Sony E3 Conference: Done & Dusted

[Rayn]

The way it works is, you move up in rank, which effects your characters role. In other words, the best players - who know what they're doing and play it seriously all the time, they're the commanders in charge. They direct the overall flow of the battle, perhaps even leading a maximum of 128 players (divided into squads) on their side of the battle. Then it gets broken down into generals, lieutenants, etc, decreasing in rank and experience as they go down. So the newbies will be limited to being footsoldiers at first, and if they can show they've got skills - by killing people and not getting killed - they'll move up in rank so that they can then lead their group of eight, and then the big masses that you see in the trailer.

It's proper battle stuff, and it's a flagship title which is clearly gonna get a lot of money and time thrown at it now that it's been announced as the big E3 title.

Dude, get a grip!

[macosx]

dream on fanboy

[decider]

Best thing to come from this year's E3. Not the game, obviously.

?

[Fugitive]

The best thing was InFamous. Crackdown + force powers = ALL OVER MY FACE PLZ.

Isn't it just Prototype with a different superpower subset?

Not that that's a bad thing as such, but I'll bet the developers of Infamous smacked their foreheads and let out a world-weary "For fuck's sake!" when the first Prototype trailers were released.

[Gorf King]

The way it works is, you move up in rank, which effects your characters role. In other words, the best players - who know what they're doing and play it seriously all the time, they're the commanders in charge. They direct the overall flow of the battle, perhaps even leading a maximum of 128 players (divided into squads) on their side of the battle. Then it gets broken down into generals, lieutenants, etc, decreasing in rank and experience as they go down. So the newbies will be limited to being footsoldiers at first, and if they can show they've got skills - by killing people and not getting killed - they'll move up in rank so that they can then lead their group of eight, and then the big masses that you see in the trailer.

It's proper battle stuff, and it's a flagship title which is clearly gonna get a lot of money and time thrown at it now that it's been announced as the big E3 title.

That's not 'proper battles' at all, though. You don't move up the ranks by 'killing people and not being killed'. Leadership's not about how twitchy you are or your personal kill/death ratio, and being a good soldier's not about trying to up your personal rankings.

Of course, since all we've seen is FMV there's no way of telling how good it will be; but your imaginary description just makes it sound like a simple FPS shoehorned wrongly into a bigger, potentially laggier, arena.

[a big boy]

The way it works is, you move up in rank, which effects your characters role. In other words, the best players - who know what they're doing and play it seriously all the time, they're the commanders in charge. They direct the overall flow of the battle, perhaps even leading a maximum of 128 players (divided into squads) on their side of the battle. Then it gets broken down into generals, lieutenants, etc, decreasing in rank and experience as they go down. So the newbies will be limited to being footsoldiers at first, and if they can show they've got skills - by killing people and not getting killed - they'll move up in rank so that they can then lead their group of eight, and then the big masses that you see in the trailer.

It's proper battle stuff, and it's a flagship title which is clearly gonna get a lot of money and time thrown at it now that it's been announced as the big E3 title.

My God. Imagine actually being a commander in this game. If they could get some sort of ranking system going with the best commanders in the world facing each other with their own loyal armies and shit it might actually be so awesome I won't even be able to find the time to play Fat Princess.

[Cthulhu Steev]

?

[ibk11]

To be fair to Sony, they did show plenty of games.

Nothing too mind-blowing, but the news of an episodic Ratchet and Clank game is quite welcome. Infamous looks great (Crackdown + force powers) and MAG sounds very interesting, even if it is by the SOCOM guys.

[Isaac]

To be fair to Sony, they did show plenty of games.

Nothing too mind-blowing, but the news of an episodic Ratchet and Clank game is quite welcome. Infamous looks great (Crackdown + force powers) and MAG sounds very interesting, even if it is by the SOCOM guys.

Pre-order cancelled.

[therearerules]

The Team Fortress 2 commentary says some interesting stuff about commanders. Namely that if you assign comandership to somebody then you also need a way to make sure that if they have a shit team they still enjoy the experience, and if a team has a shit commander they still enjoy the experience. In the end they couldn't do it so it is as it is now: the team talks and if a leader naturally arises (because they've got a plan or just talk a lot) then so be it.

How do battles, team speak and the like, work in Battlefield 2142 and games?

[Smitty]

I feel like i've witnessed a truly significant event here tonight.

Let's watch the ripples spread...

[Bocuma]

I feel like i've witnessed a truly significant event here tonight.

Let's watch the ripples spread...

The night when Sony finally came away looking good? I never thought I'd see the day.

[Smitty]

The night when Sony finally came away looking good? I never thought I'd see the day.

Dude, where did you get your acid from?

[Isaac]

Dude, where did you get your acid from?

Not you because you didn't save any!

[Smitty]

Not you because you didn't save any!

I accidentally took the rest!

WHOOPS

Now I know how many Pickfords can dance on the head of a pin.

[Roboplegic Wrongcock]

The night when Sony finally came away looking good? I never thought I'd see the day.

Amazing.

[layten]

PS3 is so easy to programme these days (year two) that they have to tell people that it is so easy. Why. At E3??

Then go and watch Carmacs interview on Kotaku.

I like how he just stops short of saying what a pain in the ass the machine is.

[Bocuma]

Dude, where did you get your acid from?

I don't see how they were worse than Microsoft. It was a really, really boring conference, but they showed a strong selection of games with a few interesting looking new ones to boot, and they didn't have the cringeworthy attempts at wooing the casuals with the sort of thing that Sony had already done last generation.

[Smitty]

I don't see how they were worse than Microsoft. It was a really, really boring conference, but they showed a strong selection of games with a few interesting looking new ones to boot, and they didn't have the cringeworthy attempts at wooing the casuals with the sort of thing that Sony had already done last generation.

Okey dokey then.

[therearerules]

If after the LBP graphs they would have gone into some of the games on the highlight reel at the end, severely cut down the time spent on the PS2 and not given us a walkthrough to downloading movies, they would have won. They could easily have eeked more out of the Agency, Little Big Planet and Infamous (all exclusives yes?). And told us about the PSN games instead of having a highlight reel. That which was skipped past briefly needed expanding, and that which was explained fully needed condensing.

[Bocuma]

Okey dokey then.

What did you think was so bad about what Sony did? I mean, it really wasn't great, but they didn't really go anything wrong as such. The worst thing they did was that horrific section with the developers.

[mr_woo]

You fuckers leave the PS2 alone, it's got Yakuza 2 coming out this year which is more interesting than a lot of the pish being shown today

[barkbat]

Hi Guys

I missed the conference, but the sarcasm vapours are so strong I literally cannot tell how shit this conference was. I've read a few pages, mainly about MAG and neogaf, and am sadly none the wiser as to just how shit it was.

Was it microsoft shit, nintendo shit, or shit of a maginitude not previously comprehended?

Basically, if E3 was a farm, which stable stank most like dead cat?

[Smitty]

What did you think was so bad about what Sony did? I mean, it really wasn't great, but they didn't really go anything wrong as such. The worst thing they did was that horrific section with the developers.

Dude, it was fucking horrendous! Get a grip on reality.

They showed next to fuck-all, and loads and loads of totally boring shite about the PS2 and PSP.

We got a short all CG GOW3 ''trailer''. A long all CG trailer for another game from a unproven dev. One decent trailer composed mostly of game footage, and that was infamous.

Some people have liked the look of some of the PSNet stuff, but who the hell is going to buy a PS3 on the back of that?

In terms of making a statement about the next year for PS3 owners, and what potential PS3 buyers would be investing in, and it was a fucking disaster from start to finish.

Believe it not, I really wanted Sony to pull something amazing out of the bag - I always want all of the three to do that at E3, because i'm a gamer and I want good games.

But Sony's showing was dismal.

Basically, if E3 was a farm, which stable stank most like dead cat?

Sony's, JESUS.

[fatoy.japa]

How do battles, team speak and the like, work in Battlefield 2142 and games?

For the most part (I haven't played Enemy Territory: Quake Wars) the commander is responsible for assigning waypoints, organising supply drops and occasionally ordering and directing artillery fire where appropriate. In all the games I've come across that share at least some common ground with MAG, the role of commander usually isn't meaty enough to be assigned as an entirely separate class so it's co-opted by someone who also wants to sit on the hill with a sniper rifle, surveying the battlefield or waiting and giggling about the sacks of C4 they've left near a vehicle. Whether or not it can be made fun by virtue of their being an enormous amount of players is something I doubt anyone can predict with any certainty; but the presence of a voting system to remove and subsequently replace commanders in each of the aforementioned suggests that it's a contentious position with the usual bickering and racism just a step around the corner.

In short, you'll either end up with 256x the fun, 256x the useless imbecility or somewhere in between. That some of the best 'multiplayer focused' studios haven't made a full-time commander role either workable or fun solus up until now doesn't really bode well, but I suppose the SOCOM guys may have an ace up their sleeve. I wouldn't bank on it, though.

[Tom*]

I missed the whole thing, but MAG sounds kewl...

Just waiting for a good repeat stream.

Edit: commanders in BF2 (and probably 2142) - great if the commander does his/her job and everyone plays along, awful if not. In 64-player BF2 games, having 31 teammates ignore your orders and lose the match is annoying. Maybe at least some of the 127 in MAG might listen. I can imagine 100 people voting mutiny just for a laugh though.

[Marzipan Travolta]

Why is everyone suddenly getting so excited about Planetside?

[citation deducer]

How do battles, team speak and the like, work in Battlefield 2142 and games?

Chaotically free-flowing.

[murray]

Can't wait for it to be transmitted in HOME next year.

[Chase]

The Team Fortress 2 commentary says some interesting stuff about commanders. Namely that if you assign comandership to somebody then you also need a way to make sure that if they have a shit team they still enjoy the experience, and if a team has a shit commander they still enjoy the experience. In the end they couldn't do it so it is as it is now: the team talks and if a leader naturally arises (because they've got a plan or just talk a lot) then so be it.

How do battles, team speak and the like, work in Battlefield 2142 and games?

Thats different though, as there's only the team leader and small group of random players they're thinking about. MAG is a battle with typically 100 people on either side at any one time, arranged into ranks and divided into squads - some of which might stick together or some who separate completely to go it alone. Possibilies are endless.

The question I have is how they're gonna incorporate clans into this - presumably certain groups will be able to stay together over time if they so wish, which might be affected by certain people being promoted to higher ranks.

It'd be cool if you can be fighting a bunch of newbs, only for them to call for backup and within momenta have some hardcore death squad arrive on the scene. A ridiculous amount of potential so long as the gunplay is based on a COD4ish standard.