By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Time for people to eat some crow regarding MAG?

I recall posts, back at E3, that there was NO WAY, that MAG did 256 people at the same time on the battlefield.  My understanding is that it does.  So, if this is true, is it time some people eat crow regarding what they said about MAG?



Around the Network

in less you can point those ppl out...no...I hate these kinds of threads...



What? It always was 256 ppl on the battlefield. That is Mag's main selling point. I never seen anyone express any doubt about it.



Xxain said:
in less you can point those ppl out...no...I hate these kinds of threads...

Maybe I could of rephrased the subject, and reworded the post.  However, this thread is a chance for people to be able to admit that MAG actually does what it originally claimed, and for people to admit they were wrong about it.

I am hardly what you would consider a Playstation fanboy in posting this. 



Someone actually said that ?
It was the main feature of the game, so why would anyone doubt that ?



Around the Network
Slimebeast said:
What? It always was 256 ppl on the battlefield. That is Mag's main selling point. I never seen anyone express any doubt about it.

When MAG first appeared at E3, there were numerous posts saying that it would only be like 16x16 and the rest was just fake.  In other words, there was question over whether there would be up to 256.  People speculated that a single battlefield would consist of a squad battling another squad, and they all wouldn't be on the same battlefield.  The battlefield would be seen as virtual.

In the MAG thread on here, someone else was asking this:

@CGI, is it true that they use invisible walls, and that most of the time it isn't actually 128v128 and is just smaller squad battles?  Thats just some of the stuff I heard and I want to know what the reality is.  Is it really 128v128, or is it basically a giant map that is broken down into much smaller map sections via invisible walls and focuses on squad vs. squad combat?

 

I also had questions when I saw what was being said.  There were people back then that said NO WAY it couldn't exist unless it was broken down into smaller battles.



richardhutnik said:
Xxain said:
in less you can point those ppl out...no...I hate these kinds of threads...

Maybe I could of rephrased the subject, and reworded the post.  However, this thread is a chance for people to be able to admit that MAG actually does what it originally claimed, and for people to admit they were wrong about it.

I am hardly what you would consider a Playstation fanboy in posting this. 


Which I kind of agree with..but unless you find those ppl..everybody just gonna say something similar to Slimebeast even when there the one of the ppl who said it.

Barozi said:
Someone actually said that ?
It was the main feature of the game, so why would anyone doubt that ?

Similar to people having questions about GMail when it was first announced or other things.  People thought Sony was playing cute with the wording, because they didn't see it actually being doable.  After this, then the graphics regarding MAG were ripped into, and people were picking at nits regarding the game.  They thought it didn't mean actually 256 in the same area fighting, but just some map where you didn't see others playing, and couldn't.  One was the "invisible barriers".



I remember many people saying: "Massive Action Game is a stupid name, there is NO WAY it launches with that title." Time for some crow.



kowenicki said:

You are talking about E3 2008 presumably?

I don't recall anyone saying that.... I do recall people saying that the movies shown at that E3 could not be gameplay... and they were right.

When it was first announced, which is like E3 2008.  I recall reading the comments about how people questioned it was possible, and that it was akin to "smoke and mirrors" Sony would be using with MAG to make it work.  It wouldn't be as they said was some of the talk.  Even in the other thread on here, someone was asking if it was possible.