Full CGI ‘Death is No Excuse’ trailer for PlanetSide 2 released
By Jess Colwill on July 26, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Seconds on today’s list of ‘Things Death Does’ comes the new CGI trailer for PlanetSide 2 called ‘Death is No Excuse’. It is a very exciting trailer, if not anything at all what gameplay will be like, and is choreographed quite beautifully (if you’re into that gritty war look). Anyway, check out the trailer, in which death is totally an excuse, apparently.
Tags: planetside 2
Related Stories
Planetside 2 update adds Harasser buggy
Can't wait to watch you uselessly crash these into walls.
PlanetSide 2 Roadmap video details what’s coming to the MMOFPS
Drag and drop squadding! GET IN.
Here’s how to activate PhysX in Planetside 2
Want to know how to get PhysX up and running in Planetside 2?
17 comments (Leave your own)
Leave a comment
You can use the following bbCode
[i], [b], [img], [quote], [url href="http://www.google.com/"]Google[/url]
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
facebook
twitter
google+
rss
If the game was anything like this, I would buy it, but it isn’t, so I won’t.
crappy games have great cinematic trailers.
No offence but herpy derp. It’s free to play.
And sometimes good games have good trailers.
I for one think the game looks pretty fun from what I’ve seen so far, and that trailer was awesome.
Was that space Legolas?
Very nice trailer and I am really looking forward to the 1000 vs 1000 player battles.
If only DICE would step it up a notch and make battlefield more then 64 players.
looks like fun so far :D cant wait for the game to come out still
Yay \o/
Can’t wait to play this game with massive server lag.
They probably can push it further to an extent at the cost of the engine optimization, 50 vs 50 for example or even 100 vs 100 though at a heavy cost in the hardware.
but at the scale of Planetside? that’s out of the question.
There’s always a trade off…
You want massive multiplayer? especially with ppl from all around the world? Then meet the big boss called latency…
There are of course ways to reduce the effect of latency or make it acceptable for a shooter, but they are essentially compromise (hit scan being one of them since having actual projectile travel for even several hundred ppl with automatic weapon is a mess)
and visual fidelity another…
So choose:
Visual + combat depth
Or
More simultaneous players.
lean on one side, and you sacrifice the other by that much as well.
What is the point of a CGI or live action trailer?
bronzed,
I was under the impression that they’ve already stated they could easily push the players being 64 but they don’t want to for gameplay reasons.
caitsith01,
Not a clue, looks pretty but! :D
no glory? that looked like everything i’ve ever wanted to do.
not to rag on the game, but i literally dozed off 3 times during that video. im going to go get a v
They did, even BF2 can reach 100 players total with just a setting change on the server side iirc (at least i don’t recall it needing a mod for it), but the bandwidth requirement jumped significantly from what i remember, and so is the load on the client particularly when the action congregate on one location.
The problem of course is that when you want to fully populate the server (which you would be to justify the cost of the bandwith) we’re still restricted to local players in general.
Latency gets real ugly mighty fast and the system utilized by these games aren’t designed to accommodate the more significant latency players from further location will have (which you need to populate the server).
So: either we maintain the combat mechanism depth at the cost of alienating players with significant latency and with heavier bandwith cost for large simultaneous player count, or we compromise to improve the gameplay playability in regard to latency tolerance and to reduce the bandwidth cost relative to the player count.
A similar thing also occurs visually,
The game engine generally have to weigh the two, between high visual fidelity with low object count, or low visual fidelity with high object count, while maintaining similar load on the client.
We can’t quite just say we want best in both visual fidelity and object count since that will shrink the number of player base capable of playing it or willing to accept the performance hit.
BF2 has a 64 player hard limit by default like BF3, however in recent years custom server files have been developed allowing more players.
I joined a test server running the Project Reality mod that reached 320 players before it crashed (cap was set to 512). Typically the tests are limited between 100 and 200 players though and the server code is still an unreleased WIP.
As for gameplay. ‘Vanilla’ BF2 is already spammy and chaotic at 64 players, however mods can cater to larger numbers with appropriate map design and balance.
bronzed,
I thought it was more a case that they wanted to balance things like weapons and combat around 64-players with nothing technically minded about their decision.
For the technicals do you think fibre would fix this? And if not would any technology fix this or are we stuck forever having to make these sacrifices no matter how far technology goes?
Not enough,
let’s say we fast forward 10 years to the future and bandwith are DIRT cheap, and we can pump terrabytes per hour at penny change cost.
well that’s great and it does ease the limit on the server setup for large scale games.. which will let game server setup more server at massive player setting without killing the bandwith (still need a beefier server to process them but we get improvement on that too so it’s feasible) and thus actually give game dev incentive to design their game with those sizes in mind.
But there’s one fundamental problem this doesn’t solve…
ie: where do you get the players to populate them?
For multiplayer FPS where the scale is typically 2 digit player numbers, and 3 at most, it’s still feasible to think of the server being filled with locally connected players.
But when the scale is jacked to eleven and we go Planetside scale with almost 4 digit players, then we have a problem…
Unlike the smaller scale multiplayer FPS with private server being viable and player number is manageable in scale for individual server host, scales nearing 4 digit player number starts the rather uncomfortable zone where you need enough ppl to get into the server to populate it (else it’ll be a ghost server) and thus worth the expenditure of the server cost, which necessitates a tolerance of latency as large as possible while still permitting good gameplay…
Otherwise players from further distance will find the latency unbearable and abandon the server which means your server’s effective reach shrunk depending on how well your latency tolerance is..
This is separate to the client’s rendering engine optimization of course (with more players and thus object generally generating more things to render and thus strain more computer configurations) which CAN be worked out or eventually overcome with improved processing power and speed.
Our capability of rendering them locally on the client (thus any visual or sound effect that is locally processed and does not need to be synched with the server) improves with computer advances to an extent, and so is our bandwith…
But our latency does not really improve much at all… which is a serious issue because how well the server can catch players and retain them especially in a game that is very dependent on response time like FPS depends highly on the ability to mitigate this latency issue to tolerable level.