MAG - PS3 (ingame screen)

[Korgoth]

This was posted on the official ps blog, said to be from an internal play test, the image is confirmed in game (on the blog) and said that only alteration has been a cropping to center on the action in the shot. I gotta admit, touting 256 player online combat, the graphics look way better than I thought they would, and of course, this is beta.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/

 

[ailevation]

I gotta call bs on that one, i bet you there'll be major cutdowns from now and the 2009 mark which is waaaaay too soon. I wanna read about their methods

 

[Korgoth]

I gotta call bs on that one, i bet you there'll be major cutdowns from now and the 2009 mark which is waaaaay too soon. I wanna read about their methods

You gotta call BS on what? The 256 player thing, or the ingame screen? The blog says it is ingame, and of course being a beta screen shot, a lot could change, and rightly so... I however, SERIOUSLY doubt they will double back and lower the 256 player limit, that will be virtual suicide on the part of zipper and sony, the technology is/was already in place and running or they wouldn't have made that its selling point.

 

[Loke]

Looks better than I imagined.

 

[ailevation]

You gotta call BS on what? The 256 player thing, or the ingame screen? The blog says it is ingame, and of course being a beta screen shot, a lot could change, and rightly so... I however, SERIOUSLY doubt they will double back and lower the 256 player limit, that will be virtual suicide on the part of zipper and sony, the technology is/was already in place and running or they wouldn't have made that its selling point.

Yeah, the 256-player thing. One part of me is saying that too as that's probably what they want to stand-out the most, 256 players in a battle is awesome... but, just how would the game support it? It's hard for me to imagine that the PS3 could handle all that, in it's early stages... the game must be very optimized at this point even in beta. Because all that stuff happening all at once is mayhem!

 

[Korgoth]

I do agree ailevation, I heard 256 players and said.... oh god, planetside. I'm really anxious to see if they can really pull it off, because given a proper cover system (which if I recall is part of the plan), truly utilizing the squad system and huge 256 player battles would be amazing to play (if you didn't lag out)... I hope they can do it, but I'm not reserving my copy just yet lol

 

[AmishSlayer]

Tribes 2 supported 256 players and it didn't need a beast of a machine to handle it. I don't doubt that they'll be able to pull it off with the PS3. I just think there will be such a lack of teamwork and tards like in BF2 that it will hardly be worth playing with that # of players.

I'm gonna go OT a bit here, but why does almost everybody think that more players = better? People rag on games like Gears of War for only being 4v4, but many more players than that and the tactical teamwork aspect of the game completely breaks down. The more players you have, the more people are going to just join up and play for their own purposes and ignore the team and its goals.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

I'm going to meet the lead designer from Zipper Interactive today. I'm going to ask him about this, because it looks awesome.

 

[Dalamari]

I'll wait for a proper gameplay vid (and when it's a bit closer to release) but so far, this game sounds awesome

 

[Malfunction]

I'm gonna go OT a bit here, but why does almost everybody think that more players = better?

Most people like to simulate big, huge battles. It feels epic being involved in such a huge fight. Back when Planetside was fun to play, defending ONE base for multiple hours was epic and really fun, even just playing by myself without a squad or outfit (clan/team). Also, if you were working with a large team it could get really interesting, especially going up against other outfits on other empires, knowing that every enemy you encounter is going to be highly skilled. Good times.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

I'm gonna go OT a bit here, but why does almost everybody think that more players = better?

Not necesarily, but it does give more options for offence=defence capabilities

 

[Loke]

I'm going to meet the lead designer from Zipper Interactive today. I'm going to ask him about this, because it looks awesome.

Awesome. Be sure to post anything here if he say something interesting. Thanks!

 

[AmishSlayer]

Most people like to simulate big, huge battles. It feels epic being involved in such a huge fight. Back when Planetside was fun to play, defending ONE base for multiple hours was epic and really fun, even just playing by myself without a squad or outfit (clan/team). Also, if you were working with a large team it could get really interesting, especially going up against other outfits on other empires, knowing that every enemy you encounter is going to be highly skilled. Good times.

True, it can feel epic. However, the bigger the battles, the less organized things become - and the less organization there is, the easier it is for a small team of organized individuals to completely win the game with almost no help from the rest of the team.

In BF2 for example, a coordinated squad could tear through and win an entire map when faced with an unorganized team (which happened 99% of the time unless you were on a good PRM server).

Teamwork is a huge factor in online fps games to me, so in my opinion the smaller the better. I liked old Halo 1 4v4 matches (the most epic and even battles are from my old Halo 1 days with friends), Gears of War 4v4 matches and I know I'm going to like the L4D 4v4 matches.

While it may feel cool to be part of a large battle, it can really suck because all the fun classes/vehicles are being taken, you have more idiots just running off by themselves, ignoring the most important aspects of the game or more of them are being selfish, forcing you to TK them if you want a vehicle, etc.

 

[French Ninja]

256?

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Gargantou]

256?

I'll believe it when I see it.

Quoted for truth and emphasis.
Let's face it, Sony loves hyping and lying just as much as Microsoft.

 

[Blackthorn]

I doubt they're gonna change the 256 players, since it's pretty much the only selling point of this game since there's no talk of a single player campaign, and the name of the game itself relies upon this feature. I probably won't bother with this anyway since 256 players + Dual Analogue? Eeeewwww.

 

[Kyorisu]

256?

I'll believe it when I see it.

You won't see it. If the idea is massive battles you won't find everyone hanging around one location. The only issue is they'd either need a dedicated server or distributed server set-up for this to work.

 

[Darkedge34]

I think this game is going to be like Warhawk, just more realistic.

 

[AiM]

I think this game is going to be like Warhawk, just more realistic.

Funny you bring up warhawk, as this is exactly what would kill warhawk if it takes off.