ive seen many cases where it was very long.
            Planetside 1 also had a moderate grind, but im not worried about the levels and XP for PS2, as it made fairly little difference overrall, atleast it did in the original

          • nizzie says:

            How is it pay to win, when it was stated that unlocks are sidegrades and not upgrades? Character progression is about unlocking stuff that let’s you specialize in various roles.

            And for the sake of argument, even if it were about OP guns. How’s that any different from every other fps? You start out as a newbie with shitty guns, and you’re forced to play against vets. It’s not like the wallet warriors stay OP until the end of time. If you see there’s an OP weapon which you want, too – grind away. It should be a matter of hours, or at worst days until you’re on a par with them. You make it sound like they’re at an advantage forever, which they’re not.

          • Bhazor says:

            The fact there is something that can be reffered to as a "grind" in a game shows something is fucked up somewhere.

            I just want a level playing field. If I have to pay fine. Hence why I want to pay a flat fee.

            What is not fine is constant nickle and diming. Constant adverts for ingame items. Overpowered weapons being sold and then nerfed by the time the players who didn’t pay unlock it.

            This is a very large scale team game. Having one side underpowered is a game killer.
            It’s fun is a factor <1.

          • Askeladd says:

            @ nizzie
            I don’t like the unluck bit that got modern nowadays too much.
            Maybe its because I’m an old Counter Strike player, but the CS model of weapon purchase/acquirement always seemed fair.
            You win -> better weapons. You lose while having the better equipment -> you get what you deserve.
            And after one map all odds are evened out.
            This takes the whole OP weapon grieving out of the game IMO.
            Well, it has faults too… lets not forget that only 5 or 6 guns are used in that game.

      • Davee says:

        I’m fine with having the option to pay for premium accounts, xp-boosters, customization or ‘skipping ahead’ (for example buying game credits) in f2p games. The devs need income from somewhere.

        I hate things like premium consumables or exclusive gear with clear advantages however. Or anything that directly alters combat that non-paying players don’t have access to. “Money sink” and “Wallet Warriors” always comes to mind when I think of this. Somebody who bought all their gear should at best be equal to somebody who earned it through playing.

        Fortunately; if what they say is true – the devteam seems to have the same idea – PS2 won’t even contain all of the stuff I think is okay. It will have even less microtransaction-ish features from what I understood from a recent interview. Let’s see if they can sustain that model. Can we have f2p without pay2win (not made by the legendary Valve)? I for one truly hope so. :P

        • Bhazor says:

          Well thats good to hear. Just so long as the adverts aren’t in your face all the time.

        • Cooper says:

          Yes.

          Pay 2 Win =!= pay to save time.

          If their version of ‘xp’ increases over time as per EVE, what seems to be on the cards is paying to get more of it.

          Moreover, xp doesn’t make you more powerful here, it just broadens your range of options and allows more specific roles to be played.

          Those of us not paying will just have to be content with choosing a smaller range to specialise within to begin with.

          If it’s anything like Planetside 1, this won;t matter a vast amount where, even someone with a lack of certs, if they can jump in the vehicle or grab the weapon needed and play well as a group, regardless of the level of their cert, then great. More numbers often helps.

          • Bhazor says:

            Except thats never how it works. The paid for weapons will always be more powerfull than the weapons you start with. The weapons you talk about increasing your options are going to make you more powerful.

        • Davee says:

          (For the sake of readability I won’t make another sub-thread :P)

          @Cooper:
          This is what I like so much about PS1′s progression – anyone, no matter how far up or down the rank ladder is useful and can make an impact on the flow of combat. It’s just a matter of broadening or further specializing in areas of play as you rank up.
          A high-ranking player isn’t much more powerful than a low-ranking player because they can’t use all their unlocked stuff at once – the unlocked certifications don’t all apply to the same class/vehicle. There also isn’t any “stat+” progression like DMG+ or HP+ on ranking up (the limited implant slots could be considered a small exception).

          I’m kind of split on the EVE Online time-based progression. I’d like a little incentive for actually playing well. But it’s nice to know that not playing for a few days won’t make you suffer (that wouldn’t be the case with PS1-like progression however). If they’d combine them I’d be very happy though!

          @Bhazor:
          Adverts. It was the final nail in the coffin for APB: Reloaded to me. The Pay2Win had been on the increase with lots of exclusive (and incredibly over-priced) weapons and stuff. The balance (which I think the new devs ‘GamersFirst’ (yeah right) did better than the old RTW before this) was taking a bit of a ditch because of it. They were also on time-limited lease unless you let go of a ridiculous amount of money for a permanent one. *cough* money sink *cough*
          Then the adverts came. First it was big golden letters in the scoreboard telling how much extra people were gaining or how much you had missed out on. Fine. Then the after-mission popups came. “HEY YOU DON’T HAVE PREMIUM CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE OR MISS OUT ON THIS: [juicy details]” across the screen, taking away control of your character and forcing you to navigate to a tiny button to remove it. Every other mission. While trying to smash people with dump trucks. To think I actually spent money on this game…

          Needless to say I hope they don’t take it too far in PS2.

          • Bhazor says:

            … why do we need xp? You’re talking like the game has to have xp of some description.

            People played Counter Strike and Battlefield 1942 for years. They played everyday not for xp. Not to top the leader boards. But because it was fun.

            If its about keeping players playing what about free updates? What about mutators every other week(solar activity – radar blackouts, heavy rain – mud slows offroaders down so you have to stick to roads)? What about making the war itself meaningful? How about each faction produces research from bases they control and when certain research thresholds are reached they gain the new batch of stuff? There has to be an alternative to XP that keeps people playing without having to “grind”.

            As I said before, if you can call any part of your game a grind then you’ve fucked up somewhere.

  10. MordeaniisChaos says:

    Picture 5: anyone else see weird DoF? It’s sideways….

  11. Malawi Frontier Guard says:

    I want the dual APC guns as shown in the first screenshot.

  12. hills says:

    I need this in my body.

    RIGHT NOW.

  13. Acidburns says:

    Aww I hope they are careful with their F2P model. Having seen the images and video I’m basically like “Shut up and talk my money!”. I’d happily pay a monthly subscription for this. I don’t normally buy cosmetic stuff but I’ll buy £12 a month if that’s what it takes to keep this game alive.

  14. Tei says:

    :-OOO

    Not just the right flavour of Planetside with added epiness. But pure wallpaper material. Great job, guys.

  15. Jim9137 says:

    I thought the third last picture had a guy throwing up a fist to the sky. And I thought hey, that’s cool. Then I realized it’s a gun. And I instantly felt colder, like somebody put a pack of freeze instant into my heart.

    Does anyone have these moments, I wonder?

  16. SquidInABox says:

    I love the Terran Republic but I also love the Vanguard tank. However the only thing better than a Vanguard is a hacked Vanguard in a black/red color scheme leading a bunch of Prowlers into battle.

    Day one for me and I will probably be dropping £100 in the store on that very same day for all of the shiny stuff just to reward the devs.

  17. Yuri says:

    There’s just something about the design that is putting me off.
    As futuristic as it is, it just seems too simple. Sometimes underwhelming even. I mean, that soldier with the minigun – he’s got a bit of armor, shoulder pads, a helmet and… pants and a sweater?

    The handguns just seem oversized (small handle, HUGE rest of the gun), and well, meh.

    I think i’m just a horrible person. :(

    • Askeladd says:

      I can agree on that. That guy with the minigun just begs to be sniped away.
      Holding a firing minigun away from the body like that is impossible without some bionic enhancements or exo-skeleton. And where is his big ammunition storage?

      Well we don’t get many sci-fi FPS which look “realistic” from the viepoint of the present situation.
      The problem is that sci-fi games often look at todays and tomorrow’s high-tech and begin to build their game from there. It’s really hard to keep everything believable to a point where the game stays fun, it also takes more development time.
      Which leads to scientific inconsistencies… for people that have a little bit more insight to what is a physical effect of that weapon and what not.

      I personally think a game made only by scientiest would be the shittiest game ever(…well.. maybe not, cuz there’s always an exception. I don’t count simulations as games.

  18. QHF says:

    I confidently expect they will screw this up somehow but… my nostalgia for the original is so strong.

    Technology is might.

  19. deadly.by.design says:

    Low FOVs might have ruined me, because I first thought the two trailers were guns…

  20. MisterV says:

    Looks very cool. Interested in it now thanks to RPS’ enthusiasm.

    (But it’s “I can hardly bear”, not “bare”)

  21. kristian says:

    Flying sharks! sold!