Support NeoGAF

[dabig2]

I've spent so many countless hours in Socom 1 and 2. And I'm looking forward to repeating those experiences with Confrontation. But....they do need to give us back the classic view. Ghost Recon-style I do not want. And I'm a little weary about the changing maps as well; we'll see how that works out.

And agreed with the dislike of the radar change. Hopefully they listen to us when this beta hits.

 

[Yixian]

Well, it appears to have been delayed into 08 according to IGN, but gamespot still says Nov 07.

 

[MatiasB]

Hey in a used game store I saw the original socom for PS2 (modem online on the box!) for 5 bucks..

Is the game worth it? And will I still be able to play online?

 

[Doel]

Hey in a used game store I saw the original socom for PS2 (modem online on the box!) for 5 bucks..

Is the game worth it? And will I still be able to play online?

Yes and yes.


And btw, according to IGN, SOCOM Confrontation was not playable at E3 and they canceled their IGN Livewire appearance at the last minute apparently. So thats kind of interesting.

 

[Wollan]

Yeah, weren't they supposed to have a tournament and everything at E3?

 

[Doel]

Yeah, weren't they supposed to have a tournament and everything at E3?

They normally do, but I think they were afraid of showing it playable for obvious reasons. The game just doesn't seem far enough along yet, but considering where they have got in a matter of 6 months, I think they'll be fine for a November release.

 

[NovemberMike]

Dude...

No pussy ass "halo style" radar...

That shit is lame...

If somebody shoots a gun, I can tell the direction pretty easily. My tv has stereo speakers. See a problem?

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

If somebody shoots a gun, I can tell the direction pretty easily. My tv has stereo speakers. See a problem?

No.

Following audio cues is an excellent way to recreate the combat experience.

Having a handholding map showing the full layout of the area and the exact location of hostiles is bullshit.

 

[Yixian]

IGN said on a podcast that is was slated to appear at E3 but that at the last minute Sony called and told them the demo wasn't ready.

Whether this has translated into a delay of the release date I don't know.

 

[Cold-Steel]

Hopefully a delay, the game looks terrible at this point and if it wasn't delayed it would probably have been another case of SOCOM 3 all over again.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Luisi stated that the game’s engine is completely new and not an upgrade or port of any previous SOCOM engine. When asked about gun performance, accuracy and gun spray he only commented that they’re still working on it. This brought us into much conversation about what it is that SOCOM fans want and he seems to make strong distinctions about the differences between the “hard core” player versus the rest of people that play the title. He seemed more or less aware of the desires from the “hard core” SOCOM players but appears to believe that the game should be tailored for a broader audience.

Specifically to this broader audience, when asked about the large drop off of online players with the release of SOCOM 3 and Combined Assault, Luisi says he attributes that mostly to the addition of the credit card verification. When pressed with the fact that SOCOM 3 reached close to 50,000 simultaneous players when it was initially released, he stuck by his analysis stating that most of those people were “unverified” users who never verified because they didn’t want to give out credit card information. I did make the point that, at least on the internet, gameplay changes, map sizes and weapon performance are complaints seen much more often by those that have stopped playing SOCOM.

Ergh, my hopes of Confrontation being a SOCOM fanboy love letter are kinda sunk now. Between Clancy Cam, all new maps, the "hardcores are quaint" sentiment, to finally deflecting criticism of S3/CA by claiming credit card as a barrier... I can safely say if Seth Luisi were an icecream flavor, he'd be pralines and sweaty cock.

 

[Yixian]

I can safely say if Seth Luisi were an icecream flavor, he'd be pralines and sweaty cock.

Interesting.

 

[Doel]

SOCOM fans, go ahead and take this online survey about the franchise.

We hope Sony & Slant Six are listening.

 

[Ravenn17]

The poll results look good. Hopefully Slant Six will take a look at all this feedback.

 

[Arsenic]

SOCOM fans, go ahead and take this online survey about the franchise.

We hope Sony & Slant Six are listening.

Thanks Doel...

But i wish for the last question they had another choice...such as "F***ed servers that kicked you off every 5 mins and recorded your stats incorrectly". Not that it was the reason why i personally stopped playing, but it was frustrating enough for a majority of my friends to not give a shit anymore.

I do wish everyone choose the classic view over the others

 

[Ravenn17]

Thanks Doel...

But i wish for the last question they had another choice...such as "F***ed servers that kicked you off every 5 mins and recorded your stats incorrectly". Not that it was the reason why i personally stopped playing, but it was frustrating enough for a majority of my friends to not give a shit anymore.

I do wish everyone choose the classic view over the others

It was hard to choose between large maps and gun performance. I chose gun performance since they already recognize the fact that large maps were an issue in S3.

Non spraying guns FTW!

 

[mug]

Sigh, I wish there were NPC's, those city levels look awfully empty.

 

[Doel]

I know people who are working on the two SOCOM PS3 games read this board and follow this topic, so I wanted to pass something else along to them and feel free to comment on it.

This is a topic posted on the Playstation.com boards from one of the big SOCOM fans and contributors there (blykmik, who is also an admin). He makes some great points about how he feels the SOCOM franchise should be advanced along, and I completely agree with him.

Just a sample from his post (since it's a bit long):

The thing that I've always liked about SOCOM vs other shooters or FPS based games... (or Ubisoft games)... Is the movement and control of your character in SOCOM. You can almost always make your character do what you're trying to do and you don't feel like your forced into a rigid structure of pre-set moves and animations. Some people think this makes SOCOM look less realistic (and it probably **looks** more that way), but I really believe that it ends up simulating a MORE realistic game.

For instance, in Rainbow Six, if I am half way up an open staircase (maybe think Abandoned center temple area) and I start taking shots from behind... In R6 (or Graw) you have some very limited options ... You can SLOWLY turn around and try shooting... You can go prone... you can try running away up the stairs... (But the sides of the stairs will often have invisible barriers which you either know about... or get killed finding out about! )

...in SOCOM, I've always been able to do EXACTLY what would come naturally to me. I could jump off the side of the stair well (and sure, maybe there should be a realistic stumble or tumble when I land) and then try to use the stairway as cover and move to flank. The free movement in SOCOM allows you to "simulate" getting your character into the position you would truly try to get in. Other games limit you greatly.

......

I think this is done so that in some games all the actions that you *see* LOOKS realistic... There might just not be enough animations programmed in to do everything you want. So the developers err on the side of restrictive movement so that everything "looks" real. I'd rather they err on the side of free control of your character and do the best job possible to handle any and all animations needed... Or have an engine that can handle this from the start.

And I think this is a point we need to drive home. Zipper (I'm talking SOCOM 4 now, not Confrontation) can keep the same kind of SOCOM feel from SOCOM 1/2, while still advancing the franchise along by adding more interaction with environments and freedom in movement. They need to get away from this "bigger is better" mentality, and move the franchise along by actually thinking out of the box, for once.

For example, allow me to lay in any position and on or against any object or structure in any position, as if I were a real person in that environment. Thats just one example of something they could do while still keeping the feel of SOCOM 1/2 alive with the same sized maps, round-based gamplay, etc.

Thats how Zipper should have been advancing the SOCOM franchise instead of using the straight-forward approach of just "make it bigger", which did not work.

 

[OverHeat]

I know people who are working on the two SOCOM PS3 games read this board and follow this topic, so I wanted to pass something else along to them and feel free to comment on it.

This is a topic posted on the Playstation.com boards from one of the big SOCOM fans and contributors there (blykmik, who is also an admin). He makes some great points about how he feels the SOCOM franchise should be advanced along, and I completely agree with him.

Just a sample from his post (since it's a bit long):


And I think this is a point we need to drive home. Zipper can keep the same kind of SOCOM feel from SOCOM 1/2, while still advancing the franchise along by adding more interaction with environments and freedom in movement. They need to get away from this "bigger is better" mentality, and move the franchise along by actually thinking out of the box, for once.

For example, allow me to lay in any position and on or against any object or structure in any position, as if I were a real person in that environment. Thats just one example of something they could do while still keeping the feel of SOCOM 1/2 alive with the same sized maps, round-based gamplay, etc.

Thats how Zipper should have been advancing the SOCOM franchise instead of using the straight-forward approach of just "make it bigger", which did not work.

That guy should work for Zipper. I agree 100%

 

[-COOLIO-]

this has nothing on mgo2 ^___^

 

[LJ11]

Nice post Doel, he makes a lot of good points.

I was thinking about this game a few days ago, and going with 32 players is a really bad decision if they go with the standard SOCOM gameplay, ie once you die you can't respawn until the next round. 8v8 games sometimes ended in a tie after the six minute time limit, so 16v16 will be unbearable. They should go with 12v12 tops, and even that's pushing it. I know you can change the amount you want in a room, but capping it at 24 max is a much better idea, 20 would be ideal.

 

[Doel]

I was thinking about this game a few days ago, and going with 32 players is a really bad decision if they go with the standard SOCOM fair, ie once you die you can't respawn until the next round. 8v8 games sometimes ended in a tie after the six minute time limit, so 16v16 will be unbearable. They should go with 12v12 tops, and even that's pushing it. I know you can change the amount you want in a room, but capping it at 24 max is a much better idea, 20 would be ideal.

Ya I agree. I don't know why they seem so obsessed with doing 32 players when games like Rainbow Six Vegas, GRAW, MGS Online, are all sticking to 16 without any complaints. 8v8 is the sweet spot for online gaming imo, and its an absolute limit for SOCOM.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

Ya I agree. I don't know why they seem so obsessed with doing 32 players when games like Rainbow Six Vegas, GRAW, MGS Online, are all sticking to 16 without any complaints. 8v8 is the sweet spot for online gaming imo, and its an absolute limit for SOCOM.

Here's a crazy idea!

Just make a 16 player private room for you and your cronies.

The more players the merrier I say.

 

[Doel]

Here's a crazy idea!

Just make a 16 player private room for you and your cronies.

The more players the merrier I say.

I can tell you are one of the ones that "Don't get it".

Allowing for more players does a couple things that help to ruin the experience for everyone.

- Grows the sizes of the maps
- Causes Zipper/SlantSix into thinking that splitting each map up into smaller chunks for less people, is a good idea (when in fact its a horrible idea as it compromises the original layouts)

The maps in SOCOM 1&2 were perfect for everything from 1v1 to 8v8. Once you pass that 16 player threshold, you run into a lot of issues with map layouts, size, etc.

 

[Doel]

Great news! There is a Slant Six presence on the Playstation.com boards. And in this topic they confirmed a few things:


-Confrontation includes the classic camera mode as an option.
-Red Dots on the Radar still being 'honed'
-Currently a player’s first shot or two will be deadly accurate, the longer the trigger is held down the more inaccuracy the weapon will become
-Weapon accuracy is affected by stance, so that a player will be much less accurate while running and firing compared to a player who is standing still to target or better yet crouching or prone.


Too read his whole topic (which I suggest you do) go here.

 

[tuco11]

WTF does "honed" mean? Just remove it, plain and simple.

 

[Doel]

WTF does "honed" mean? Just remove it, plain and simple.

I agree they should. Its a waste of resources and nobody wants it. As I posted in that thread:

If the person you see goes behind a wall, they don't disapear off the radar, and they should. The great thing about SOCOM is that there are so many strategies, even after you are seen. You can run around the wall, run up the stairs, jump down, and come from behind someone that was just shooting at you 3sec ago. These kinds of moments is what makes SOCOM so great, and adding that kind of radar is what ruins that experience.

 

[f3niks]

Wow Doel you have some real patience to be able to post on that forum.

Spoiler

I'm sorry, but all of the "noob" and "go back to (insert previous socom)" talk has grown a bit old

Anyways, that was a really good read and it's nice to know that Slant-6 is opening up the lines of communication with the gamers. I just hope that when the beta rolls around, the devs will actually listen to the gamers, fix glaring bugs and take out unwanted items.

 

[dabig2]

While I'm happy that they are allowing for the classic view (thank god for that), I'm still apprehensive about this radar/enemy thing. At least make it so we can turn it off in custom-room games and clan games and such.

Hopefully they release a beta of this in the next month or so.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

I can tell you are one of the ones that "Don't get it".

Allowing for more players does a couple things that help to ruin the experience for everyone.

- Grows the sizes of the maps
- Causes Zipper/SlantSix into thinking that splitting each map up into smaller chunks for less people, is a good idea (when in fact its a horrible idea as it compromises the original layouts)

The maps in SOCOM 1&2 were perfect for everything from 1v1 to 8v8. Once you pass that 16 player threshold, you run into a lot of issues with map layouts, size, etc.

We're going to have to agree to disagree Mr. High-and-mighty, because IMO Zipper is a bottom of the barrel PS developer. Which is unfortunate as their on-line title was the PS2 flagship game, but now that on-line implementation is more standardized with PSN there will be more developers entering the arena and more fierce competition for Zipper.

Yes, Zipper seemingly couldn't design large maps that are useful for 32 players in SOCOM 3.

Does that mean they can't?

I'd like to think no. It just means they need work.

Hell, they couldn't get a PS2 game to run at a solid 30fps.

I'd like to believe that with more experience Zipper could 1. Achieve a game with a solid frame rate, 2. create a SOCOM game with large maps that could be scaled with no impact to the game.

But hey - if you just want to keep on playing SOCOM 1 & 2, the servers are still up.

 

[ParticleReality]

SOCOM fans, go ahead and take this online survey about the franchise.

We hope Sony & Slant Six are listening.

Question 7 sucked. It should of allowed more then one anwser.

 

[Doel]

We're going to have to agree to disagree Mr. High-and-mighty, because IMO Zipper is a bottom of the barrel PS developer. Which is unfortunate as their on-line title was the PS2 flagship game, but now that on-line implementation is more standardized with PSN there will be more developers entering the arena and more fierce competition for Zipper.

Yes, Zipper seemingly couldn't design large maps that are useful for 32 players in SOCOM 3.

Does that mean they can't?

I'd like to think no. It just means they need work.

Hell, they couldn't get a PS2 game to run at a solid 30fps.

I'd like to believe that with more experience Zipper could 1. Achieve a game with a solid frame rate, 2. create a SOCOM game with large maps that could be scaled with no impact to the game.

But hey - if you just want to keep on playing SOCOM 1 & 2, the servers are still up.

I do still play SOCOM 1 & 2.

I'm not going to keep this debate going because I'm not going to flip you, I just know what made SOCOM 1 & 2 good, and so do countless other hardcore fans that put 1000s of hours into the games like I did. Scaling maps simply will never ever work because each map was its own complete experience, like a single player level in a game.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

Scaling maps simply will never ever work because each map was its own complete experience, like a single player level in a game.

Bull.

Give me more interactive environments, as a gamer who has watched Discovery Channel / History Channel, I find it ridiculous that I can only place a C4 charge on a particular wall. Etc.

Zipper could make SOCOM a more engaging combat experience, but I'm not certain if they will.

There is a ton of room for improvement with SOCOM. If you accept 1&2 as "as good as it gets", you're just setting the bar pretty damned low.

 

[Doel]

Bull.

Give me more interactive environments, as a gamer who has watched Discovery Channel / History Channel, I find it ridiculous that I can only place a C4 charge on a particular wall. Etc.

Zipper could make SOCOM a more engaging combat experience, but I'm not certain if they will.

There is a ton of room for improvement with SOCOM. If you accept 1&2 as "as good as it gets", you're just setting the bar pretty damned low.

Dear lord must you be so juvenile. Obviously the franchise can be improved, but you don't do it by making everything bigger. Bigger does not equal better. There is a way to keep the same feel of the franchise while still moving it ahead into the current generation.

As I already posted in this thread, blykmik from the playstation.com boards made some great suggestions on how to improve the franchise. It would require the developers to think OUTSIDE OF THE BOX. One suggestion is giving your character a wider range of control over what you can do with him. For example, it would be awesome if players could lay on their backs and throw grenades behind them a la MGS4, hang on to ledges, be able to stealth kill with a knife or rifle butt while online, etc.

 

[Andokuky]

Here's a crazy idea!

Just make a 16 player private room for you and your cronies.

The more players the merrier I say.

OR...

They could simply go back to making each map 16 players standard and make each map unique with its own feel and it's own game modes. That is a hell of a lot better than every map being playable by 32 players... or if you want, split it down to 16 and play part of the map. SOCOM 3 maps were extremely plain and repetitive because of this. They improved on it a bit in Combined Assault but it was the same result.

SOCOM was best when it was about two small squads duking it out on maps built with one or two modes in mind. SOCOM is at its worst when you double the players, add vehicles and make each map generic as hell so that it can be played with all game modes.

Night Stalker, Desert Glory, Abandoned, Death Trap, Sujo, Frostfire, Crossroads, Foxhunt, Chain Reaction, Requiem, The Mixer. Incredible maps of epic proportions. Funny that they haven't been able to come remotely close to making maps like these since they started making them to handle 32 players and every game mode.

 

[Madman]

I do still play SOCOM 1 & 2.

I'm not going to keep this debate going because I'm not going to flip you, I just know what made SOCOM 1 & 2 good, and so do countless other hardcore fans that put 1000s of hours into the games like I did. Scaling maps simply will never ever work because each map was its own complete experience, like a single player level in a game.

Exactly. You guys are the hardcore fans that put huge amounts of time into the game. Most people buying the game will not be hardcore fans. They will want options and features that make them feel comfortable, such as changing maps, radar, amongst other things that the hardcore players will no doubt condemn.

This isn't your guy's game. It's the creator's game, and they need to offer more than just what the hardcore Socom fans want. If you think they are doing so bad, go learn to program and open your own game company if you think it can be done so much better. If you do, then be ready for the complaints from the fans of your first game when you try to make things different for the second game.

 

[Doel]

Exactly. You guys are the hardcore fans that put huge amounts of time into the game. Most people buying the game will not be hardcore fans. They will want options and features that make them feel comfortable, such as changing maps, radar, amongst other things that the hardcore players will no doubt condemn.

This isn't your guy's game. It's the creator's game, and they need to offer more than just what the hardcore Socom fans want. If you think they are doing so bad, go learn to program and open your own game company if you think it can be done so much better. If you do, then be ready for the complaints from the fans of your first game when you try to make things different for the second game.

Umm, this may shock you but we all started somewhere. We weren't born with 1000s hours of SOCOM under our belts. There is a reason SOCOM 3 and CA (which are on the same server btw) didn't come close to the nightly numbers that SOCOM 2 enjoyed even 2 years after its release despite the fact that Zipper tried making SOCOM 3/CA more accessible.

For every 1 new fan they get because of their 'noob friendly' changes, they lose 10 old fans. SOCOM is not supposed to be easy to master. Its a game that requires practice, knowledge of the maps, and patience. These are things you learn the more you play and the more you play the more you become addicted to it.

They don't need to try and make the game more friendly, because the core experience is what will draw new people in more then anything else.

 

[Arsenic]

Exactly. You guys are the hardcore fans that put huge amounts of time into the game. Most people buying the game will not be hardcore fans. They will want options and features that make them feel comfortable, such as changing maps, radar, amongst other things that the hardcore players will no doubt condemn.

This isn't your guy's game. It's the creator's game, and they need to offer more than just what the hardcore Socom fans want. If you think they are doing so bad, go learn to program and open your own game company if you think it can be done so much better. If you do, then be ready for the complaints from the fans of your first game when you try to make things different for the second game.

Isnt it those hardcore fans that spreads the word? Isnt it the hardcore that spends the most amount of money in gaming, resulting in more cash for the publishers/developers? You cant just go out and say "oh go make your own company and build the game you want". WE want the old, we're not asking for anything new.

And it is our game. We're the ones that are going to buy it and invest time into it as a hobby. The creators, well they create. Thats their job. And they get paid for it.

I'd like to believe that with more experience Zipper could 1. Achieve a game with a solid frame rate, 2. create a SOCOM game with large maps that could be scaled with no impact to the game.

Zipper is a brand new company? They have the experience, 6 games experience. That is no excuse to not deliver a solid framerate at the very least

But hey - if you just want to keep on playing SOCOM 1 & 2, the servers are still up.

This suggestion is getting old. Most friends/buddies are gone from playing socom, to be replaced by Code 9 users. How much fun is that?

 

[Madman]

Umm, this may shock you but we all started somewhere. We weren't born with 1000s hours of SOCOM under our belts. There is a reason SOCOM 3 and CA (which are on the same server btw) didn't come close to the nightly numbers that SOCOM 2 enjoyed even 2 years after its release despite the fact that Zipper tried making SOCOM 3/CA more accessible.

For every 1 new fan they get because of their 'noob friendly' changes, they lose 10 old fans. SOCOM is not supposed to be easy to master. Its a game that requires practice, knowledge of the maps, and patience. These are things you learn the more you play and the more you play the more you become addicted to it.

They don't need to try and make the game more friendly, because the core experience is what will draw new people in more then anything else.

Sarcastic/ignorant comments aside, this goes back to what I always see from Socom fans. Some sort of ego that the way they feel about the game is right and everyone else, inclusing the makers of, the agme are wrong.

I'll start by saying that the majority of people that bought Socom never went online, so in reality Confrontation is the only Socom title to strictly focus on the MP. Meaning they have to appeal to a different auidience. Secondly, who are you to say what the game is and isn't? Because your personal fgeelings are that way? I thought Final Fantasy 7 had the perfect make up for future Final Fantasy games. But every time, the games are drastically different. Does that make me a bitter fan that looks back on the old days crying about how it just isn't the same? No. I accept what the game makers have decided and dcecide based on the gameplay whether or not I will play the game. You guys base everyhting about Confrontation on 1 and 2, when this isn't 1 and 2. It is a new game, and you will either have to learn to accept that, or keep hanging onto what your beliefs are and never expand them.

 

[reaver18]

anyone who was a fan of the og socom would agree that 8v8 is the sweet spot. That game was brilliant and god dammit I miss it.

 

[Evolved1]

Bull.

You're wrong.

You see... dedicated Socom players understand what made the original games great. Having maps designed/balanced for a single gametype is one of the elements that set Socom apart from other shooters.

 

[Doel]

New update and good news. Radar is an option in custom games only. It's not in ranked games:

SealTeam-6 wrote:

Hey guys, I am following this thread, and I have to ease your minds about one area of concern. The Target Spotting mechanic (the Red Dots) on the radar are an option for Custom Matches, but are not enabled for Ranked Matches. If a player sets up a room with “Target Spotting” enabled then they can give the Red Dots a try, but it’s up to them. Don’t be afraid to try it, you might like it

Have a great weekend!

source

 

[captain wow]

Good!

 

[dralla]

Ranked/Unranked matches? Does this mean a party system and matchmaking is in?

 

[Doel]

Ranked/Unranked matches? Does this mean a party system and matchmaking is in?

I asked that question in the thread after he said that. No response, but my HOPE is that if they are in fact doing a party system (and I wish they weren't) that it would be for Ranked only, and Custom Games would be set-up the exact way that SOCOM lobbies have been set up (US East, US West, Canada East, etc).

It is VERY important that they keep that lobby system intact for the many reasons that I have already discussed in this topic.

But I still don't know how they hell they would approach a party system when SOCOM is about 6 rounds won, to win a match. With most matches taking 20min+ it would be impossible to keep one of those games going without people leaving the room and no way for people to join in a current game with the way party system match making works.

So my hope is that they don't do a party system, and instead approach ranked/unranked they way they did in SOCOM 3.

I'm telling you though, if I were in charge of the game then everything would be ranked like it was in SOCOM 1/2.

 

[-COOLIO-]

metal gear online!?!?

 

[Andokuky]

metal gear online!?!?

Sucked.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Sucked.

lie

 

[TAJ]

I know people who are working on the two SOCOM PS3 games

This is a PS3 game? <looks at screenshots again> Really? Ouch.

 

[GQman2121]

This is a PS3 game? <looks at screenshots again> Really? Ouch.

Yeah it's not the prettiest game and I doubt the final product will be either. But that's not going to stop everyone who played the first two games from buying it. The series has never been known for it's visuals. It's the actual gameplay that's hooked everyone.

I'm glad/shocked that someone from the development team has now made an account and has posted on the Playstation.com boards. That's a huge step for the series if you ask me. I beta tested the second and third games and have no idea what's so ever if anything that was found in those betas were ironed out in the retail games. Zipper had no presences at all during that process, which was really sad.

My expectations have now turned for the better with just one single thread. Amazing what a little communication can do for a game that you want people to spend money on. More dev teams should take notice.........