MAG

[Nesh]

I wonder how are they going to display battles with 256 players in one huge environment. I suspect this could be a strategy based game with not so fancy visuals

edit: I take it back. Just seen the blog.....wow if it turns out to be very good looking, a shooter at core with 256 people at once with no technical problems!

 

[wco81]

I think it was SOCOM2 or 3 and this was $50 just for the game, no headset bundled like the original game.


Anyone been watching Generation Kill on HBO? The story follows one unit (not sure how big it is) and so far, that one unit will back another unit, have specific missions like clearing out a town or holding a bridge. They're not ever showing some huge battle, just a gun fight with a few dozen men on each side shooting.

Maybe the game will only show you a small part of the map at a time, with only so many players and the rest of the players making up the 256 players are far enough away that you have to really try to get to them and it's not easy to do without encountering enemy fire.

Unless it's more of a historic type of scenario where the battle lines are clearly established as opposed to an urban combat scenario of a video game where soldiers on different sides don't try to hold positions.

It would be cool if you can have some coordination of different kinds of units, like ground units calling in air strikes, maybe some soldiers targeting ground targets for cruise missiles. Or maybe even have Predators controlled remotely for recon or assassination attempts.

 

[eastmen]

The only way i can see this happening is huge levels .

This game will have to be installed to the hardrive imo to decrease loading times and maps will easily have to be bigger than 4-6 cod 4 maps .

Each side has squads of 8 or so ( i think bigger than that and its hard to orgnize) will start at certian areas of the maps and there will be a few hard points on the map to defend for both sides . This way there is a constant flow to a few areas but there is enough distance and spawn area for smaller fights to break out.

Don't see this game working well though ... but i'd love to be surprised

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't see the point of this game. 256 people means my presence is 1/256th of the experience. How much difference do I make? Nothing! It'll just boil down to me doing my thing while others do their thing. If you break things down into parties with objectives, how much difference does it make? If I'm in a party of 8 versus another party of 8, how is this principally different from a 16 player game? And if they actually have 256 people altogether in a huge melee, it'll just be a confusing mess. Compared to the Agency where it's Me and a few others in a challenge, and everything we do counts...well, I know which is more likely to get my attention!

 

[patsu]

... not to forget the DC Universe MMO game.

I really like the Planetside review here http://pc.ign.com/articles/422/422895p1.html

I think it highlights the many challenges of FPS MMO very well. I'd be very interested to see how the designers solve these issues. According to the reviewer, the experience can be unique and fun but they sound very rare due to complications.

 

[Gradthrawn]

I've really been looking forward to taking part in a large scale battle. Especially as I play Warhawk and think of the possibilities of having an entire aerial fleet supporting ground troops across massive maps. Coordination and team work are obviously crucial at that point, but the prospects are exiting to me.

 

[Arwin]

Same here. Warhawk also showed me that you can take your own small part in the war and still count, and of course there's always stats. And if those take into account your effectiveness as a team player, it'll work.

 

[patsu]

After reading the Planetside review, I think MAG cannot be a "regular shooter, just larger" game. I do agree that the final experience will be unique -- if it wants to succeed.

Meta-issues like carrot/stick for teamwork, waiting time while things are being planned out, countering unexpected enemy strategies on the fly, overall game goals seem to call for non-FPS solutions.

 

[Cornsnake]

The idea of having so many players in a single gamer sound good, but the experience could easily leave a lot be desired. A lot of games have failed get random players to work together. They may be better off making a game that focuses on more personal goals. I think thats why CoD4 has been so successful. There was always something new to unlock. Get a higher rank and you'll receive a new weapon, make 25 headshots with that weapon and you'll get an the red dot sight, ect. You could still achieve a lot without necessarily winning.

 

[patsu]

Player character development and group activities may not be mutually exclusive. They need some sort of windfall for group action though.

 

[Cornsnake]

I suppose you could have both in a single game, but I've seen players get distracted by wanting to boost their stats or earn a medal for doing things other than the actual objective of the game. There are already games that have some small rewards for teamwor, yet some will still chose to ignore this or are simply not aware of this. There are even those that teamkill regularly despite the penalties for doing this. Perhaps they should make is so that only the rewards for teamwork allow you to win.

 

[Carl B]

I think it'd be awesome if the commanding officer of each squad>platoon>company was the one to put individual squad members "up" for medals and honorifics. Be a nice way to make teamwork an integral part of both the game and character advancement.

 

[Skrying]

I think it'd be awesome if the commanding officer of each squad>platoon>company was the one to put individual squad members "up" for medals and honorifics. Be a nice way to make teamwork an integral part of both the game and character advancement.

And bump up your friends very quickly.

 

[patsu]

At least they know the larger issues thanks to prior effort like Planetside. If a designer can pull this off, he/she must have uncanny insights into FPS and MMO game designs.

For rewarding and honors, I tend to favor automated appraoches or community voting because of fairness issues.

To make large parties work, I was wondering if they can pin a range (like cellphone coverage) to the leaders. If someone wonders too far off on his own, he'd run out of ammo and die soon because there is no supply line and no medical help. Such a scheme may also filter out uncooperative soldiers by default.

I also almost want to think that strategizing is half the game. I wonder if the devs will make a mini pre-game out of the strategic aspects. Some leaders may be very good at killing but s*ck hard at planning or improvising. If we keep an open mind, I think there could be a lot of scope for the game.

 

[Carl B]

And bump up your friends very quickly.

It wouldn't be arbitrary under this suggestion - rather they'd need to meet the normal criteria as well, and then require the real-world teamwork thumbs up from the squad-leader and/or team.

Anyway not saying it's not open to abuse, but certain forms of abuse are more fun/constructive than others. Compared to some of the other pitfalls we're discussing here, anything that encourages more team-play IMO is a plus.

I'll note that Warhawk tends to have a good bit of team-work in its games by default. I often find myself coordinating with head-set enabled players whom I've never met. Either that or I'm so annoyed by the banter that I switch teams.

I'm of the mind that this is very plausible though in scope. If Warhawk was the same as it is now, only more players and larger maps, I could only see my experience improving.

 

[upnorthsox]

And bump up your friends very quickly.

So it'd be just like the real Army then.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

What bothers me is - with 256 people in a match , people are going to be so spread out on the map, that it just might be another map to those people who are far off! How do I get the feel that all the players are in this map I am playing, when half of them are 10 kms away!
They might as well be in a different map altogether and it won't make a difference to people in my squad.
How do you say its 256 people in one map, when the map gets so big that you load different parts of the map on different people's ps3s?I might keep getting messages and stats saying this squad has captured that base, but it still might be a collection of different maps(which means game sessions) being played at the same time by people with messages being exchanged regarding the current status. What makes it a 256 player game? You can't have 256 players in what can be called one map, considering one person can view and play in a limited area only(This is a general comment, not from MAG). There cannot be a part where all 256 players are face to face , all visible in one scene.

It can as well be a collection of maps exchanging data in realtime, all maps together housing upto 256 players and we won't know the difference!
That makes me think: What is a 256 player game?

Edit: I hope they have something innovative up their sleeve.

 

[upnorthsox]

At least they know the larger issues thanks to prior effort like Planetside. If a designer can pull this off, he/she must have uncanny insights into FPS and MMO game designs.

For rewarding and honors, I tend to favor automated appraoches or community voting because of fairness issues.

To make large parties work, I was wondering if they can pin a range (like cellphone coverage) to the leaders. If someone wonders too far off on his own, he'd run out of ammo soon because there is no supply line and no medical help. Such a scheme may also filter out uncooperative soldiers by default.

I also almost want to think that strategizing is half the game. I wonder if the devs will make a mini pre-game out of the strategic aspects. Some leaders may be very good at killing but s*ck hard at planning or improvising. If we keep an open mind, I think there could be a lot of scope for the game.

We are talking about Zipper making this, right?

 

[patsu]

Yes ! I heard they are good but I didn't get into their titles. Only bought the Socom for PSP game, but lost it (and the PSP) within a month.

What did they do to warrant such high respects ? From the first Qore episode, it sounds like there is a cult following to the Socom series.

 

[Carl B]

What did they do to warrant such high respects ? From the first Qore episode, it sounds like there is a cult following to the Socom series.

There is - a very large following. Patsu you confuse me sometimes, I thought you were all down with the Sony lore and stuff.