MAG

[Valiance]

Its not like tactics just pop out of the ground when the player count goes up - some new options are available, but some old ones are not, its simply a matter of scale.

Now thats out of the way, MAG worries me, ive never been a fan of larger scale battles in FPSs as they always tend to lead to more screwed/easy kill situations, moreover im worried about connects and hit detection because while SOCOM 2 was possibly one of my favorite games of all time the aforementioned issues were HUGE and the sequel only got worse. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMun4dcQPE]

Good point, you express my own skepticism of MAG. It is a great concept that, if it works, could make for a great game...But I can't help but feel that it won't work out. I've seen so many shooters on consoles with higher numbers of players that, even with dedicated servers, were completely unplayable. I'm looking at you, Frontlines. I rented it within the first week and the lag and hit detection was so awful that the online was unplayable. I don't know if they ever fixed it, never revisited the game.

But, even if it doesn't work well and they manage to fix it, you get SOCOM: Confrontation syndrome: It is a pure multiplayer game and, because the online was so terribly unstable for the first several weeks, you just bought a $60 paperweight.

...And, sadly, I must admit that scale =/= more widespread use of tactics. Sadly, 98% of gamers just do not like working together, and rather go off on their own for their own score's sake. The ideas like the command system and tactical squads in MAG will force the use of teamwork and tactics IN THEORY, but in practice, this rarely works. Look at Battlefield 2. It uses a less advanced and complicated version of the command system, but all the Battlefield players still just go off on their own to boost their rank and stats. Because of this, tactical and teamwork-based shooters often fail...Because gamers are too wrapped up in their own little world to worry about other gamers, or indeed even the concept of actually winning the match, because that matters little if they are still able to get a good K/D ratio and enough experience to rank up and unlock that shiny new M82.

Those who DO try to get everyone to work together do it through yelling and cursing like "FAGGOTS!!! GO CAPTURE ALPHA OR WE WILL FUCKING LOSE YOU FUCKING USELESS ****** FUCKERS!!!" which makes the rest of the team cooperate even less just to piss Mr. I-Take-Things-Too-Seriously off. On the other side of the fence, I could imagine your team leader giving orders and some screaming 13 year old yelling things like "FUCK YOU! I don't need to listen to you!" and run off on his own to get quickly mowed down by an MG emplacement.

So, while I think MAG has some awesome ideas...I must sadly admit that most of them probably won't work out like they were meant to because gamers have this obsessive fear of working together. We can talk about game design ideas that supposedly force teamwork until Jesus Christ comes to take us all away, but gamers will always find a way to work around this and play only to boost their own rank and stats.

This post sums up why this game will be terrible.

However, I get the feeling that if people had a leader they really thought was capable and intelligent, they might actually rally behind him. But then again, I doubt you'll find a good commander and good squad leader..Let alone eight of them.

But that's the optimist in me, hoping that it does well. In reality, I know it will fail.

 

[Merciless.Fire]

I dont believe the 256 players in a game because it is crazy and imagine all the kids singing over the mics. *crawls into a corner and rocks gently back and forth sobbing*

I don't think you'll actually see 256 players on the map, nor hear them. The reason it'll be broken down to 8v8 squad based fights is to split it up and not have a massive slosh of spraying bullets.

Thats not how its actually supposed to work. Suppoisedly, the Squads will be given their own objectives, like destroy the supply road, rig the wall, capture the base, etcetera, so that each can have their effects felt across the map.

I know, that's what I meant.

 

[Merciless.Fire]

I dont believe the 256 players in a game because it is crazy and imagine all the kids singing over the mics. *crawls into a corner and rocks gently back and forth sobbing*

I don't think you'll actually see 256 players on the map, nor hear them. The reason it'll be broken down to 8v8 squad based fights is to split it up and not have a massive slosh of spraying bullets.

Thats not how its actually supposed to work. Suppoisedly, the Squads will be given their own objectives, like destroy the supply road, rig the wall, capture the base, etcetera, so that each can have their effects felt across the map.

I know, that's what I meant.

Fair enough, I thought you were saying it would be skirmish warfare.

I wouldn't rule it out, there's going to have to be some different game modes inside the fight. Destroy opposing squad to gain control of point B, meaning armor support, something along those lines, or modify it: Gain control of point B and hold until armor support arrives, that sort of thing.

Makes me all tingly thinking about it.

 

[sneakypenguin]

O dear having seen no gameplay I can only speculate, but I have a feeling this wont end well. With that many people on one map your going to get WTF deaths from snipers you can't see or vehicles that blow you up. If the 8v8 squad element is going to be the main thing then really whats the point of having 256 on a map? Also you will never get even half of the 128 on your team to listen/co-op/follow a strategy etc. I assume combat will have to be pretty slow, and the graphics pretty plain to handle that many people in one area. It seems like a good idea but I feel it will end up a laggy slow buggy mess.

 

[slipknot4]

Since there is no story in the game there is no reason to give it a creative name, giving it a name that is game play related would be retarded... "Flooded ******* Battlefield"

 

[Sarcastic Chimp]

Unless of course the PSN maintains it's current level of mic-usage and it's maybe a dozen or so people per teams with mics, giving orders and trying to keep everyone working together while the people without mics don't really listen because you can't hear anyone through the TV. Or they turn down the TV so they don't have to listen to the voices coming through the TV.

Yes, I know this isn't exactly accurate.

I have a MIC and a PS3 and I think this is pretty accurate, I hardly ever have the VOIP turned up. Don't sell yourself short - when you're right, you're right.

Hopefully they'll be loads of block functions - Can't join server because 1 of the 255 people is on your blocklist. Boo.

Still, I hope it's done well so I'll it.

I was just saying that because I have found games where people do have mics and do talk, but they aren't exactly common matches. I still don't get why the PS3 doesn't come with a mic.

Uh, thank you, I guess. I wish it had been for something witty I had said, but whatever.

Well I like to say hilarious/retarded things to my friends and inject my tabletop gaming with bizarre phrases. Oh there WILL be an NPC in my D&D campaign that requests the heroes "bring the rape" to something.

While it's good to know that I'll have legacy, I just wish it was a bit more sophisticated than "bring the rape".

How about: "Bring the sex that one of the participents hasn't agreed to"?

 

[SilentHunter7]

*casts Life2 on thread*

I've read a preview in Game Informer about this game, and I must say, if it goes weel, I'm going to be REAL tempted to go out and get a PS3.

The way the developers handled the massive amount of players is they took a page from the US Armed Forces (The resident expert on "making order out of complete chaos", as GI put it), and set up an actual chain of command. There will one Supreme Commander who commands up to 4 platoon leaders, who control up to 4 squad leaders, who lead 2 8-man teams. The Supreme Commander designates objectives to the platoon leaders, who manipulate their squads into getting the job done. Basically the higher echelons play out like an RTS.

Each player in a leadership position gets their own togglable private connections to their subordinates, superiors, and fellow officers so that they don't send other players information that is useless to them.

This game seems like an assload of fun. The only thing that can cock it up is how leadership roles are selected. Putting a jackass in there can potentially kill the whole team.

Personally, I think they should have a copy Sun Tsu's The Art of War, as a special edition bonus

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

MAG stands for Massive Action Game, a PS3-exclusive MMOFPS that will use a new server technology to include up to 256 players in online matches. Also, it's by the people who made SOCOM, I think. That's about all I know.

MMOFPS? Why not.

256 players in online matches? Uhm.....Well good luck whit that SOCOM dudes.

The SOCOM dudes hes talking about are the ones who did the real games Zipper Entertainment, not Slant Six that did Confrontation.

I'm kinda iffy about this game because some people won't want to work in a group, they will just want to do whatever. That is what is known as the cluster fuck syndrome.

 

[DrDeath3191]

I believe that matchmaking for 256 players is going to be an utter *****. Seriously, I find it hard to find 8 players for Left 4 Dead, so imagine that wait times 32.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Stupid game. There is no reason to have that many players.

 

[SilentHunter7]

The SOCOM dudes hes talking about are the ones who did the real games Zipper Entertainment, not Slant Six that did Confrontation.

I'm kinda iffy about this game because some people won't want to work in a group, they will just want to do whatever. That is what is known as the cluster fuck syndrome.

Well from what I heard, you only get EXP for assisting your squad. Even if you get a 100:1 K/D ratio, you wont get anything for it if none of the kills helped your squad complete its objective. And I think I heard platoon leaders and supreme commanders can kick people under them. So all a squad leader has to do is ***** to their boss that someone in his squad is being a douche.

 

[Jumplion]

Stupid game. There is no reason to have that many players.

If we all went by that logic, then there'd be no reason to make games break any barrier, no reason to bend the rules, no reason to try something different, all all the reason to do the same hting over and over again.

It's not the fact that we need 256 players, it's the fact that we can have 256 players. You cannot deny that this game is trying something new or different.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

The SOCOM dudes hes talking about are the ones who did the real games Zipper Entertainment, not Slant Six that did Confrontation.

I'm kinda iffy about this game because some people won't want to work in a group, they will just want to do whatever. That is what is known as the cluster fuck syndrome.

Well from what I heard, you only get EXP for assisting your squad. Even if you get a 100:1 K/D ratio, you wont get anything for it if none of the kills helped your squad complete its objective. And I think I heard platoon leaders and supreme commanders can kick people under them. So all a squad leader has to do is ***** to their boss that someone in his squad is being a douche.

Huh, I haven't heard about that yet. It's good Zipper is finding a way to prevent people from disobeying orders, or breaking the rules.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Stupid game. There is no reason to have that many players.

If we all went by that logic, then there'd be no reason to make games break any barrier, no reason to bend the rules, no reason to try something different, all all the reason to do the same hting over and over again.

It's not the fact that we need 256 players, it's the fact that we can have 256 players. You cannot deny that this game is trying something new or different.

Yes I can. The game is doing nothing new really. You're going to be broken up into 8 man squads when you play the game. You're going to have little interaction with the other squads as you have your own set of objectives to complete.

So essentially it's just like any other game only there are more people doing the same thing as you in different squads. The large number of players only exists for the novelty, because if they just released this as a tactical 8 man squad FPS no one would think it was special.

Also they certainly aren't trying anything new in terms of character design.

 

[Jumplion]

Stupid game. There is no reason to have that many players.

If we all went by that logic, then there'd be no reason to make games break any barrier, no reason to bend the rules, no reason to try something different, all all the reason to do the same hting over and over again.

It's not the fact that we need 256 players, it's the fact that we can have 256 players. You cannot deny that this game is trying something new or different.

Yes I can. The game is doing nothing new really. You're going to be broken up into 8 man squads when you play the game. You're going to have little interaction with the other squads as you have your own set of objectives to complete.

So essentially it's just like any other game only there are more people doing the same thing as you in different squads. The large number of players only exists for the novelty, because if they just released this as a tactical 8 man squad FPS no one would think it was special.

Also they certainly aren't trying anything new in terms of character design.

See, now you're going into the "it's an FPS, therefore it's nothing new" category and generalizing too much.

Please name me one console FPS (keyword, console) that can support 256 players all at once, not counting if said game even works at all without succumbing to lag, matchmaking problems, or any other various troubles.

Oh wait, what's that? You can't name any console FPS that supports up to 256 players? But you're claiming that it's nothing new! But....but I see but....uh.......hmmm....yeah, it's something "new".

Just the fact that it has not been done before, on a console no less, is proof enough that it's something new. You're being a cynic for no real reason. It's fine to think that this game might possibly suck, which I hope it doesn't, but just because it is] just another bloody FPS and it is another Modern setting with a bunch of frags going everywhere does not mean that it's not "new"

I will admit that the game is selling itself on the 256-gamer count, but I wouldn't blame them as this hasn't been attempted at all, on a console no less.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Stupid game. There is no reason to have that many players.

If we all went by that logic, then there'd be no reason to make games break any barrier, no reason to bend the rules, no reason to try something different, all all the reason to do the same hting over and over again.

It's not the fact that we need 256 players, it's the fact that we can have 256 players. You cannot deny that this game is trying something new or different.

Yes I can. The game is doing nothing new really. You're going to be broken up into 8 man squads when you play the game. You're going to have little interaction with the other squads as you have your own set of objectives to complete.

So essentially it's just like any other game only there are more people doing the same thing as you in different squads. The large number of players only exists for the novelty, because if they just released this as a tactical 8 man squad FPS no one would think it was special.

Also they certainly aren't trying anything new in terms of character design.

See, now you're going into the "it's an FPS, therefore it's nothing new" category and generalizing too much.

Please name me one console FPS (keyword, console) that can support 256 players all at once, not counting if said game even works at all without succumbing to lag, matchmaking problems, or any other various troubles.

Oh wait, what's that? You can't name any console FPS that supports up to 256 players? But you're claiming that it's nothing new! But....but I see but....uh.......hmmm....yeah, it's something "new".

Just the fact that it has not been done before, on a console no less, is proof enough that it's something new. You're being a cynic for no real reason. It's fine to think that this game might possibly suck, which I hope it doesn't, but just because it is] just another bloody FPS and it is another Modern setting with a bunch of frags going everywhere does not mean that it's not "new"

I will admit that the game is selling itself on the 256-gamer count, but I wouldn't blame them as this hasn't been attempted at all, on a console no less.

You missed my point completley. I know there is no other FPS that has 256 players. However MAG doesn't take advantage of the number of players. You are broken up into squads in which you can only communicate with other squad mates. You are mostly separated from the other squads and given your own set of objectives to follow. Any interaction with the other squads does not help to achieve your own goal.

So while there are 256 players they aren't interacting with each other. All you efforts in the game will go towards your own squad and any interaction with the other squads will be limited. So the game might as well be your squad versus the enemy squad because that's essentially all the game will be.

There doesn't need to be 256 players. The 256 players have no real interaction. The game was probably just going to be your squad versus the enemy squad, but instead they changed it to have 256 players because it would be just like any other generic FPS if they didn't.

Now if they actually did have each team operating as one huge squad then the game would have many other issues. Which is why they have to contain the large number of players into individual squads. However, by doing so MAG is just like any other FPS.