Was Sony's MAG game for PS3 ahead of its time?

It seems like the craze today is the 100 player Battle Royale. But long before this trend came a game by Sony called Massive Action Game, or MAG. It was an online only FPS that featured up to 256 players, and this was on the PS3 network mind you (back in 2010). So I ask you, SW, was this game ahead of its time? There was a thread recently that claimed Sony plays it safe. It's games like this that remind us that they're willing to take chances.

https://youtu.be/ibE87_9MYsM

https://youtu.be/zJQ_1kpI99Q

It was a novel concept for sure, but to be fair I don't think the 256 players all got to play against each other on the battlefield. Rather, it was like a series of smaller battles in a large 128 vs 128 conflict.

This is true. I can't remember how it worked, but they were smaller conflicts in a larger battle. That being said, I can definitely see the evolution to a sort of Battle Royale, though that was heavily documented in Hollywood as well.

Yep, I can't remember exactly how they organised it either but I'm sure it was something along those lines. And hey absolutely, no doubt a lot of games took inspiration from MAG.

Not really

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlanetSide

Yeah i used to enjoy these guys games. Did not care much for there mmo stuff but played Tanarus alot with friends back in my school days. When it came for the obvious logical step to incorporate these guys to console Sony corp sold them off. I don't understand it but playstation has basically cleaned up mostly anything to do with mp online combat games. Just want to say this thread just reminds me the potential that sony had. Now that MP online games have become so popular on consoles its a mistape or maybe they ward off these things on purpose given the ps4 success I don't know.

Delta Force: Blackhawk Down for PC, ps2, and Xbox had 32 ps2, and 50 Xbox Live/PC players in one map.

Mag received lukewarm reception with its main complaints being bugs, lack of polish & content, and unbalanced factions. It was awarded Guinness’s praises for player count record, but it’s lack of quality took away from sustainable replayability. Like most Sony exclusives from the era, the game is offline and completely unplayable. Best to forget it.

@mandzilla: @MonsieurX: @lundy86_4: can we at least agree on principle that Zipper was a great developer back in the day? The Socom series was big for its time.

@SolidGame_basic: Certainly, SOCOM was huge and needs to make a comeback.

@SolidGame_basic: There's no way to deny that. SOCOM was next level.

@SolidGame_basic: But this is about MAG and if it was ahead of its time, answer is no.

@SolidGame_basic: Just imagine if instead of BR it was 50 v 50, start with the gun you want, fight over objectives, no f'ing numbers popping out of people's heads (I hate that so much), maybe some vehicles, etc.

They've got a good game sitting there, but they're more concerned with riding the BR train.

@MonsieurX: MAG was interesting but poorly executed. The faction aspect needs work, but I would take a new one in a heartbeat. Same goes for SOCOM, Warhawk...hell, anything that isn't BR or been tainted by EA.

yea it was ahead of its time.

that level of trash wouldnt be seen until call of duty ghosts 3 years later.

bravo mag. well played sony lol

I put some time into MAG and don't really remember it being buggy. Though there were some balance issues, I remember on certain maps there were chokepoints where the grenade spam was just insane. Literally just dozens and dozens of players tossing grenades and gas into a corridor. Of course, that happens in some Battlefield games and other FPS too. So I never held that against MAG. My impression was that it felt slightly more janky than the Call of Duty games at the time...but it pretty much played similarly. Maybe some of the animations were a little worse than CoD. Considering the player count and much larger maps I thought the performance of the game was admirable at the time. It was a decent alternative.

The other things i remember about MAG were the "vehicles" being hilariously bad. Of course they weren't really vehicles, they were more like "spawn points" where 1 guy got the privileged of controlling the turret (I remember there being a chopper and APC but they were both really just spawn points with limited player control). But going from a Battlefield game at the time over to MAG and the vehicles really struck me as lacking. I remember thinking how badass MAG could have been if you just had a few vehicles on the map that performed more like Battlefield. That might have pushed it over the top, but MAG, while good, came up second fiddle to Bad Company 2 which dominated my playtime in that era.

Basically, MAG was a good game but it had no chance against Bad Company 2.

Except none of it really worked...

Since there were bigger and better FPS games before MAG, I would have to say "no".

MAG was developed by Zipper

I remember thinking it was ambitious when they announced it, but just because if the number of players... The rest of the game was pretty run if the mill if I remember.

the ps3 was ahead of its time when you see how dated it made the 360 look. The PS3 was what ms wanted the Xbox one to be a multimedia system.

Should have made "Were Zipper an awesome devs that made games way ahead of their time"

@MonsieurX: Not sure why it bothers you that we're having a conversation about the game, its developer, what people thought about their games? You're the one that brought up PlanetSide.

Wow, you don't like the numbers thing? I usually don't see that opinion. But yea, what your describing kind of sounds what MAG was trying to do.

You could get all 256 together.

Had a lot of fun with MAG, it was my favorite FPS last year, definitely ahead of its time.

@KBFloYd: So...CoD Ghost had 256 player online? Oh you're just being a dipshit troll, nevermind.

Having large numbers of players at once in one online game is hardly advanced. It's been around since the 80's. See Kesmai Air Warrior. It also allowed players to play using Macs, PCs, Amigas, and even Atari ST. Think: crossplay since that buzz word seems to be in fashion these days.

Short answer..... No!

Longer answer...Noperzzzz. lol :P

256 players, thats cute, truly what ps3 was capable of

A little off topic but Sony's entire MP effort last gen was superior to MS despite MS marketing themselves as the multiplayer console.

Sony's collection of AA - AAA PS3 exclusives with dedicated MP offerings

Resistance Fall of Man, 40 players online dedicated servers

Warhawk, 32 players online 4 player co-op dedicated servers

Little Big Planet 2, 2 player co-op 4 player online

Demon's Souls, online world tendency MP 3 player component (started invasion online trend)

MAG, 256 players online

Resistance 2, 60 players online dedicated servers

Playstation All-Stars, 4 player online

Twisted Metal, 16 players online 4 player split screen

Gran Turismo 6, 16 players online

Killzone 2, 32 players online dedicated servers

MLB The Show 13/14

Resistance 3, 16 player online

Wipeout HD

Motorstorm/Apocalypse/Pacific Rift

White Knight Chronicles I/II, 4 player online co-op

Uncharted 2, 10 players online 3 player co-op

God of War Ascension, 8 players online

The Last of Us, 8 player online

List goes on..

If wants to compile a list of MS funded 360 online games to compare with PS3's multiplayer offerings, it would look embarrassing by comparison; it's even worse if you use Xbox One.

People didn't appreciate what Sony did for MP.

Because people didn't give credit to many of those MP games Sony offered being that the narrative was 360 was the multiplayer system, Sony stopped trying with MP games this gen and left it to MS. MS, in turn, rewarded xbox fan's praise for Xbox multiplayer by offering absolutely nothing impressive for MP games this entire generation leaving everything to multiplats.

The Lesson learned?

When Xbox fans applaud MS for under delivering, MS will responded by showing everyone they will deliver even less as long as their fans praise them for doing the bare minimum.

The list of games above is also proof that anyone who suggested that 360 was a better system than PS3 is severely out of touch.

360 was the better multiplayer console, halo 3 had better multiplayer than any of those games, as did gears of war, xbox live was just a superior online service, it was smoother and PlayStation did not have party chat yet.

LMAO, False.

And this is why you have garbage for MP offering from MS this gen. Lies fuel stupidity and ignorance but the reality does not support you.

Opinion is cool and all but the FACT is PS3 has more high quality offerings than 360 for MP games, a larger variety, with better connection stability with Sony providing more dedicated servers and had games that offered a higher player count for online games. FACTS!

Miss me with your opinion of how you feel with your xbox bias, compile a list of MS's best 360 online offerings to compare to Sony's on PS3 if you want to object to what I've stated.

If you can't then move along because your, "but my opinon" stance doesn't hold any weight here.

If you want opinion I can say KZ2 32 player MP dedicated servers on PS3 > any MP game offered on 360!?

Again, miss me with the bonehead fanboy copout rebuttals.

lmao

@jeezers:

"lmao"

No better abbreviation to identify xbox fans and their arguments or lack there of.

Case closed!

@boxrekt: i dont even own a bone lmao

Well the bone sure owns you!

stop projecting,

go join some last of us mp matches and vent your frustrations there

@BoxRekt That is the biggest load of sheot I have ever read. Xbox owned last gen online. PS3 MP was pure crappola. Only game that was good online was Payday and it was a free game. KZ2 the halo killer lmfbo! GTFO!

Well TLOU 2 MP will surely be above and beyond anything MS does this gen as in terms of MP as well.

Go vent your frustration in brain dead roll and duck Gears 4 MP.

calm ur tits

@jeezers: You're the one who angrily objected to my factual post with your ridiculous fanboy outburst backed up by deflection and rambling.

I posted FACTS and back it up with my opinion

You posted an opinion and backed it up with "lmao"

Seems you're the one who needs to calm down or get a grip.

There was no need for you to even quote me trying to object to my post seeing as you didn't have any legitimate argument to counter it.

lol system wars and these, "Bu but my opinion" fanboys.

@MonsieurX: that was also a Sony game,so at least we can agree Sony was ahead of time.

MAG was basically the same concept of Battlefield but with more players. It wasn't even the first of it's kind (MMOFPS), I think Planetside was the first one.

Killzone 2 was amazing and it's online was oh so good. I did spend a large amount of time in MAG. I can't say it was ahead of it's time because we still don't have something similar enough to it. I don't think it's worth it to do so either. People are content partying up in small groups.

I noticed 90% of people on this thread haven't even played MAG and are quoting from their ass.

The game was good, I remember playing it for a couple of hours. I think it just didn't reach an audience, battles at times were hectic and fun. As a free to play game, with better focus could have been big - BR big. So agree with you, wrong timing.

Even without playing it, the mention of MAG just gives me some embarrassing memories.

@SolidGame_basic: It just looks so silly, and pulls me out of the experience.

Which was also from sony.

I remember being mildly hyped for MAG, but I never heard good or bad things about it. It's like it launched, then just faded away with no fanfare so I forgot it existed.

You listed a bunch of games with player counts. No more no less. Other than Socom I haven't heard any body talk about the multiplayer of any of those games in years.

MAG just had the misfortune of being released at the same time as Bad Company 2. I liked MAG, I just liked Bad Company 2 a helluva lot more back then (probably like 1000+ hours vs <100 hours of total playtime for me).

The people calling it broken and buggy or that it "didnt' work" obviously never played it. It "worked". It actually felt quite a bit like Call of Duty. But having 128 vs. 128 sounds alot more interesting than it actually was. As I recall, while it indeed was 128 vs. 128 on a map at the same time, different squads worked on different objectives, but within the map. So it wasn't always an all out 128 vs 128 battle. The main issue with the game for me was that it only ever had like 5 maps, and Bad Company 2 had far superior vehicle play that made it much more fun to me... and of course it kept getting expansions that kept me coming back. MAG was more like just playing a huge Call of Duty game.

The TC was implying MAG was ahead of its time because it can handle a couple hundred of players. Having hundreds of players at once online isn't new. It's been done back in the 80's and 90's.

He didn't really say anything about MAG's gameplay itself in the initial post. If he mentioned mechanics or features unique to MAG instead, I wouldn't have replied.