Quote:
Originally Posted by [SS]Rator
I'm sure they'll have contingency plans for all of that stuff, but let's put it into perspective. Zippers last few games had isses with 8v8, and 16v16 and i dont know how many confrontation has 16v16 i think, but that doesnt work well either from what i'veheard and thats due to sonys servers. Who knows, they may dummy up some cash for servers to make MAG work, but honestly, i dont think the developer has enough if ANY following any more after what happened with Socom that enough people will get into it to warrant the servers from Sony.
Either way, its a wait and see. interesting concept but again, NO ONE has done an FPS with more than 16 players that's worked well since the Battlefield series on the PC which was 64 max and fantastic.
|
Its not the servers..........its slant 6............the engine is instable and their online interface is garbage.
If nothing else, Killzone 2 proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sony is capable of supplying ROCK SOLID servers.
oh, and Warhawk, as well as REsistance 2 back that up.
If you judge Sony on Socom: Confrontation, you are placing your blame on the wrong group, aside from them picking a psp dev to do a ps3 game.
I see potential in MAG. It has the chance to be a genre defining IP, but only time will tell.
How many times can you rehash 8 on 8 or 16 on 16 with a different IP and stay interested? Whats the point of that?
Oh, and just in case you were wondering, I know that the problem lies with socom, and not the servers, because a client patch fixed the framerate (mostly) and 16 on 16 is unstable on 2 maps, and 2 maps alone....Fallen and Urban Wasteland..........
Sony can provide stability beyond a shadow of a doubt. It has been proven irrefutably. And this is the problem with stereotypes........relying on them leaves you subject to being wrong.