You are hereForums / MAG / MAG General Discussion / Battlefield Guys Take Dig At MAG
Battlefield Guys Take Dig At MAG
Give credit where credit is due. The Battlefield series was a pioneer in large online FPS multiplayer battles. It's been around since 2002 with Battlefield 1942 and has made some kick-ass games since.
But there's one thing they never did: create a game that supported 256-player battles. It's a mind-boggling task when you consider the technological and organizational infrastructure that are needed to allow that to happen.
But I don't think a Battlefield: Bad Company 2 producer was thinking about Zipper's accomplishments when asked about MAG by videogamer.com. He was thinking this is a pissing contest, and Battlefield is losing. That's my best explanation for why he takes so many swipes at the game.
Q: The game I wanted to ask you about is MAG. The unique feature for them is these huge 256 player battles. Do you think that the Battlefield games would work on that scale?
PB: I would rephrase the question and ask "is more numbers fun?" We ask ourselves how many players is fun? In Battlefield 2 we supported 64 players but the most popular game mode was 32 players because with 64 players it created chaos and you couldn't get any structure on the battlefield. Stuff is happening everywhere and it just feels chaotic. With 32 players you can get some structure and everyone can compete in a better way.
And he goes on and on and on.
If you base a game on a number, that this game is fun just because the number is high, I think you're going down the wrong path. I'm not pointing at any specific games, but if you're trying to sell a product based on a number then I think you're forgetting what is important with a game, and that is "how well does it play?". "How balanced is the game?" You can take the same feature list that we have and place it in a really crappy game because the feature list only tells you what is under the hood but it doesn't tell you how it drives. And that of course is the hardest emotion to convey; how do you sell that emotion? How do you sell quality? What is quality? Well, it just feels right. Well, it's two thousand components working in correlation to get it to feel right and you can't really point a single one of them out, and if you have to, you have to pick something like destruction or the number of vehicles or weapons. This is why we want people to get hands on with it; this is why we have the beta and the demo, so they can see what it feels like to play instead of trying to whack a number in someone's face and saying "we have more".
Here's my problem with these criticisms. The dude is right in that a game shouldn't be made just because it supports very large battles. But the producer takes an illogical leap and argues as if any game that supports such large battles will be bad.
There's no one way to make an online FPS and MAG is bringing something new to the table. Don't be a hater.
Yeah, it sounded like he knew very little about the game. Maybe that's the case, which is kind of weird. Because if they're in that industry, they've got to be curious about the new title.
Or maybe he did know more about the game but just conveniently forgot some stuff for the sake of his argument.
That was massively disrespectful and inappropriate. He should be trying explain to people why his game is good not bash MAG. I am a Battlefield fan and I understand that Battlefield was really the first of it's kind. But at the same time, I understand that MAG brings new things to the table. And besides, I'm sure that Zipper didn't set out to make a game that was better than Battlefield. If any thing, they were giving the Battlefield developers there respect by making a game like this.
The guy is right, but ONLY to a certain degree. When we all first heard about MAG, you can't deny that we all went "Holy ****, it's a game with 256 players online at one time!!!" BUT, MAG has so much more. Yes, that was the number that hooked people into the game and kept them waiting on every dev diary and trailer coming out about it, but as we heard more, it expanded. We heard tell of the customizations and the skill tree, the different game types, the 3 factions, and the Chain of Command feature. Yes, the number is still out there, but it's not as much what people are focusing on. They hear it, and they go "Oh, I guess that's cool," and then they get word of the game actually having an organized way of conducting itself.
So this guy would have been right... if we were back when the first MAG trailer came out.
Battlefield is awesome.
And yeah phantom, he seems quite ignorant of the fact that we had 2 separate betas.
That's my two cents.
__________________
I wasn't drawn in by 256 players. That was actually a turn off because be cause I though it would be crazy. I was drawn in by the 3 factions and that every win made a difference to wether you were winning or not. I have been dreaming of MAG since I was a child
I like how he says something along the lines of......
"its a pissing contest and my game is losing....
RAGE RAGE RAGE"
WTF, a MAG hater, burn the heretric!!
The fact that 256 players at a time, without team play/chain of command, would be a major cluster fuck. And it is, you'll know this if you played a game where people were playing a Modern Warfare style...
With that said, I think players of MAG have gotten it, and team play is prevailing. I would like nothing more than battlefield going the MAG way, maybe not 256 at a time, but 128, or even 64 at a time.... I was surprised that he said 64 was chaotic... It's not that bad. If it's chaotic, people aren't playing as a team. It's that simple.... Well.... as far as Im' concerned... lol.
People are right, MAG is bringing something completely new and impressive to the table. And frankly, FINALLY.
Well I understand the chaotic part the first few times, but if you get a squad leader who knows how to play then after that, its quite easy. And 64 battles are quite good, for example it ends up being almost 16 vs 16 until A and B are taken then the 32 vs 32 is just fun.
(like for example on my first try I just went around and blew points up that were worthless to the cause) (second time the leader used objective points and I got a nice number of kills)
I don't know about any of you but I'm drawn to all forms of chaos as a gamer. MAG is gonna prove that the more the merrier cliche applies to online gaming. Domination is hands down the most realistic warlike experience you could have in any game out there. They can say all they want and sit back and look at all the record sales MAG gets.
__________________
And he implied that MAG didn't have a beta for people to get hands on and try with the following comment(Notice the italicized area):
"Well, it's two thousand components working in correlation to get it to feel right and you can't really point a single one of them out, and if you have to, you have to pick something like destruction or the number of vehicles or weapons. This is why we want people to get hands on with it; this is why we have the beta and the demo, so they can see what it feels like to play instead of trying to whack a number in someone's face and saying "we have more".
I am surprised he went there without getting his facts straight ahead of time.