Although now that I think of it, could they have honestly come up with a more generic name? :)

I'll believe it when I see it. I don't even join games of Team Fortress 2 if they have more than 16 player max because with even 32 players, you tend to get lost in the action. Dying randomly is a lot more common when you've got 31 other people shooting at you, and dying randomly just isn't fun.

256? Stupid.

@ Lone Starr:

I think MAG is a placeholder name for the project

@ Marty

You get lost in the mess with more than 16 people? I'm sorry, but that is the lamest excuse I have ever heard. There is nothing like a well oiled group of 10 people who take the point with mixed classes while you have a group of 6 who play excellent D. You can steamroll a group of incompetents in about 3-4 minutes.

Large scale battles are great because the charges, feints and ambushes win the day. If these concepts are alien to you then I understand why you like low pop servers.

Okay - all Internet jabbing aside, I personally think you are just a little jealous that the 360 cannot handle this number of people because of their infrastructure setup. XBL has many many other great features about it but just because it loses in this area doesn't mean you have to always spit on other innovations. You really should push that chip off your shoulder.

Yeah Marty, that's why WoW failed.

Marty is just skeptical cause its Sony. check his comments. he is always the rain at the Sony parade lol.

Hell yea. Perfect dark gad a good number, but the 360 never really seemed to have the highest number of players to me. Ps3 wasnt that different, but it always seemed to have a bit more to me. Could be wrong though.

Slant six are working on SOCOM now.

You guys don't seem to understand that it isn't 128 vs 128. It is divided into an 8 person squad free for all. That is to say, 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8. That is 32 teams of 8 people each. Any team only has to organize eight people.

Mmmmnoooo...It's 128 v. 128. 2 teams and squads of 8 on each team. 32 teams? That's just stupid.

"The game will break up to 256 human players into eight-man squads fighting each other simultaneously in a total free-for-all."

What part of "eight-man squads" or "total free-for-all" don't you understand, Autopsy?

NO!! LIES! LIES! 32 teams! That's too many! NOOOOOOO!

And judging from the trailer, there was an army of about 100 people going up against a fortress full of enemies. So, common sense would dictate that is 1 huge army v. another huge army. Maybe Joystiq just got it wrong.

Ah, if this is the case, I concede my point. I have not actually seen any footage or trailers of the game. I was just going by the wording of the article.

It is split down to squads of 8, just like r2....probably with objectives.

What "people"?
The people are all off wasting time trying to lose weight on Wii Fit.

The rest of us need something new when we get bored of COD4. This'll do nicely.

Nah, this is the sort of game where it's just got too ambitious. You may get one or two good games out of this in a lifetime. Where the planets align and people do what the fuck they're supposed to do and the game goes according to plan.

But that just won't happen 9/10 times. Take EVE. EVE tried the same scale with their combat system and that just involves floating in space clicking on someone and it's nigh on impossible to organise the supposed epic battles in that in a pure (ten times more organised) RPG setting.

It's time for a big reality suppository, which is a shame, because in a perfect world. This would be the greatest game ever.

It's called game design. Let's get hands on before we start dismissing what will or will not work.

"The people are all off wasting time trying to lose weight on Wii Fit."

Even if we were to sit in front of screens and turn into fat shits, I can't imagine being able to get a full game of 256 people, I struggle to get games of more than 4 on GTA4 sometimes.

Well others may be in denial but I agree with you 100%. When I heard 256 and then broken into squads, all I could think is: clusterf@#K.

Battlefield 2 was a clusterf@#k usually and it had squads and a team commander for only 64 people. It looks to me like this is going to be the same setup except automatically putting people into squads and no guarantee of a commander.

It would be awesome if you could get two dedicated clans with disciplined members fighting each other, otherwise it will be way to chaotic with PUGS.

There is no question that there are a lot of hurdles that Zipper have to overcome to make this kind of game work. How to have 256 players and yet make each player feel empowered? How to have a game with 256 players period? Just because these are hard questions to answer doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt it.

What's the word for attempting something people don't think is possible? Oh yeah, INNOVATION.

This news blog ain't big enough fer the two of us...

but its not 1 person organising the many there will be a leader heading a squad of 8 people so long as each squad is doing something useful we can accomplish great thing! how do u think the army do it most of them dont know other squads but becuase they know how 2 help in battle it doesnt matter.

I would recommend you check out Planetside (also by Sony) - www.planetside.com

Kid, you need to remember one thing.No matter what bullshit they will ever feed you, NO GAME IN THIS CONSOLE GENERATION WILL EVER LOOK BETTER THAN CRYSIS.

Period.It lags on $5000 PC's for a reason.

Hmm...doesn't lag on my $1000 system.

Bullshit autopsy.

No, not bullshit. At 1240x786 (i think thats the resolution..or close to it) and everything on high, fullscreened, antialiasing max, I get an average of 50 fps.

AUTOPSY IS A TERMINATOR FROM THE FUTURE DONT LET IT REACH THAT SHOTGUN SAVE JOHN CONNOR AAAAAGH

sucks for you, i have 0 problems with that.

Love you.

EXACTLY.

Lag, matchmaking, lobbies and quitters are just a few of the challenges the devs and later, the gamers will have to deal with.

Can you imagine the wait time to fill a 256 player lobby? "Quick Match" just turned into a 5 minute process.

And hopefully the game doesn't restart or hickup every time a player quits. You'd never finish a game.


I don't see MAG delivering. I mean, the whole PREMISE of the game is the amount of players it allows. "WOW, MAG IS GONNA BE AWESOME!" Ever heard of an MMO? Yeah. They allow a lot more than 256 players, but sheer numbers doesn't always equate to superior gameplay.

It probably wont be that long of a wait, but i doubt we will see more than 20 servers, but all will be packed.

I bet you that you cannot make a custom game that size, that zipper/psn will be in control of the big ones. It wouldn't be surprised if they schedule them at certain times such as one starts ever 25 minutes or something.

I've seen MMO battles with about 200 people and this was with two organised clans fighting, and even then it just turns into a huge free for all except you know the people so know who not to attack.

Also seen a huge free for all with about 150 people and it's pure chaos with people running and using every sly tactic in the book to not die. No fun.