I play online games a lot. Eventually, games that require cooperative play (like the Enemy Territory games) are ruined by players who either don't know what they are doing or choose to go their own path.
A few rotten apples can ruin a match, even in 8 v 8 play. I can't imagine 256 players in a match all do "what they are supposed to do".
I think they might be overstating the strategy involved with a game like this. When you group random people together, strategy does not work. I think they'd be smart enough to work around this by making sure team strategy does not play an extremely key role. However, tactics on a individual level and reflexes will probably be the main skills necessary to be successful.
"I think they might be overstating the strategy involved with a game like this. When you group random people together, strategy does not work. I think they'd be smart enough to work around this by making sure team strategy does not play an extremely key role. However, tactics on a individual level and reflexes will probably be the main skills necessary to be successful."
I see what you are saying. But I just read a preview, and there is a fair amount of cooperation required. Each squad has a squad leader (who issues commands/objectives to his team) who reports to a higher up commander. For that to work, wouldn't everyone have to be on the same page?
Same system as Battlefield 2 that. Idiots can be idiots either way, you'll have to setup your own matches for actual strategy to be involved, but then how can you even find 250 people willing at the same time? It's probably going to be harder to get a good match going than usual.
It worked in PlanetSide. Of course there everyone had a keyboard and the people in command could coordinate stuff.
But then you could get a lot of stuff done by just being a platoon (32 people). I was part of an Outfit (think of a big clan) and we routinely got 32 people together and could get a lot of stuff down by following orders.
I can't see people in squads listening to the orders of some other "commander" player. I watched the developer video over at Gametrailers and I have a hard time believing many people will actually work to achieve the orders given from above knowing they come from some other online player. And that doesn't even include the griefers.
I can only really speak from my Planetside experience, but in that game you were rewarded most for sticking with the main attack force and splinter groups that fought separately were actually looked upon favorably as they didn't stand to gain much personally, though they bettered the whole.
Yes, if they try to build too much real world military organization and tactics in it won't work. It take months, if not years, of training to turn a person into a soldier who follows commands faithfully. You are not going to get that from spoiled teenagers sitting in their basement munching chips and drinking a Coke. More than likely it will devolve into your standard chaotic vortex of running firefights in a central area. It's sad but true.
the idea of mag sounds awesome but you would have to have platoons of people in order to actually win , Example: platoon A to flank one area in order for another platoon flank them form the other side then you have another platoon come in from the side that is most vonable, then you can move your tanks in from the back and hopefully do a pinsermove to kill them all. but all we have seen from this game is screen shots and a peer rendered video of it. but if its all not coordinated it would probably lose and probably be a purity insane match128 on both sides or just a frecan war zone were you have people trying to push forward but keep on getting sniped, then out of no were like 5 tanks just shoot the building that there in and watch it start to fall while your troops push forward that would be frecan awesome. this just makes me want to play bad company 2 way more and want to see more aboisut this game
Joystiq claim it has the best like "ordering" system they've ever seen in a video game. You're also rewarded for sticking close to your squad and following the commands of your leader; so in that sense there is certainly incentive to not go off and be a dick.
Of course, it's naive to think that won't happen.
However, I don't think Zipper would make this game if they didn't believe it would work. When they thought up the concept, I'm sure the whole team were like "won't that be a clusterfuck?" -- you forum posters make me laugh sometimes; it's as though you think that only YOU can notice the problems.
MAG is essentially 8 vs 8, however, the destiny of your team relies on other squads -- of whom you probably will never encounter in the battle.
Let it come out first. The main problem with the game that they have to plan it around though is that no one is going to work as a team with this many players. It just doesn't work. They have to find away for absolute chaos to be fun.
How ironic that it describes your own behavior. :)
What "valid point" can be made based on one small video and a few screenshots of a game in alfa stage whose gameplay isn't even detailed?
This is another typical case of butt hurting. As usual another awesome game for the PS3 and everyone else wishes it to fail because they can't have it!
Probably best said, this is Sony trying to push forward the idea that their online services is just as good as, if not, better than Microsoft's Xbox Live. That is the only sane purpose I can figure out on why they are making this game.
Or they want to push forward more headsets to PS3 users.
Regardless what reasons I pull out of my ass, I am sure this a game designed for people into the whole clan thing.
.Or they want to push forward more headsets to PS3 users.
If this game doesn't come with a packed in headset, someone at Sony needs to get kicked in the ass. Like SOCOM, an optional retail version with a headset is sorely needed with this game, and it shouldn't cost any more than $5 over the regular version.
Log in to comment