MAG
- Thread starter patsu
- Start date
Strange how people actually perceive things so differently
I am actually looking forward to this, even though online multiplayer fragfests are really not my thing. What excites me is how its very geared towards working together as a team, ie the lone duracell bunny on crack run and gun tactics are rewarded less than "proper" team work.
I think this game will succeed or fail based on how they balance the gameplay/funfactor for the lone gunman type player and the teamwork players.
I think R2 Coop was good step in the same direction, but still it ended up with people competing within the team to get the most points.
Hopefully the PMC world strategy/status thing will encourage less of that.
If it goes to far into the teamwork camp it might en up with egg on its face and to much the lone gunman, well it probably will lose out to prettier and more traditional FPS games.
This is 100% determined by team skill and induvidual player skill. No matter how geared to working together as a team, if the team players suck (at aiming & movement) no team work will help them.
Granted, a team of bad players moving together stand a higher chance of killing someone then if they ran alone by themselves, but a single good player should still be able to take them out.
This is aspecially noticeable in the team based "realistic" games, like R6, where players usually play on very low sensisitivity, and are used to moving around slowly. This makes it easy for half decent players who allways use max sensitivity like me, to take out entire enemy teams without dying, simply because my quicker aiming gives me a huge advantage.
Still, i dont think you will get rid of lone wolves in games, unless you start giving artificial boosts to playing with your team. The average player, and thus the average squad is to bad at playing FPS games, to be effective for lone wolves.
That depends on what the game rewards. Again, RTCW is the counterexample to what you're talking about. There a lone wolf would usually HURT a team, since kills had very little value at all and standings at the end were irrelevant if your side didn't win. Someone with great skills would help, but stifled by the way weapons, health and movement worked.
In this game, supposedly those who don't roll with the team won't get as much score as people who do -- which will affect your standing in the rankings.
In this game, supposedly those who don't roll with the team won't get as much score as people who do -- which will affect your standing in the rankings.
Not really my thing, but I did like the idea of tracer fire. I don't know if that's unique to this game, but I like the idea of being able to gauge enemies' positions from their fire, instead of wandering around fairly blind until the screen turns red/grey because you're getting hit. Tracer fire adds a sense of perceptible order to the battle field. You can see who's fighting who in a way more obvious than red and blue dots on a radar.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Ugh haven't played the latest iterations of R6. But the original didn't reward quick aiming movements except with certain low range weapons. And even then there was a delay as you had to steady your aim (although it was quite slight with pistols).
The original rewarded sound tactical play and slow and deliberate almost always won over quick and fast. Shame to hear that it sounds like they've moved more towards the unrealistic FPS run and gun mentality.
Thinking of the last FPS that had massive numbers of players and I'm not holding my breath on Mag being the bees knees. Granted it was an MMO, but Planetside was a bit of a failure for massive scaled player based FPS.
Perhaps Mag will learn from Planetside what worked and didn't work and have a better go at a massive FPS.
Regards,
SB
Planetside did do a few things right, though. The persistent world, which MAG also has to a degre was a great feature. Zipper also has a solid pedigree for MP, so let's see. I'm looking forward to it because it seems to be like an infantry-based Battlefield 2, and I'm all for that.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Aye, I'm with you in hoping that Mag succeeds if only to futher the dream of a semi-persistent MMO-ish FPS where an actual war with actual factions are tracked. Server would reset after one of the factions "won."
It would give actual meaning to combat. The virtual "world" wouldn't even have to be contiguous for me. Meaning if it contained just a static set of maps rather than modeling an entire world/continent that would be enough for starters. Once a player declared their faction they could not have an alternate player on that server on another faction.
I guess after all the competitive FPSing I did way back when, I'm just burned out on regular FPS multiplayer and looking for something with more meaning.
Regards,
SB
It would give actual meaning to combat. The virtual "world" wouldn't even have to be contiguous for me. Meaning if it contained just a static set of maps rather than modeling an entire world/continent that would be enough for starters. Once a player declared their faction they could not have an alternate player on that server on another faction.
I guess after all the competitive FPSing I did way back when, I'm just burned out on regular FPS multiplayer and looking for something with more meaning.
Regards,
SB
How would a player get to try different factions, given the three factions vary slightly? They'd certainly need hands-on time with all of them to get a feel and a preference. Or do you mean one particular persistant world server for players' 'main' character where they always play a side, but if they want a change they can play on other casual servers? That'd work.
I agree that a persistant world would add motivation to help one's team win. It'd need a good way to kick out morons screwing it up though. Some chumps prefer to make their team lose rather than help them win.
It looks like a hard game to sell. Need people to play to experience the difference... unless the dev throws in some attraction that can draw people without playing. The Command & Conquer element may be interesting but I believe you only get it towards the end ? What's the initial draw ?
Perhaps a limited time high quality beta or PSN demo would help to bring in fans. They may want to skip the "Help me test MAG alpha/beta" cycle like what they did with R2 and U2. It should be polished by the time they show us.
Perhaps a limited time high quality beta or PSN demo would help to bring in fans. They may want to skip the "Help me test MAG alpha/beta" cycle like what they did with R2 and U2. It should be polished by the time they show us.
I think that what SB is talking about is very close to what Zipper have said is in MAG. I suspect MAG is a game that will have dizzying highs as well as plummeting lows, more so than other MP shooters. I also wonder how clan matches will work -- it'd be cool if multiple clans could deploy into a single match on the same side, as separate platoons -- because otherwise clan-play will be limited to the smallest map-size. And isn't that 32v32? Still huge, in terms of logistics.
I'd like to know how long a typical MAG session is. I usually skip the long ones in KZ2. Not sure whether 256 players will fit into short sessions. They'd need to have pretty sticky gameplay. The persistent game world would be relevant. Some MMORPG mechanics will help too. I suspect these are the things that are not talked about yet. But we shall see.
Seriously, I think they need to consider hardcore gamers who are too busy these days, especially when PS3's primary audience seems to be older.
So it would be great if MAG can offer short gameplay sessions (just one helicopter ride), while the rest of the troops hold the entire campaign together. I think it's important for Zipper to achieve that.
So it would be great if MAG can offer short gameplay sessions (just one helicopter ride), while the rest of the troops hold the entire campaign together. I think it's important for Zipper to achieve that.
Killing enemies = less people at objectives.
But RTCW really needed team work, i agree to that.
These are the SOCOM games. Those aren't really forgiving games, and I don't think they're making too many concessions. And it's not like there aren't games that are easier to pop in and out of. Maybe you'll be able to pop in and out of an ongoing game, give your contribution and it'll be tallied accordingly.
Sony didn't step in when MP-untested GG made a bunch of weird choices when it came to KZ2 MP (and later tweaked many of them out). Why would they step in to tell Zipper*, with an actual pedigree of good MP games, how to build MAG? I mean, the premise behind 256-players has people going 'why should I care?', even here. It's not going to be a game for everyone.
*Mod edit from GG to Zipper
