Funny MAG advertisement:
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/01/it-only-does-256-players/
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/01/it-only-does-256-players/
MAG
- Thread starter patsu
- Start date
CounterStrike is how Sony is going to need to bill this game though, to give people a touchstone to base their understanding of the game on. Because if they don't get that message out, I definitely see this game as being consigned to the void.
Carl B's take on MAG mindshare at the moment: low.
I need to know whether I should get it as well or not - someone rate it for me on the 'awesomeness' scale; use Warhawk and R:foM as your take-aways for MP action I like.
The almost complete focus on the 256 players number is what I think they are doing wrong. So what are people supposed to think: it's like every other shooter with more players? I doubt that'll be enough to get people away from known franchise's. And MAG is very much unlike today's shooters, with the 256 players only being one of many things that make it great.
For me, MAG is the only shooter that has given this much enjoyment next to Rfom. No other shooters have come close to these two this generation IMO. Although I like them for different reasons.
And going by the official MAG forums, MAG seems to appeal to those who dislike MW2.
For me, MAG is the only shooter that has given this much enjoyment next to Rfom. No other shooters have come close to these two this generation IMO. Although I like them for different reasons.
And going by the official MAG forums, MAG seems to appeal to those who dislike MW2.
I agree. The 256 player battle is only enabled after I level up to 10 anyway.
The Kevin Butler clip above is slightly better because it highlights the player interaction instead. While I am curious to see how the MAG players evolve, I am more interested to see how their servers hold up in production.
Yes, agreed. They really, really should pound Counterstrike similarities home - to the point of calling that title out by name in any advertising. Otherwise, it's "just another FPS." An not one with any sort of theme or plot or story people can easily coalesce around, either. But if you make that one comparison, then suddenly people will understand.
More details would be nice:
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/09/09/pax-2009-mag-producer-explains-the-games-original-server-techn/
I wasn't paying attention to gaming at that time. What are the similarities ? This game seems to appeal to old school FPS folks ?
Counterstrike is the definitive "there-is-no-single-player-mode-this-is-all-multiplayer-online-work-as-a-team-one-life-per-match" game. I was never into it myself, but my younger brother was one of many addicts out there to this game. I think it was the first games that really brought mics/headsets into active crucial play.
That's the general vibe I get from MAG at least - I actually have yet to play it, which in a way tells you the marketing has been weak.
I agree about that. I just got pieces here and there from interviews and forum posts. It seems the system is about a host server that coordinates the matchmaking on servers worldwide based on region, number of players in queues,server load etc. You cannot choose the server you`ll join, the host will set that up for you based on the variables but you can still join groups or friends that are in other regions.
That`s what I made from it anyhow.
That's how RFOM and Resistance 2 are set up ! The underlying technology is probably different.
Part of the problem is that it's exactly that. You have to understand why so many players on a map is fun, and I don't think it's something people will readily understand. A lot of gamers don't. Hell, a lot of people in the press don't. But the 256 player maps are exactly what's best in the game.
Are you very sure it's because of the scale and not the basic game mechanics that made it fun ? The number of players may be a multiplier effect only.
In my mind, it's rather strange to depend on 255 other people to (magically) make my game fun. It has to be the total package. Some of the elements may be too subtle to call out individually.
I played the 256 player battles (Domination ?) in the private beta, but I didn't see 220+ other players at all. I could tell they were there (e.g., parachuting down, in an MPV), and could respawn at a different place. For the most part, the frustration and fun came from direct contact with a small group of players. The constant supply of comrades also meant that they could usually take over my progress when I died (Some had to walk a fair bit there).
I must admit I didn't get far enough to earn the advanced capabilities.
In my mind, it's rather strange to depend on 255 other people to (magically) make my game fun. It has to be the total package. Some of the elements may be too subtle to call out individually.
I played the 256 player battles (Domination ?) in the private beta, but I didn't see 220+ other players at all. I could tell they were there (e.g., parachuting down, in an MPV), and could respawn at a different place. For the most part, the frustration and fun came from direct contact with a small group of players. The constant supply of comrades also meant that they could usually take over my progress when I died (Some had to walk a fair bit there).
I must admit I didn't get far enough to earn the advanced capabilities.
Without 256 players it'd just be a good game. 256 is what makes it unique and it is what pushes the scale of the conflict over the top. It's sorta weird to even think that, but it's what Zipper has been saying all along, and it's what most people don't even understand.
It's sort of like Battlefield games; those have always been about the scale of the conflict (in BF's case done via vehicles). Here, it's from the amount of chaos all those people on the ground can cause.
What is the command structure like ? How many commander in a 256 player engagement ? How many can order airstrikes and other supporting firepower ? I didn't experience any of these in the final round of private beta because they restarted the stats. I only know the turrets were pretty powerful to use.
[size=-2]The training guide didn't explain enough. Without a common framework and understanding, it's harder to work together.[/size]
[size=-2]The training guide didn't explain enough. Without a common framework and understanding, it's harder to work together.[/size]
