MAG (massive action game) - Page 2

I too think it sounds great but you have a great point. It's interesting to see how this generation has changed things a bit. Hell, I remember in SOCOM 2 there was always some sort of coordinated effort, even in the most random of rooms. If I was looking for something to blame for the lack of teamwork these days, I'd pass it on to COD4. The game is selfish in nature with the XP and perk rewards. It's very clear every time I play that game that there is zero strategy 90% of the time. At least with SOCOM Confrontation you've got a 50/50 shot of finding a game where people actually know what to use their mics for.

Profanity???
Telling teammates how much they suck???

One thing i notice in SOCOM is that few people complain about "kill theft", most people are just glad the person they shot at is no longer shooting at them.

When in battle, you shoot, and you shoot at everything that moves on the otherside...

I love the ambition behind this idea. It has real potential.

There are lots of ways to make this kind of game a lot of fun.

I gave up on non-respawn first/third person shooters after SOCOM failed with every iteration after S2, but I'd be willing to jump back into the land of 4 minutes of waiting and waiting and waiting if there was enough action to keep the moments where I'm alive interesting.

Those of us that play Warhawk seem like the primary target for this game.

I was thinking the same thing. One thing that makes warhawk fun is the fast pace nature. I hope this game is fast paced as well with a lot of killing and dieing, and not so much sneaking, crouching, waiting.

Yes, we don't want this game to be just a simulator for how Mule treats his next door neighbor's wife.

I bow to the master of the come back

This game may have some of the elements of Chomehounds. Individual squads contribuing to the overall war between 3 nations. 1000's of peope on each side fighting daily, trying to make their objectives, and after a while (6 months) one side wins and the server resets and we start all over. If they do this in a FPS with more interactions between squads in real time, then this game has potential. The real issue is if this game will remain balanced, already in FPS that are 10 v 10 or whatever, whenever a clans takes up one side, they wipe out the other side quickly. So far this generation, squad based games have not done very well, because everyone wants to be the leader and hero. Similarly, the vast majority of players will be individuals (rather than clans) thus practicing together will be non-existant. I look at a game like Team Fortress 2, essentailly squads of 8-10 competing for objectives, but for the most part on random servers, everyone is doing their own thing. The minute there is some sort of co-ordination in atttack/defense, the game becomes much more interesting. The question for MAG is what happens to a squad when they loose their objective? Do they just respawn, or are they out for the rest of the game? I guess thay would have to be out for the rest of the game for it to make any sense?

Not all of them but there were events that had probably 800-1000 or so all at the same place at the same time.


Im all about the idea of the game...buuuut I was all about 60 person MP on R2 and it just doesnt "feel right". dunno.

Am I the only one that played PlanetSide? Multiple objectives, troop transport vehicles, ranking points for cooperation... If they can blend tactical objectives and vehicles with SOCOM-like gameplay, they'll have a hell of a game.

I hope they ditch the 256 player stuff and just make it like an MMOFPS... and hell while they are at it just move it to sci-fi (where, at the least, they have more control over graphic design and can optimize the graphics better). And, hey, just call it Planetside 2 at that point.

If not properly implemented it does seem to have Epic Failure potential. Conversely, if properly implemented it seems to have Massive Ownage potential. Go for the gusto, I say. Some people have the balls to shoot for the moon, knowing it exposes them so far from the safe harbor that they may fall flat on their face...and some don't. We need both in this industry

Brandon

Still now news on how much its going to cost each month for the subscription. To much and people won't pay to play, to little and is it worth the effort of collecting it.

If its around £5 a month I may consider it, but more than that and it starts to look unattractive.

I can see maybe the first month being free and then Sony see how many stay on board after that.

It could very well be that they have more than what's announced but wanted to just show something last year.

It would be great if it's a MMOFPS even if it's not as fluid but mission and zone based similar to planetside. Plan, deploy and play in a zone with stats and xp.

I think a 256 player game with 8 man teams battling each other may be good but I'm not so sure it will be different enough.

Krelic.

Right. I agree with you on Resistance 2. Terribly implemented there. Basing my assumptions on the MAG trailer alone, it seems as though there's a more organized approach there. Thing is, with R2, I think had they carried over the positives from R1 it would have been great, but they decided to go completely different and it didn't work - at least not for me.

Not sure on consoles, but this has been a problem since the FPS genre was created. Counter strike was a major pusher of the one man team. Before that it was QuakeII ladders.

It something that very few FPS have been able to break away from successfully.
How do you keep the action going while promoting teamwork that doesn't dull down the game \\ limit the player base.

You could probably count the games on one hand that were successful with it. L4D being one recent one, but you also can see the restrictions put on the player, and the vocal outcry some have about it's style.

I disagree with Counterstrike pushing the 1-man team. I played Counterstrike the way I play SOCOM, with teamwork.

In fact, back in the day when I was still training in the military, my mates and I used Counterstrike as our shooting simulator of sorts. It also helped us to evaluate fire-movement and what not in real-life battle.

So, if not for Counterstrike teaching me teamwork, I would be playing SOCOM like I see people playing COD.

The thing is, on public servers, you don't know what you are gonna get. In CS there were top players who would go on random servers and destroy everyone not because the game encouraged it, but because they were just better than everyone else.

Getting people who don't know each other, who don't care about each other, who have little vested interest in anything beyond their own performance, to coordinate and play in teams is an almost impossible task. I like many others thought the built in XBL voice support would usher in this golden age of amazing team based gaming, but as we have seen, people seem to enjoy calling each other racist names than using it for its intended purpose. So we are back to square one.

It's a simple fact that any metric will be gamed (this was discovered long ago in the business world, and has transferred over to online gaming too), so a metric heavy game like CoD4 will be gamed like **** by people. At the same time, release a game without these things and people will complain. Its a tough issue that maybe comes down to the fact that people don't want to play teamwork.

It would be awesome if this game had ranking ladders for teams instead of individuals. One of the best gaming experiences I have had is when our AVS Warhawk team competed in an online tournament. You don't pay much attention to stat padding or your own points when it is a victory for the team that will move you up in the ranks.

Oh, I'm not saying you can't.

COD4 has clans and is great with team work too. Just that 95% of the players are run and gun solo's only interested in personal stats. CS was the same way unless you joined a clan.

The problem with these massive games, where cooperation is needed to make them fun, is getting more then that usual 5% to want to play. You need more then that 5% to pay for the server upkeep and pofitability to justify the game.

WoW seems to have accomplished that, but I don't know of many FPS that have yet.

Yep, i've never encountered people saying "you stole my kill" it's all about staying alive regardless who kills who. I love that game it's amazing and the community is top notch.

WoW hasn't really solved the problem either, its just with that game running things solo and relying on "pick up groups" is just not a sustainable way to play (unlike CoD or any other FPS, save Planetside possibly). WoW is like CoD4 or whatever if everyone joined a clan.

Games can try to do thingsi n their design (MGO's linking or whatever, or giving damage bonuses for sticking together, or giving out points for class specific playing), but in the end, if someone wants to ignore it they will and there isn't anything anyone can do about it.

Well you could TK them until the learn, or bugger off.


Why would there be a subscription fee? If properly invested, a small percentage of game sales revenue can easily run a sufficient number of servers. If there is a subscription fee MAG will become an epic failure.

Right, because WoW and its subscription model has FAIL written all over it.

I understand the hesitancy when it comes to pay-to-play for consoles, but the day is coming. It may be a FAIL in your eyes, but others are more than willing to pay for something that is properly supported and runs well. Personally, I'd happily hand over a few bucks a month to be assured that dedicated servers were running my game up to snuff. The headaches of SOCOM Confrontation are things I don't want to experience anymore.

I like the idea of a game with large scale coordination but having played the commander role in battlefield 2 I can see that it is difficult to make it work unless you are with a clan. A team working together in BF2 would dominate a map vs people not playing together. Commanders have enough resources to make decisions that non-commander players couldn't. Yet, few players followed orders. Squad leaders had it worse, they might have well been talking to themselves while half the people joining squads would run off on their own. The only way I can see making strategy in a shooter work is to weigh the points for objectives and winning way above the points for kills. Unfortunately, I don't know that would go over well.

Planetside was a great game for a while, especially at the time. There were some flaws but the core was there. It's about time another company gave the MMOFPS a try.

I agree. I think the problem with R2 is that Insomniac didn't really emphasize the squad part enough and the game modes (aside from core control) pretty much lean towards having the teams converge towards each other, and so when you're either killing someone or being killed literally every 10 seconds, it removes the risk element (as well as the excitement of getting a kill).

I still enjoy it, mainly because I'm a sucker for anything where there's XP and leveling up, but it really could have been so much more.

Actually, the whole philosophy that PS3 "fanboys" argue against the 360 is the $5 monthly charge for LIVE.. if they were to charge $5 a month for ONE GAME, then yes.. i could it as a major fail.... WoW is not a console game, and the players of Consoles have a different mentality than the players of PC games... you can't deny that..

PS3 users point out that it costs $50 a year to play on Live but does not cost anything to play on PS3. It's a legitimate point. Plus, if you're not playing that ONE GAME, you don't need to pay it. On Live, you do if you want to play any game online.

I don't think a game like MAG which is just about bigger battles than usual could have a subscription fee, but certainly if the game was in the vein of Planetside it would be justified.

And considering that console gamers have bought full in to the whole DLC BS, even buying stuff that is already on the disk (thanks Namco and EA), I think they would be willing to pay for an MMO on the platform.