as for us wanting EC to be better then PS2 .... why the hell shouldnt we, THQ's SM is a 2011 game PS2 is a 2012 game EC will be a 2016 game why in the world should we expect less .. less graphical quality on models, less player population per map, less server capacity, less options .. less anything if we wanted to play a game that was less we could go buy older games not wait for a brand new game EDIT if the best we can hope for with EC is a "we might be half as good as games from 4 years ago" then something needs to be seriously rethought ... and if we're really being handed the line "we might be a quarter as good as a game from 4 years ago in a few years after release" then its even worse
more advanced the game, longer it takes to make, more people needed to work on it, and more advanced the tech to make the game, which all means more money needed. sometimes compromises need to be made
yes clearly you know math: 64/6=16? is a plan i don't think they have misured something that will happen in the future, we are talking about somethink that don't exist. no some stuff become cheaper and faster: new engines new tecnology make possible to make the same stuff in less times.
advanced? .... what exactly do you see as being advanced? we're getting an instanced battle game ... that system types been around for over a decade, extra factions? ... PS2 had 3 factions in 2012, EC will have 4 but we may only be able to have 2 fight at once (the 3 way conflict idea sounds dodgey still) vehicles with infantry? ... thats been around for a decade as well, so really what exactly is it that you see as being advanced in EC that isnt actually a rehash
planeside ONE was around 133x3= 399 (after the bending?) so when EC will reach 200vs200 will be at the same level of a 12 years old game.
yep and they will be doing it on a maps that start off as large as the Battlefield 2 maps (2005) with the hope that they will grow to be a 16th the size of PS2 maps (2o12) around 2 years after launch which means 2018, all this when PS2 has made the world record with over 1100 players on a map ... with a 4 year old game EDIT a post I made in the thread .. http://forum.eternalcrusade.com/threads/malcadia-vs-esamir.45906/#post-775764 well ... the SOTC gives a few numbers https://www.eternalcrusade.com/news/480-State-Of-The-Crusade-IV the first being the continent Malcadia is but its cut into instances ... lots of instances at launch the actual map sizes for each individualy instanced outpost/stronghold is unclear but probably less then 1km X 1km since their plan post-launch is to group a "territory" (3 outposts and a stronghold) into a single instance which would be about ... and then at some point in the future (they suggest a year after they make territories a single instance) to then ...
how long did it take to make planetside 2? eternal crusade will be, like 3 years in development by the time it launches. with a smaller team
that we may never know ... but its existance was officially released in july 2011 at sony fan fair, and game was released in november 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlanetSide_2#Development
Again, this is a temporary size issue. You need to view every region as you would a PS2 continent. Every region is basically the same, from a gameplay standpoint, as a continent, differing only in size. As time goes by, size gets bigger and this difference fades. It's pointless therefore to fixate too much on a difference in size that will go away. This is the real analogy between PS2 and a region: PS2: "We need help at Indar!" "Roger, erm... sorry, it's full..." I love how all these people showing "differences" are actually too shortsighted to spot the similarities. You think the fact that both game areas are called "continents" is more important than looking at the actual structure of the game. Just imagine the three PS2 continents were directly adjacent to each other. You couldn't go there on foot or in a galaxy either. They are functionally the same as regions in EW, just bigger.
