It is my sincere hope that if I run enough of these "Game X is only possible on PS3" stories, gamers will get so annoyed that they will eventually rise up and murder those who keep saying "Game X is only possible on PS3." Until that time, someone has claimed that Massive Action Game is only possible on PS3!
"MAG is a 256 online-player game which is spectacular," states Sony's ever-ambitious John Koller. "If you look at that competitively, it’s something that’s only possible on PS3. The processor speed, the ability of PS3 to showcase 256 players at any given time, and their actions.
"It’s basically like an iteration of SOCOM, where you’re maybe commanding the SEALs, and someone else has the Rangers, and the Green Berets, and so on."
Massive Action Game has barely been seen or heard from since it was announced at E3 last year. The game is slated for a 2009 release but the only traces of its existence seem to be the E3 trailer and comments from PS3 fans claiming that this game they've never seen is going to rock.
It may very well be a good game, but I won't buy that until I see more than promises. 256 players could be a total mess, especially on a home console. Let's see if it works before we hype that number to the moon. Oh, and I will always call it Massive Action Game. That name is too silly to be shortened to MAG.
Contest:
9:00 AM on 04.03.2009
| 
Though if they handle it like Resistance 2s 64 player matches, it should certainly be interesting.
Suppose it does work, with that many players screaming and abusing each other they may as well call it Multiple Annoying Gits.
Otherwise, I can imagine a lot of epic games being ruined by "Host has left game", or "Let's all go to the lobby, and have ourselves a treat! (and wait several minutes)"
"Multiple Annoying Gits"? Didn't you hear? It's not out on 360...
Sounds like it could be a horrible mess, if I'm honest.
Wouldn't the 360 version be Many Asshole's Gamerscore?
nevermind
I even have a buddy who plays quality 80's tunes through his headset for us between SOCOM rounds.
Think there are just less welfare parent, badly brough up kids on PSN, far more young professionals. The bonus of higher price, that and the better, more reliable, future proof hardware.
I think if MAG is anything like SOCOM it's going to be an intstant win in my book. I'm hoping for a highly objective based game, multiple objectives for each squad, with an overall battle plan.
Fingers crossed this will be as awesome as i hope it will.
mind you, I never got to try Resistance 2's 64 player teams, that sounded well implemented, and It could certainly keep the game exciting to run into a group of 40 players and it's just you and three or four friends.
@Sexualchocolate: Stop sucking Sony's dick in public. Nobody wants to see that. Keep that kind of thing private.
Predijuced, much?
And after seeing the Hoo-hah over the slightly less than perfect scores for Killzone 2, I find that comment laughable, lamentable, and downright daft.
OR, maybe game bloggers will finally come to the realization that the PS3 is capable of doing things that the 360 simply isn't. you people rail on the PS3's market performance every chance you get, yet you expect them NOT to hype PS3 games? now, MAG isn't really on my radar at the moment and i have no idea whether or not this "only possible on PS3" claim is true. But unless you're privy to some information that the rest of the world isn't, neither do you Jim. but hey, it's another chance to poke fun at the PS3 and damned if you 'journalists' aren't going to take advantage of it.
hey, i just thought of something my PS3 can do that my 360 can't: not brick itself.
and MGS4.
My girlfriends sister just moved back and she went to video game design school in Toronto. She was talking about Red Faction 3 and how they had to "tone it down" so it was stable on the 360 as there was too many things to calculate/going on with the building..etc which worked fine on the PS3 but NOT the 360.
I see this being true when it comes down to the massive amount of number crunching needed (folding @ home is an example)
I find you are the biggest sony cock sucker on this site. How many times have you whacked off on your controller? Seriously the statements you make are just plain idiotic. To classify people as being better for owning a PS3 just cause it cost more is stupid.
Sony fanboys are masturbating and being dicks.
Microsoft fanboys are trolling and being dicks.
PC elitists are saying their machine has been doing this for years and slowly rubbing themselves whilst being dicks.
But why on gods green earth would you want to listen to 100+ teammates screaming in your ear over VoIP while in a match , alongside barking orders and racist drivel at each other?
At this rate, Microsoft will throw a 256 player shooter together for the 360 and release it before MAG just for the sake of doing it.
Also about the Xbox players comment, I am in a games design course and 10 out of 15 have Xboxs, 5 including me have PS3's, and all I hear is them arguing about gamerscore and boosting, whereas all PS3 people I know don't complain. Btw I just signed up FINALLY after a month of reading the news on the site.
and? all of the ps3 owners who I'm friends with do nothing but bash the xbox constantly and praise how amazing sony is, while all my xbox owning friends honestly don't care about the console war or their gamerscore. Just because your experience and my experience are totally opposite doenst mean any of us has the right to make broad statements about the people who own a system.
Bold text Bold text
Italic text Italic text
http://www.yahoo.com/ http://www.yahoo.com
Link to a website Link to a website
[img]
http://pcgamefiles.net/files/Screenshots/JOScreen1.jpg[/img]
Yeah fair enough, just saying that all the xbox owners I know do what I said. I know a few PSN users who bash xbox yes :) Personally I've met a lot mroe PS3 bashers than vice versa.
@ John Johnson
I was looking into that and I heard it was both, switchable like Halo. I think the default is 3rd person though, and you can change to 1st, maybe though, not 100% on that fact.
The way this game seems to be progressing, it's going to be smaller battles that seem to interact with each other. Anybody who says it will be great already is rather silly. Large multiplayer games can suck gigantic balls easy.
Oh and @Zippyduda, I have mostly PS3 gamer friends, and they mostly talk about trophies and boosting them.
Hell yes it was, I played it for maybe 3 hours, and then went to hell with this shit, and returned it. For one, anything ported to the PS3 sucks. It just does, plain and simple. Second, the PS3 is not the end all be all of consoles, as Sony fanboys seem to think. Yes, it's a decent console, with some great tech, but it's not the best ever. Oh, and to the people who said that MGS4 could never be done on the 360, you're wrong. While I have played the hell out of MGS4, the game itself, *not the 9 hours of cutscenes* would most likely do better on the 360, and look better.
@ Chronic Logic
Yeah I kind of agree as it's Sony Server, not on your PS3. But I'm glad we get another exclusive :)I've been meaning to get Joint Operations for a long time, is it worth it, PM me.
You can't even get 3 random people to work together most of the time in other online games. Good luck getting multiple 8 man squads to communicate and cooperate.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out, that's for sure.
At least they already released Socom: 256 Player Server Test to make sure they can work out the server issues.
I've worked on the 360, wii, xbox, ps2, PSP, PC. I'll tell you right now, the PS3 excels at nothing over 360's or PS3's. In fact, it basically takes an entire core (of the three available) to even run the PS3's OS (the 'XMB.')
However, as has been mentioned over and over, the PC has been doing this stuff for years and years, so I'm not sure where the "PS3 is the only thing that can do this!" came from. Maybe they mean over other consoles (which is still wrong.)
Hell, Tribes had 128 players what, twelve years ago? And what exactly does the PS3 have in it that somehow makes it more capable of massive multiplayer gaming? The awful sony servers?
Fanboys get their panties in a bunch pretty quick still.
In fact, the PS2 ran Final Fantasy XI in...2002?
and seeing as how i'm commenting, let me add to that mess! my take:
the cell processor probably does make a difference in handling more players than the 360 processor. If the 360 were capable of getting the same numbers as the PS3, it would probably look better on that system because it has more RAM. however the trouble would be getting that number up there. unlike MMORPGs, FPS's are a lot more intensive in every way on servers and systems. It's not something passive where exact positioning and lag doesn't make much of a difference, but something where every little thing affects everything else and is required to be completely precise to work. what everquest did in the 90s doesn't compare in any real way (outside of the numbers of people) to something like what MAG is trying to do.
I'm guessing that with this game it'll be similar to warhawk, where one person can use their PS3 as a server in addition to a game console for everybody else playing, except like there'll be one server for every 8 people or something like that, and the server will crunch data for the 7 people closest to whoever has that server (in the game i mean) so that the people around you always look better than those that are far away. or maybe they'll do it by physical location in the real world so that it'll run faster. whatever the case, doing it on a console is really different from a PC where online has always been way ahead of anything in a living room.
my $0.02