-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
SOCOM Confrontation - The thread (bringing back the REAL!)
- Thread starter Doel
- Start date
Agent Ironside
Member
And its not going to be anything like Confrontation or anything below Socom 2.
Ok, history lesson.Doc Evils said:
Zipper are the ones who ruined SOCOM with SOCOM 3. Adding vehicles, large open maps, 32 players, etc.
Its pretty freaking obvious that Sony told Slant Six to make SOCOM Confrontation to appease the hardcore SOCOM fans like myself, while Zipper goes off and continues to do their own thing. Zipper had job postings a year ago, hiring people for a "large scale online game". I wouldn't be surprised if they are working on an MMO of some sort.
faust said:
Well not really, It would seem that Zipper has intentions of upping the ante rather than going back (based on said job postings above that have been well known in the SOCOM community for like 2 years now). This is where Slant Six comes in. Perhaps their work allows Zipper to go big and go different (the people that run that company are very outgoing people). Otherwise whats the point in letting two different studios make essentially the same game.
I totally expect a CoD like spin in terms of series direction. Now i don't mean to say SOCOM goes WW2 or some shit. But i'm thinking SOCOM: Planetside style. I really do. Now that IS a guess lol.
Ya, I'm completely expecting SOCOM: Planetside.Sol.. said:
And like you said, it would make no sense for Sony to hire two separate studios to create essentially the same game. It doesn't take much brain capacity to figure out that Slant Six creating SOCOM for the hardcore fans = freeing Zipper up to follow their dream of large scale warfare.
LOL @ this game being the "real SOCOM" or made for the hardcore SOCOM fans. Did you guys miss the picture of Crossroads I posted?
That really far off building you see with the lion statue or whatever it is on top is the one from the other pictures everyone is laughing about. On the website where I got this pic they said you can get to virtually every building in the pic.
That isn't "real" SOCOM. That isn't what I, as a hardcore SOCOM fan want. This is the same huge ass map SOCOM 3/CA crap. I'm sure every lobby will degenerate into the same bullshit too, where all anyone plays are 16 player small versions of maps, and it will only be 2-3 maps because the rest will be god awful. And that was with SOCOM 3 and CA's many maps. This game isn't even shipping with many maps.
When you design a map for multiple modes and multiple sizes, it's going to turn into shit. SOCOM 1 and 2 were all about the maps, SOCOM 3 and CA sucking so bad weren't even about the 32 players and vehicles for me, it was because the map design was just awful. There was no personality to any of the maps, no uniqueness, just bland huge open maps and crunched up little mini versions of them for 16 players. And virtually every one of them had spawn problems because they were so horribly designed.
This game looks to have the same shit map setups, and then to top it off it looks downright horrible and has massive frame rate problems. Everyone says the original SOCOM's looked like ass but I don't think so. They weren't amazing but they looked pretty good for a PS2 game. This just looks like ass.
That really far off building you see with the lion statue or whatever it is on top is the one from the other pictures everyone is laughing about. On the website where I got this pic they said you can get to virtually every building in the pic.
That isn't "real" SOCOM. That isn't what I, as a hardcore SOCOM fan want. This is the same huge ass map SOCOM 3/CA crap. I'm sure every lobby will degenerate into the same bullshit too, where all anyone plays are 16 player small versions of maps, and it will only be 2-3 maps because the rest will be god awful. And that was with SOCOM 3 and CA's many maps. This game isn't even shipping with many maps.
When you design a map for multiple modes and multiple sizes, it's going to turn into shit. SOCOM 1 and 2 were all about the maps, SOCOM 3 and CA sucking so bad weren't even about the 32 players and vehicles for me, it was because the map design was just awful. There was no personality to any of the maps, no uniqueness, just bland huge open maps and crunched up little mini versions of them for 16 players. And virtually every one of them had spawn problems because they were so horribly designed.
This game looks to have the same shit map setups, and then to top it off it looks downright horrible and has massive frame rate problems. Everyone says the original SOCOM's looked like ass but I don't think so. They weren't amazing but they looked pretty good for a PS2 game. This just looks like ass.
I agree with most of what you said, I'm just not as pessimistic about it as you seem to be. I'm giving the game a shot, and I know some people who are working on this game who are ones that hated what SOCOM 3 did and loved SOCOM 1/2. So I have confidence its going to turn out better than you think it will.Andokuky said:LOL @ this game being the "real SOCOM" or made for the hardcore SOCOM fans. Did you guys miss the picture of Crossroads I posted?
That really far off building you see with the lion statue or whatever it is on top is the one from the other pictures everyone is laughing about. On the website where I got this pic they said you can get to virtually every building in the pic.
That isn't "real" SOCOM. That isn't what I, as a hardcore SOCOM fan want. This is the same huge ass map SOCOM 3/CA crap. I'm sure every lobby will degenerate into the same bullshit too, where all anyone plays are 16 player small versions of maps, and it will only be 2-3 maps because the rest will be god awful. And that was with SOCOM 3 and CA's many maps. This game isn't even shipping with many maps.
When you design a map for multiple modes and multiple sizes, it's going to turn into shit. SOCOM 1 and 2 were all about the maps, SOCOM 3 and CA sucking so bad weren't even about the 32 players and vehicles for me, it was because the map design was just awful. There was no personality to any of the maps, no uniqueness, just bland huge open maps and crunched up little mini versions of them for 16 players. And virtually every one of them had spawn problems because they were so horribly designed.
This game looks to have the same shit map setups, and then to top it off it looks downright horrible and has massive frame rate problems. Everyone says the original SOCOM's looked like ass but I don't think so. They weren't amazing but they looked pretty good for a PS2 game. This just looks like ass.
And it will be a hell of a lot closer to "real" Socom than what Zipper is working on.
What's wrong with them originally designing the maps around 16 players first, then expanding them? This is what they did with "xroads". The way they described their process in this, I have little room to think they're going to screw up. The game should be able to fit 16 player, and for those liking the larger scale 32 player matches just fine. It caters WELL to both with their approach. Not like other companies going large scale first then throwing barriers in the streets just to call it a day for the smaller groups.
Agent Ironside
Member
A lot of socomers are missing out on COD 4 hardcore mode, that has reminded me most of what socom used to be.
Agent Ironside said:
Not even close to the way SOCOM 3 was, let alone S1 and 2. Not the same feeling, the speed is still just a tad too fast, the maps feel thrown together, and it's just the overall feel of the gameplay. Games have shifted to try to be like SOCOM (Ghost Recon), but fail miserably (not saying CoD4 tried to be like it, because it's the furthest thing from SOCOM as a present day shooter can get). SOCOM has it's own unique feel, design, and gameplay that makes it truly unique.
First round of Q&A answers are coming in 
Sounds like he'll be updated the post as more answers come in.
Sounds like he'll be updated the post as more answers come in.
Agent Ironside
Member
J-Rzez said:
When I say that, im talking about the mode, no respawn, demolition, things of that nature. Also personally, I think COD4's maps are really well designed.
Agent Ironside
Member
More like with only 3 old maps it better be cheap.
Agent Ironside said:
I think they were well design for team deathmatch, especially with beta's respawn style (if it weren't for those stalemates and spawn camping.....they just might have kept the system).
In hardcore search n' destroy (lovingly dubbed SOCOM mode by my long lasting SOCOM buddies), it wasn't very good. There were no chokepoints, the speed of the game was too high, and there was way too much flow for a no respawn game. Everybody would just run out and get wasted in random places where as in SOCOM (and pretty much any other no respawn oriented game) the maps are built for people to flow through specific areas and have heated firefights.
EDIT: now that i look at more screenshots you know what i'm worried about? All the elevated terrain. No so much in a "somebody can see over everything" kind of a way but in a Battlefield Bad Company "Theres fucking people in every window covered by fucking shitty dark lighting raining lead on everything that moves" kind of way. I hope there are windowless walkways everywhere and those buildings are just buildings for people to fight in or cover main routes with.
BruceWayneIII
Member
Andokuky said:
I can't really comment on SOCOM in that context, but I do think that Warhawk is a brilliant example of maps with multiple modes and multiple sizes.
I completely disagree.BruceWayneIII said:
I think Warhawk is a very poor multiplayer game. I'm continually amazed that there are lots of people on their servers. I guess its just a very pick up and play kind of experience, but I see no depth to it at all and when I play it I can't stand to be on longer than 10min.
The game just isn't fun for me. I can't pretend to enjoy it.oneHeero said:Wow, I lose respect for your opinions on Socom Confrontation now
That game was pure fun.
When I'm in large battles, it feels like we're all just running around and there is absolutely no order. The game is actually more fun with less people (like 4v4), but in that scenario I'm stuck wondering whats the point when I can just go play SOCOM 2 or CoD4 and have more fun.
And it's not like I suck. I'm decent at the game. And when you're good at a game yet not having fun, you know there is a problem.
Agent Ironside
Member
Andokuky said:
Especially Crash, major choke points, your livin the life if your a smart grenade whore in that one, not all the maps have choke points like that, neither did some socom maps, blood lake to name one.
Woah, check out this video interview.
It's really impressive how they have used sixaxis in this game. Looks super intuitive. Also, if you check out the tv near the end, there is a dude running around swiping his knife. So this confirms knife kills are in the game!
It's really impressive how they have used sixaxis in this game. Looks super intuitive. Also, if you check out the tv near the end, there is a dude running around swiping his knife. So this confirms knife kills are in the game!
Agent Ironside
Member
That Xroads at night looked amazing, im guessing it was just art though.
New in game and UI screens. I can not wait for this game. Scroll to the right.
http://www.ps3fanboy.com/photos/socom/811025/full/
http://www.ps3fanboy.com/photos/socom/811025/full/
Knifing like cod4 CONFIRMED. Watch around the 3:10-3:15 mark.
http://www.gamespot.com/video/939539/6191220/socom-us-navy-seals-confrontation-interview-2
http://www.gamespot.com/video/939539/6191220/socom-us-navy-seals-confrontation-interview-2
Doel said:
Actually it looks pretty good now, they have self-shadowing on the characters, that's something I always look for in terms of graphics. Teh animations look smooth enough but it doesn't look long-winded that it can negatively affect gameplay, I always like short animations for melee and stuff instead of taking ten seconds to execute a kill.
