Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I thought the netflix and the upcoming XBL thingies help.Then there is the announcement by Bungie tomorrow. I think they got the edge this year. Unlike last year....we all remember the fugly Halo 3 edition 360.
The Bungie thing shows promise... hopefully the hype won't kill it
Originally posted by Smasandian
Which is kinda of big.Nintendo didnt do anything for the keynote speech. Showed Wii Music.
Sony did the same thing also. There big thing was God Of War 3? Come on, that wont come out until at least end of 2009.
Sony showed Littlebigplanet which looks like a great game that is getting a lot of good press and response, Resistance 2 is also shipping this year and Socom (which im sure Socom was really popular back in the PS2 days im sure theyre excited for this one)...
Originally posted by xNIXSONx
Sony showed Littlebigplanet which looks like a great game that is getting a lot of good press and response, Resistance 2 is also shipping this year and Socom (which im sure Socom was really popular back in the PS2 days im sure theyre excited for this one)...
However, it's still nothing new or big.
Originally posted by Peach
However, it's still nothing new or big.
MAG: Massive Action Game
and square has a big [shocking] announcement for sony aug 2nd i believe, that will be equal to the FFXIII news but in favour of ps3.
and what does everyone think about 'Nintendo to retire hardcore games in 2009"
Originally posted by Smasandian
MAG.I'll wait and see if it actually turns out. Every step to make a massive FPS game online has failed. Look at Planetside, WW2 Online. They didnt work.
i dunno bout those games, but i do know that supposedly Huxley is a big fps shooter...dunno how that game is though
In reality, in MAG you play as a squad of 8 and I wouldnt be surprised if this 200 something battle turns out to be a 50 person battle at a time.
The maps will probably be huge and at a given time, you'll probably only have 50 people near each other. So in the end, the number sounds nice but its not going to be that many people in one part of the map.
If so, they must have some sweet net code behind it.
I'm not exicted at all by this because I just dont see it working at all. I like Battlefield 2 because they take alot of people and put it in a map where you can literally see all those people. A 200 something map, you probably wont get that. That trailer looks kinda of cool but do you really thing 200 something people will really play like that?
Originally posted by Smasandian
In reality, in MAG you play as a squad of 8 and I wouldnt be surprised if this 200 something battle turns out to be a 50 person battle at a time.The maps will probably be huge and at a given time, you'll probably only have 50 people near each other. So in the end, the number sounds nice but its not going to be that many people in one part of the map.
If so, they must have some sweet net code behind it.
I'm not exicted at all by this because I just dont see it working at all. I like Battlefield 2 because they take alot of people and put it in a map where you can literally see all those people. A 200 something map, you probably wont get that. That trailer looks kinda of cool but do you really thing 200 something people will really play like that?
k here's my take on the idea
there's 256 players, each squad has 8 players. So whatever game type you choose, your squad goes to that specific area designated open.
so if my squad takes for example, the creek area in a capture the base game versus an enemy squad. Another squad will be at the urban side of the map in a bombing game, another place, like the meadow for example (just making the area names up) two squads vs another two squads in big team battle. and so on and so forth. until every designated areas on the giant map is filled with a maximum of 256 players.
Is that idea hard to grasp? Whatever gametype we choose, squad size and how many squads teamed up. The area thats open and most suitable will be assigned and filled throughout the entire 256 player map.
that is the impression i got from MAG, and how it might work.maybe thats what they mean by scale, like in the big picture, you're enjoying your matches but your battle is part of a larger epic.
Its the people that made Socom. have faith people!
I get the idea.
But the reason why people are talking about this game and the awful title it has is how the game can support 256 people.
The gameplay is entirely squad based and its only going to be a few squads against each other, the whole idea of 256 people isnt really true.
Also, the game will probably be dependent on how well people actually play the game. It might squad based, but if Battlefield 2 history shows, only 1 game out 10 will have players who actually want to play in a squad.
Originally posted by Smasandian
I get the idea.But the reason why people are talking about this game and the awful title it has is how the game can support 256 people.
The gameplay is entirely squad based and its only going to be a few squads against each other, the whole idea of 256 people isnt really true.
Also, the game will probably be dependent on how well people actually play the game. It might squad based, but if Battlefield 2 history shows, only 1 game out 10 will have players who actually want to play in a squad.
i dunno how it will actually go. lol the awful title? i dont think they even actually had a title. just had it under developed as 'massive action game' and stuck with that. 😎
im sure also every game depends on how good you play 🙄
id like to play in a squad. preferably, if i can get a bunch of my friends to be in the same squad that would be amazing. but i guess we should just wait for details about this.
It's a horrible title. Every article, or show about it says the same thing.
Understandable, but for a game that says its 256 people and everybody is in squads, its highly dependent on it. Going from the trailer, it seems like they're will be objectives and people defending and attacking but to see that actually happening on the console crowd, it can just turn out to be one big cluster**** of people strafing each other not caring about any sort of objectives.
It might work with the PC crowd though.
Originally posted by Smasandian
It's a horrible title. Every article, or show about it says the same thing.Understandable, but for a game that says its 256 people and everybody is in squads, its highly dependent on it. Going from the trailer, it seems like they're will be objectives and people defending and attacking but to see that actually happening on the console crowd, it can just turn out to be one big cluster**** of people strafing each other not caring about any sort of objectives.
It might work with the PC crowd though.
well obviously there are clowns out there, like in COD4 itll be like team death, and one idiot on team kills cuz he has nothing better to do. And then there are some people who actually play, and help win the game, cuz some people like ranking up. Every game has people that dont care.
if MAG is good, then people will play it. Everybody bought Halo 3 despite it being a letdown. And everybody including myself plays and likes COD4, it was like #1 on XBL for quite some time. For some reason a lot of people like generic FPS that play well lol
Originally posted by xNIXSONx
well obviously there are clowns out there, like in COD4 itll be like team death, and one idiot on team kills cuz he has nothing better to do. And then there are some people who actually play, and help win the game, cuz some people like ranking up. Every game has people that dont care.if MAG is good, then people will play it. Everybody bought Halo 3 despite it being a letdown. And everybody including myself plays and likes COD4, it was like #1 on XBL for quite some time. For some reason a lot of people like generic FPS that play well lol
There's always going to be clowns when it comes to team killing but I'm talking about the game clicking.
Clicking mean that every design choice works with the right people.
For example, playing BF2 where everybody plays like a team. That's clicking.
But with this game, having that many people play, I can see that not happening.
Originally posted by Smasandian
There's always going to be clowns when it comes to team killing but I'm talking about the game clicking.Clicking mean that every design choice works with the right people.
For example, playing BF2 where everybody plays like a team. That's clicking.
But with this game, having that many people play, I can see that not happening.
we'll obvs. the only way to find out is when we get gameplay vids and develop walkthroughs or something and when the game actually comes out in mid 2009
Originally posted by Kazenji
Has better games ??like what Red steel and gingerbread man 😆 😆
and just because it costs less does'nt mean its better
I may not have a PS3 myself but theres more then that one game the PS3 you idiot.
Hell, I don't think even MGS4 makes the PS3 worth buying.
Also, name-calling will not be tolerated, thank you.
PS3 is just an expensive blu-ray player at this point. Now that FFXIII is coming to the 360 there really is no hope for the system now, I will never buy one. There are a number of solid games, but none warrant the price.
The Wii though, I've been a little disappointed in it. It seems that it suffers the same problem as the Gamecube, lack of solid third party support. All the great games for the system are from Nintendo, and it looks like there's not really anything coming out for the system. The best days look to be already behind the system.
Hopefully I'm wrong, but my Wii has been collecting dust lately.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Try Zelda: Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Paper Mario, No More Heroes, Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles... The list goes on.
Meh it all really depends on what your after
Ahh, but more than one game on the PS3 that is exclusive and worth the $600+ price tag?
.
Ummmmm but that was'nt the point how much the system, Was'nt it more what good games that system has and my point is theres more then just MGS4 on it.
Originally posted by Kazenji
Meh it all really depends on what your afterUmmmmm but that was'nt the point how much the system, Was'nt it more what good games that system has and my point is theres more then just MGS4 on it.
Yeah, but the key word there is exclusive. The vast majority of the good games on the PS3 you can also buy for a different - cheaper - system.
Originally posted by Peach
The vast majority of the good games on the PS3 you can also buy for a different - cheaper - system.
Like what ?
MGS4
Hevenly Sword
Resistance: Fall of Man
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune
Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction
Well theres some good games i don't see them on the other systems.