Last week I wrote about games on their appropriate counsels. That got me thinking about one game from the PS3. The game is M.A.G. (Massive Action Game). It is a FPS by Zipper Interactive, the guys behind SOCOM. Its main draw was that it allowed for over 200 players to be in-game at one time. While an awesome idea, and the game was pretty solid technically, M.A.G. never really took off in popularity. While a bit of a flop MAG did a few things right, with one big one standing out.
M.A.G. made you feel like a part of the group.
I know I've been on a kind of alone/acceptance kick for a while, but this time it's far less touchy-feely. M.A.G. placed the player in one of three private military corporations (PMC for the sake of laziness). Each PMC had it's own back story, voice overs, player voices, and load out look. One looked more modern military, one looked more advanced/near future, and the other was more homemade/ guerrilla war style. Through the style choices, players could identify with what was their in regards to buildings and vehicles, as well as who was on their team. Every area could easily be identified as a certain organization's territory.
Another area that M.A.G. did well in was player community. Since there were only three choices of teams to play on, and you were basically stuck on that team until you decided to delete a profile, the team goals were always more important. There were four positions in game. The basic was the soldier, the average player. Above him was a squad leader who were in charge of six to eight soldiers.; these were the players who had played longer and leveled a good deal. Above them was the platoon leader, in charge of four squads. Then at the top was the regiment commander, who was the head of the entire group. Each leader was able to use different perks and special commands, as well as set main objectives.
Along with this player set-up was the goals of the match. There were three basic map styles, either capture the points, capture the vehicle, or full-blown invasion. Each group was sent to a different section of the map, with squad leaders coordinating with platoon leaders to pick the most important objectives. The squad leader would set up fargo objectives which would be rewarded with more experience points. It was to each team member's benefit to follow their squad leaders orders.
Combining these two game play choices built up a team mentality. Players followed the chain of command and relied on each other for success. Players couldn't heal themselves and needed a partner to help them get back in the action. Every player had their own play style that they brought to the match. Some people might be tank busters, others hung back and picked people off with snipers, some were the run and gun assault types, and others (like me) picked up support with repair, healing, and distractions. Each play style was rewarded, but no one style was clearly better than the other in regards to earning xp or kills. There was the added choice of being able to have two other player load outs that you could switch to depending on the situation.
M.A.G. was an experiment in player communities and mass gaming. I believe that the reason it failed was mostly because of the choice of putting it on the home counsel instead of PC. Besides the idea that FPS games work better with a mouse, there is also the easy of communication. PS3 mikes are expensive and rarely used. On the other hand, most computers these days have them built in. It makes it easier to communicate and organize teams. Despite this, M.A.G. was a good try and an admirable experiment. If anything, it shows that some companies are willing to try new ideas. I hope to see projects like this later on in the industry, games that focus on the player community as much as a good experience. Red-5's upcoming Firefall might be a great example of this, we'll see.
Also, they really need a way to cut down the fricking long load times.
Just something to chew on.
No comments:
Post a Comment