THE BORE

General => Video Game Bored => Topic started by: duckman2000 on April 04, 2009, 02:43:26 PM

Title: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 04, 2009, 02:43:26 PM: I haven't played many of Zipper's games, but I hope they get this one right and that the execution matches the ambition.

Images are kaput, so here is a trailer instead.

http://www.insidegamer.nl/playstation3/massiveactiongame/videos/10315
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Don Flamenco on April 04, 2009, 02:47:59 PM: more like LAG lolololol
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: drew on April 04, 2009, 02:50:58 PM: olololololol
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: WrikaWrek on April 04, 2009, 03:12:42 PM: Looks like a Half Life 2 mod.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Eel O'Brian on April 04, 2009, 03:26:01 PM: interesting experiment, looks a bit stalker-ish
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Cheebs on April 04, 2009, 03:34:10 PM: 256 players is a joke. There is no way this game will be popular enough to have that many in a game at a given time. The only way that is possible is if they have bots in this thing.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Brehvolution on April 04, 2009, 03:37:49 PM: Are there even 256 people with PS3's lol?!
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: fistfulofmetal on April 04, 2009, 03:40:49 PM: They need to go ahead and just rename it SOCOM:Somethingsomething already. Their time is running out.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Don Flamenco on April 04, 2009, 03:41:27 PM: It'll just be one half-full game on the server. and no one will have a head set.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: cool breeze on April 04, 2009, 03:50:19 PM: If it all works as planned, I'll definitely play. It's already looking more like a Battlefield game on console than Battlefield Bad Company ever did, and the Battlefield PC games (except 2142) are my favorite multiplayer games.

I think 256 players is a ridiculous though; 64 players in BF2 was more than enough and in that it wasn't as infantry based. If it happens to work out and not be a giant mess, then again, I'll play it for sure. The best way to do it I think is to have 64 to 80 players in a game, then all the results and stats from that battle go into a big pool for that faction you were playing with and it's basically a meta-game.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 04, 2009, 04:02:10 PM: Quote from: swaggaz on April 04, 2009, 03:50:19 PM
If it all works as planned, I'll definitely play. It's already looking more like a Battlefield game on console than Battlefield Bad Company ever did, and the Battlefield PC games (except 2142) are my favorite multiplayer games.

I think 256 players is a ridiculous though; 64 players in BF2 was more than enough and in that it wasn't as infantry based. If it happens to work out and not be a giant mess, then again, I'll play it for sure. The best way to do it I think is to have 64 to 80 players in a game, then all the results and stats from that battle go into a big pool for that faction you were playing with and it's basically a meta-game.

The way it's set-up, with 8-player squads working towards common goals and with a strict command structure, that could work. The maps look pretty massive, so I don't think it will be a clusterfuck. If anything, I hope they scale down for smaller games.

As for the screens, I don't think they are bullshots so much as promotional shots. Staged and with added print benefits.

Quote from: Kranz Fafka on April 04, 2009, 03:41:27 PM
It'll just be one half-full game on the server. and no one will have a head set.

There have been just as many mic users in recent PS3 games as there are in 360 games I've played online. But this definitely needs a bundled headset.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: AdmiralViscen on April 04, 2009, 04:13:00 PM: I don't see why this game wouldn't be popular online, there are plenty of people still playing Warhawk.

I'm interested but there's no way I'm buying it if there isn't some system where I can play with my friends with ease. I'd prefer global parties but if there's some slick squad system once you're in a match it will suffice.

I barely play KZ2 because you need to have your 360 on too just to know what team your friend picked.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 04, 2009, 04:18:02 PM: KZ2 is just too narrowly focused on the whole clan thing, which I think MAG does on a much larger scale. There's a whole command line going all the way from commanders of factions to grunts in squads. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Best case scenario is that it will basically provide every other multiplayer experience in one game. Worst case is a complete clusterfuck of Sunday lone wolves.

Quote from: Jinfash on April 04, 2009, 04:17:22 PM
The only thing they have to make sure of doing, is avoiding another Socom fiasco. That is rolling out the game with a decent netcode.

The form that game got released in was unforgivable, it even had a beta. So let's not rush this out Sony, it doesn't have to be a '09 release if it's gonna affect the quality of the game.

Are you talking about Confrontation? That one was fucked all around. I could barely connect to games while in the beta, and then it launched right into a major retooling of PSN. But that was basically Socom HD, and had nothing to do with Zipper.

Another map shot

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3620/3410520712_a56200f120_b.jpg)
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Eel O'Brian on April 04, 2009, 04:24:10 PM: I'd like to go on record as saying fuck headsets and voice chat in general.

I miss text-only chat. People usually only typed in a message when they really had something to say, and you didn't have to deal with a bunch of shitheads singing/belching/soundboarding in your ear every second. Anyone who spammed the text chat would get booted posthaste. 90% of the people with mics are complete fucktards. I had many memorable voice-free games of BF1942 and COD, teams worked together just fine without it.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 04, 2009, 04:27:42 PM: Quote from: Eel O'Brian on April 04, 2009, 04:24:10 PM
I'd like to go on record as saying fuck headsets and voice chat in general.

I miss text-only chat. People usually only typed in a message when they really had something to say, and you didn't have to deal with a bunch of shitheads singing/belching/soundboarding in your ear every second. Anyone who spammed the text chat would get booted posthaste. 90% of the people with mics are complete fucktards. I had many memorable voice-free games of BF1942 and COD, teams worked together just fine without it.

This is true. My wife got to hear her first earful of gamer banter the other day when I turned off the mic and the voices went through the speaker. It was quite embarrassing all around.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Eel O'Brian on April 04, 2009, 04:33:27 PM: :lol

that garbled gibberish feedback noise gets me headed for the mute more than anything, though

plus, i think text chat makes you think a bit more about what you're doing before you commit, instead of just rushing in foolhardy and seeing that killcam five seconds later
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: cool breeze on April 04, 2009, 04:34:29 PM: Quote from: Eel O'Brian on April 04, 2009, 04:24:10 PM
I'd like to go on record as saying fuck headsets and voice chat in general.

I miss text-only chat. People usually only typed in a message when they really had something to say, and you didn't have to deal with a bunch of shitheads singing/belching/soundboarding in your ear every second. Anyone who spammed the text chat would get booted posthaste. 90% of the people with mics are complete fucktards. I had many memorable voice-free games of BF1942 and COD, teams worked together just fine without it.

I rarely if ever use voice chat in PC games because I can type fast if I need to communicate, but that isn't a viable option for console games.

and I really don't mind pre-recorded messages for games like Counter Strike or Left 4 Dead. Only problem with those is people don't always listen to them.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Eel O'Brian on April 04, 2009, 04:39:39 PM: true

my rant is mostly because i was playing some COD:WaW on PC the other day, and there were some people chit-chatting, and i was thinking why don't you fuckers just get on skype or vent or something because i really don't want to hear about the ground effects on your rice rocket while i am trying to defend future generations from the asian menace
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Eel O'Brian on April 04, 2009, 04:41:33 PM: hahahaha, excellent
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: AdmiralViscen on April 04, 2009, 04:50:47 PM: Quote from: Eel O'Brian on April 04, 2009, 04:24:10 PM
I'd like to go on record as saying fuck headsets and voice chat in general.

I miss text-only chat. People usually only typed in a message when they really had something to say, and you didn't have to deal with a bunch of shitheads singing/belching/soundboarding in your ear every second. Anyone who spammed the text chat would get booted posthaste. 90% of the people with mics are complete fucktards. I had many memorable voice-free games of BF1942 and COD, teams worked together just fine without it.

:bow private parties :bow2
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Smooth Groove on April 04, 2009, 05:02:48 PM: :yuck

Did Sony send out the memo to start hyping up this game now that SDF captain Wollan is back on the interwebs?

spoiler (click to show/hide)
JK, Duckman. I luv ya dawg.
[close]

Quote from: Eel O'Brian on April 04, 2009, 04:33:27 PM
:lol

that garbled gibberish feedback noise gets me headed for the mute more than anything, though

plus, i think text chat makes you think a bit more about what you're doing before you commit, instead of just rushing in foolhardy and seeing that killcam five seconds later

I feel the same way but I also recognize that chat works much better for console gamers. Typing text simply isn't as pratical for console gamers since most of them are playing with joypads.

Personally, I find it easier to just keep my console gaming experiences to single player or local multiplayer.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: ManaByte on April 04, 2009, 05:11:54 PM: When is SCEA going to learn that tossing a shitload of players into a multiplayer match doesn't automatically make the game awesome? Didn't they learn their lesson from Resistance 2? No?
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Smooth Groove on April 04, 2009, 05:19:45 PM: Sony still needs to convince us of the power of the Cell and a blu-ray drive.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Don Flamenco on April 04, 2009, 05:51:46 PM: Quote from: Smooth Groove on April 04, 2009, 05:19:45 PM
Sony still needs to convince us of the power of the Cell and a blu-ray drive.

wait for Heavy Rain
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: ManaByte on April 04, 2009, 05:53:41 PM: Quote from: Kranz Fafka on April 04, 2009, 05:51:46 PM
Quote from: Smooth Groove on April 04, 2009, 05:19:45 PM
Sony still needs to convince us of the power of the Cell and a blu-ray drive.

wait for Heavy Rain

You mean Dragon's Lair III?
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Don Flamenco on April 04, 2009, 06:03:56 PM: Quote from: ManaByte on April 04, 2009, 05:53:41 PM
Quote from: Kranz Fafka on April 04, 2009, 05:51:46 PM
Quote from: Smooth Groove on April 04, 2009, 05:19:45 PM
Sony still needs to convince us of the power of the Cell and a blu-ray drive.

wait for Heavy Rain

You mean Dragon's Lair III?

OMG WHY DO YOU HATE SONY
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 04, 2009, 06:33:23 PM: Quote from: ManaByte on April 04, 2009, 05:11:54 PM
When is SCEA going to learn that tossing a shitload of players into a multiplayer match doesn't automatically make the game awesome? Didn't they learn their lesson from Resistance 2? No?

There's nothing wrong with large player count, as long as the game itself is designed to support large and small games. The problem is when they just throw numbers at a standard format and hoping that it will work. 256 is very ambitious, but it seems well thought. The better question is whether or not the targeted community can support it. Seems like it would be a better fit for PC.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: fistfulofmetal on April 04, 2009, 10:13:31 PM: Quote from: ManaByte on April 04, 2009, 05:11:54 PM
When is SCEA going to learn that tossing a shitload of players into a multiplayer match doesn't automatically make the game awesome? Didn't they learn their lesson from Resistance 2? No?

Resistance 2 managed 60 people in one room really well. It was the game itself that sucked, not the amount of players in a room.

Splitting the team up into squads and giving them their own separate objections means that at any given location you only will have around 15-20 people.
I'd imagine the same will be occurring in MAG. It's a great idea and worked great in R2. It just needs a good game as it's backbone.

edit: I realize that I'm talking to an idiot though, so this post will probably go over your head.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 04, 2009, 11:28:58 PM: Maybe I should have posted the damned E3 presentation along with the pictures after all. It's not UT with 256 players, it's a squad based shooter with an actual line of command ranging from squad leader to officer in charge. Maybe it'll prove too dependent on a "best case scenario," but we'll see.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: brawndolicious on April 04, 2009, 11:49:52 PM: Quote from: Eel O'Brian on April 04, 2009, 04:24:10 PM
I'd like to go on record as saying fuck headsets and voice chat in general.

I miss text-only chat. People usually only typed in a message when they really had something to say, and you didn't have to deal with a bunch of shitheads singing/belching/soundboarding in your ear every second. Anyone who spammed the text chat would get booted posthaste. 90% of the people with mics are complete fucktards. I had many memorable voice-free games of BF1942 and COD, teams worked together just fine without it.
Voice can be a lot better or a lot worse than text chat imo. Voice chat is better when you're playing with people that you know, when you're playing an objective-based game mode, and when the party leader doesn't tolerate jack asses. It's nearly useless in public games and nearly torture in public deathmatch games.

I think that this is the type of game where a headset might be necessary to play seriously.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Jansen on April 05, 2009, 09:23:31 AM: voice chat fucking rocks. i had a blast tonight playing l4d with 3 others that had headsets.

:bow private parties & voice chat :bow2

:piss anti social nerds :piss2
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Eel O'Brian on April 05, 2009, 10:19:33 AM: explain how preferring text communication over voice is being anti-social
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: twerd on April 05, 2009, 10:32:12 AM: +1 text communication.

I only like voice chat if it's a clan war game, and I haven't done that type of gaming for a couple of years now.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 05, 2009, 01:47:06 PM: Seems like they are definitely working on something to make sure friends can easily play in the same squads. Towards the end of the interview -

[youtube=560,345]-iuaO2W4wVM[/youtube]
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 20, 2009, 02:38:02 PM: The latest GI has an article on MAG, and it sounds pretty cool. First of all, the factions are PMCs fighting over contracts, as opposed to nations fighting conventional wars. There are three PMCs, two of which are detailed in the magazine.

The typical mission structure sounds awesome (although I'm not sure how good it would be in smaller games) in that one faction is tasked with invading a dominated area, starting off at the edges of the map and unlocking more battle abilities as they reach closer into the dominated zone. Taking out radar and communications structures will give the highest ranking officer the ability to call in airstrikes and drops, so the other side has an incentive to keep the invaders from progressing closer.

I really hope they get this right.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 29, 2009, 12:47:35 PM: Zipper strikes again. Either that, or the screens are fucked, but I'm betting on something somewhere around the middle and leaning towards Zipperism. :gloomy

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3320/3485865400_4757ec032e_o.png)
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Herr Mafflard on April 29, 2009, 12:53:20 PM: Jinfash :bow2
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 29, 2009, 12:55:28 PM: Quote from: Jinfash on April 29, 2009, 12:51:26 PM
I guess I was right.

I think you were being a bit conservative. There's also dithering, and I'm not seeing any proof of high resolution texture work
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Smooth Groove on April 29, 2009, 01:05:16 PM: It looks alright for a game that's supporting 256 players. I think we all know by now that the PS3 isn't that powerful.

Just like a MMO, you have to make visual comprimises when increasing the scale.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 29, 2009, 01:11:02 PM: Sort of supports my earlier comment re: this being a poor fit for the system (or any console, really). Granted that I was then talking about the user base, but it seems as if it applies to everything about it.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 29, 2009, 01:17:50 PM: Joystiq impressions:

When you first jump into the game, you are auto-matched into squads of eight with a dedicated squad leader. Each squad is a member of a platoon with three other squads, which also has a dedicated commander. Finally, each platoon is a member of the army with a top level commander overseeing everything. So, ultimately the goal is to have two 128-member armies battling it out with commanders issuing orders, while smaller squads and platoons engage in skirmishes while working towards the final goal of the map.

While each map will have its own dedicated main objectives (see: "steal these top secret vehicles"), what really makes the commanders and squad leaders critical is the concept of FRAGOs. "FRAGO" is a real military term that stands for "Fragmentary Orders" -- these are on-the-fly orders that are issued as the battlescape dynamically changes during a fight. Sure, you need to steal those vehicles to win the round, but on your way there, you might run into a mortar that is destroying your front line -- the squad leaders can place a FRAGO on the mortar, indicating that your team should focus on blowing the mortar up before continuing onto the tanks. Besides simply making you an efficient army, MAG also rewards players who follow FRAGOs with additional experience points for fulfilling the order. You can always ignore the FRAGO, but getting twice the experience for fulfilling it makes it awfully enticing -- even if you're a lone wolf player.

Speaking of lone wolf players, the game will allow you to run off and do whatever you want and won't punish you for it. But players who stick close with their squads and platoons will find they get a bevy of bonuses, including things like faster reload times, the ability to run faster, or maybe increased accuracy. In-game, this was a fantastic way to make you want to stay with your squad, since the benefits are quite tangible (though not powerful enough to threaten the balance).

It should come as no surprise to fans of Zipper's SOCOM series to learn that the company is serious about its military games -- in fact, many of the developers at the studio came from the military, where they'd work on sims used to train soldiers. That sort of experience permeates all aspects of the game. Though set twenty years in the future, the game is still grounded in realism (if a slightly exaggerated realism -- still gotta have fun!). The guns look and feel fantastic, packing the right amount of punch and the battlefield itself feels chaotic and dangerous. Forget SOCOM: Confrontation -- this is the next-gen SOCOM, only taken to a whole new level.

Visually the game is quite striking. Perhaps not as sharp as Modern Warfare, but a gorgeous-looking game considering the scale. In particular, the lighting is fantastic, with light-scattering fog creating an absorbing ambiance that at times is similar to S.T.A.L.K.E.R (specifically while you're playing on a SVER map, with their scavenged technology and pieced together buildings). Speaking of which, depending on which faction you decide to join when you first create your account, your whole UI will change as well to match your faction's style. Resolution wise, the game will run at a native 720p and will upscale to 1080i for owners of older HD sets.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Himu on April 29, 2009, 01:20:52 PM: :lol
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 29, 2009, 01:21:50 PM: From the impressions, the game sounds hot as hell, but then their impressions of the visual quality doesn't exactly match what's been shown. Hmm. Hopefully we get some footage soon.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 29, 2009, 01:24:35 PM: And here we go

http://www.insidegamer.nl/playstation3/massiveactiongame/videos/10315
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: WrikaWrek on April 29, 2009, 02:28:56 PM: Those images are ugly as fuck.

The video is okay. Take out the 250 player bullet point from your mind and it just looks like one more MP based shooter.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 29, 2009, 02:46:05 PM: Quote from: WrikaWrek on April 29, 2009, 02:28:56 PM
Those images are ugly as fuck.

The video is okay. Take out the 250 player bullet point from your mind and it just looks like one more MP based shooter.

But then why in the hell would anyone take that out? This is essentially to most other MP shooters as big game and scenarios are to speedball.

Impressions from pretty much everyone have been mighty positive. Either those shots were stupid captures, or the game transcends its ugliness.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Jansen on April 29, 2009, 08:36:01 PM: the video looks better but it still looks like shit
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 29, 2009, 09:26:01 PM: You know, I'm really not familiar with Zipper. Are they fairly reliable? This would be an ambitious project for any studio, and I have no idea what their track record looks like.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: demi on April 29, 2009, 09:29:58 PM: Quote from: duckman2000 on April 29, 2009, 09:26:01 PM
You know, I'm really not familiar with Zipper. Are they fairly reliable? This would be an ambitious project for any studio, and I have no idea what their track record looks like.

socom
socom2
socom3
socom4
socom5
socom6
socom7
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: cool breeze on April 29, 2009, 09:57:36 PM: Text chat is better because sometimes you want to express things and not sound like a jackass to the people who live with you. Voice chat is still nice and it's good that I can do both on PC. Plus 99% of people on XBLA are distinguished mentally-challenged fellows. PC voice chat users are so much better, but again, it's PC and I have the convenience of options.

and uh, MAG is ugly. It's within range to compare last gen games or running PC games on low. Maybe they're just bad shots, I don't know, but I don't really care. I get what they're trying to do and if the graphics take a hit to match the scope, I'm fine as long as the frame rate is solid and the poor graphics don't really inhibit my enjoyment of playing.

If they pull it off, then that could be awesome. It could be the Battlefield fix I've been looking for since DICE decided to prioritize the lame console Battlefield games. At least they did Mirror's Edge ( :heartbeat)
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on April 29, 2009, 09:59:03 PM: Playable parachute drops, and the ability to pick reinforcements off mid-air :bow2
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: cool breeze on April 29, 2009, 10:17:27 PM: well yeah, console games need voice chat (unless it's HSG for PS3). I'm just saying that it was a game on PC I prefer to use text chat.

I only read up on a bit of MAG news now and the one cool thing is how they don't punish you by playing solo, but instead increase your capabilities when you work as part of a group. That's a really smart way of making sure people stay in squads without completely limiting the Rambo players. And to survive and be worthwhile the Rambo players need to be really good.

Have they talked about an unlock system like CoD/KZ2? that would suck
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Brehvolution on April 29, 2009, 11:56:20 PM: Certainly and ambitious effort. Execution still to be determined.

lol at the early naysayers. I never understood the damning of games based on early code because to them it's release code.

With a game this big though, player wise, it will be interesting to see how quick balance will shift.
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: Eel O'Brian on April 30, 2009, 12:02:10 AM: Quote from: Zero Hero on April 29, 2009, 11:56:20 PM
lol at the early naysayers. I never understood the damning of games based on early code because to them it's release code.

yeah, but they always do that, then whine that a game must be terrible when devs are hesitant to release early images or vids

it's this neverending cycle of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" for devs
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: cool breeze on May 01, 2009, 03:57:26 PM: just curious, is there going to be any single player mode to this game at all or will it be another Warhawk situation?
Title: Re: MAG
Post by: duckman2000 on May 01, 2009, 03:59:58 PM: MP only