Support NeoGAF

[Dibbz]

Socom better have a party system. BTW I played both S1 and S2.

My clan started on Resistance, the party system was probably the only reason we played so much, it was easy for us to get together as quickly as we could and start fraging. Warhawk lacked the party system and the clan nearly fell apart because of it tbh. Trying to join each others game without in game messaging was hell. Servers got full really quickly, practically imposible to get everyone in one server.

I thought it was a bit strange that we couldn't get together in a room in Warhawk, since I did it all the time in S2, which is probably how you guys feel about this. The party system helped us immensly in Resistance, so much tbh that we took it for granted. It was taken away from us, and everyone kinda just gave up trying to join up in warhawk, because it was such a pain in the ass.

TBH we should just except the party system, go forwards, you guys will be taking two steps back by not excepting the party system. A lot of people who are accustomed to the party system will be thrown off if Socom doesn't have it. Fair enough you have a lobby, keep it and the party system. They can both work together, don't really see a problem with that tbh.

 

[Kittonwy]

The description of their online system is kind of vague:

http://www.slantsixgames.com/

I guess they're going with 32 players afterall. I know some people hate it but if you have a big group it's probably the only way to fit everybody in.

 

[Kittonwy]

compared to anything? you want an online game that was a pain in the ass to find games on? play timesplitters, unreal tournament on dreamcast, or tribes aerial assault. but don't bother trying to say it was hard or grating to find a good game on socom because anyone who has spent time with the game knows you are full of shit. also, we are past the time when gamers don't know who is online and who is not.

Uh... how about NO? So you're comparing SOCOM to online gaming on the DREAMCAST? Jeebus.

socom has matchmaking already, it was useless and shitty because no one used it. it simply doesn't work in the socom universe. so what you are going to end up with is a pathetically small amount of people actually using it. socom gamers didn't care for it, and they won't care for a party system either, especially since it will fuck up what is already working.

Then make it GOOD and make it PARTY-BASED. Who's to say SOCOM gamers wouldn't want a GOOD party system and GOOD match-making?

you lose your userbase by adding features and elements people don't want instead of focusing on gameplay where it counts. socom is solid proof of this. we've been over this already, move on.

You speak as if having a good online interface and having good gameplay are mutually exclusive, which is not the case. SOCOM is proof of implementing vehicles and large map-size poorly, that has nothing to do with implementing a good online interface and improving on what you already have.

better says who? oh wait i forgot, every game is 100% flawless and no problems exist in any of them. the party system in call of duty 4 is flawless. halo 3 never splits groups up and forces them to join other teams, or slaps them into fucking retarded games like shotty snipers on valhalla for the millionth time. none of that ever happens, because omg resistance was so great. not everyone cares for party features, socom doesn't need it.

Like I said in Resistance you don't have groups being split and ranked games are standard. If a party-system can make SOCOM better then it definitely needs it, anything that can improve SOCOM, SOCOM needs. Just because the implementation is bad doesn't mean the idea itself is bad. Having vehicles could have made SOCOM better had they implemented them properly and tuned them well.

no, there is no "might be" about it and again, anyone who knows socom knows that is the truth. if you want a full fledged online title with a lot of fluff, play resistance or halo 3. not every game needs all that shit, convenience or not. good gameplay is good enough for most, socom proved that. shit graphics, average at best online interface, yet insanely popular. and that doesn't mean you can just take socom 2 and slap it on ps3, no one ever said that and idk why you keep falling back on that. a series can stay true to itself and still evolve.

There's hardly any fluff to Resistance online, it's very easy to get into, ultimately it all came down to player skill, we have very skilled clans playing, the online gameplay is great. Making the online interface better isn't going to keep SOCOM from being true to itself.

because that sucks? no thanks, i'd rather find a game myself that i know i will want to play rather than being thrown into bitter jungle. and most socom gamers agree. so good luck with a matchmaking system that no one will use. i mean, splintering the online userbase like that is always a great idea. i enjoy being shit out of luck with halo when it comes to just having a list of custom games i can join. great success.

If you hate that map wouldn't the solution be NOT TO HAVE THAT MAP instead? That has nothing to do with the party system. Who's to say if SOCOM has a great party/match-making system that people aren't going to use it? You can still have your lobby system and custom games, it's just that people who want to play ranked games can, within a party.

you continue to talk as if it was a pain in the ass to play socom online :lol

Probably why I don't play it these days, nobody I know is still playing it.

because socom players aren't going to do matchmaking. a group of socom gamers are going to go to "their" server and set up a game and play. you could take the exact same online interface of socom 2 and simply with the advancements that have been made since then in terms of friends lists and it is a fucking breeze to buddy up and play. so don't waste your time creating and tinkering with a party system when no one gives a shit. and if joe blow down the street logs on and is dumbfounded and confused by the lack of a party system and wants to return the game, then oh well. he's probably the idiot in demolition that doesn't know how to defuse the bomb anyway

Once again if the match-making system is great people would use it, it might not be the hardcore users but then SOCOM needs more than the hardcore clans to survive, it can't survive as a niche title.

actually yea, when two games are immensely popular and highly successful then the two sequels radically change the game and are commercial/critical flops, you do need to go back to square on. and again, that doesn't mean you have to port over socom 2 with no changes whatsoever, no one is saying that. if socom confrontation is set up with parties and matchmaking i simply won't play because the lobby system gave the game a unique feel and made the community aspect incredible and you simply cannot have both.

Now you're trying suggest that their failure to implement and tune gameplay in the last two games has anything to do with implementing a party/match-making system, it doesn't. If they fucked up the maps before, they can do it again, REGARDLESS of whether they implement a party system or not, a party/match-making system has proven to work extremely well for Resistance, and it can work for SOCOM..

yea, improve the online aspect. flesh out the clan aspect of it. make lots of stats easily available like call of duty 4. but don't fuck the whole thing up by emphasizing party and matchmaking. that might be an improvement to you but it sure isn't to socom gamers. but hey, maybe they don't want to make monies.

Once again I'm not even using COD4 as an example of party/match-making.

joke post?

Nope.

god all these posts later and you still can't grasp the simple notion that some games simply don't need to follow suit, some games simply should copy cat other games and become just another generic online shooter. it's really not hard to understand. socom online set up = perfect. improve some little things to make it more modern, but keep the uniqueness of it intact. parties and matchmaking = no thanks. you cannot have a party system with matchmaking and still have relevant custom games, it simply doesn't happen unless you want all custom games to be unranked and a waste of time.

SOCOM's online set-up is not perfect. Custom games can be ranked if they're standardized.

or the game can make drastic changes and become irrelevant. oh wait, that's never happened before. i mean, everyone LOVES socom 3 and combined assault. who doesn't love running around for an hour in ridiculously large maps only to be gunned down from afar by some jackass randomly firing from a humvee? i mean, that is so much better than socom 2.

WTF does that have to do with implementing a great party/match-making system? NOTHING.

too late, it already has, because they followed your logic.

That's not what I'm proposing. I'm suggesting a better online interface, they implemented vehicles and big maps without tuning them properly, two completely different things. Oh and you can blame that on zipper, that's their fault.

and completely ruin the online aspect of the game. yea, you want socom to play like halo :lol

I want SOCOM to play like Resistance, meaning I want it to be awesome.

having to do matchmaking to play ranked games isn't fun. joining random game after random game is fucking lame. again, stick to resistance.

Having match-making to play ranked games is awesome, you're always playing against different people, you're not stuck on a single map over and over, it's always a fresh challenge, your team is always on their toes, they get experience on every map instead of having no idea on some maps while only being good at certain ones, if they want to do a custom game to practice on a certain map, they can.

 

[kenta]

Socom better have a party

it will

system.

maybe, we'll see

BTW I played both S1 and S2.

awesome

My clan started on Resistance,

cool beans

the party system was probably the only reason we played so much, it was easy for us to get together as quickly as we could and start fraging.

yeah I hear you

Warhawk lacked the party system and the clan nearly fell apart because of it tbh.

I agree it needs that

Trying to join each others game without in game messaging was hell. Servers got full really quickly, practically imposible to get everyone in one server.

amen, brother

I thought it was a bit strange that we couldn't get together in a room in Warhawk, since I did it all the time in S2, which is probably how you guys feel about this.

Exactly

The party system helped us immensly in Resistance, so much tbh that we took it for granted. It was taken away from us, and everyone kinda just gave up trying to join up in warhawk, because it was such a pain in the ass.

Indeed but I thought you said that already

TBH we should just except the party system, go forwards, you guys will be taking two steps back by not excepting the party system.

Strong words there

A lot of people who are accustomed to the party system will be thrown off if Socom doesn't have it.

true again

Fair enough you have a lobby, keep it and the party system. They can both work together, don't really see a problem with that tbh.

Yeah

 

[WinFonda]

So, uh... when does this game come out?

 

[Dibbz]

I thought you said that already

Needed emphesising

You didn't need to tear up my post like that

But glad you agree with it

 

[kenta]

Needed emphesising

cool, I can understand that

You didn't need to tear up my post like that

I thought that's how this thread worked, I was just going by the tone set by the last page

But glad you agree with it

you know I'm your homie

 

[Doel]

Some people seem to be forgetting that t's already confirmed they're bringing back the classic SOCOM lobby system, whether they add a party system on top of that is something we'll find out.

But the one point that the pro-party system people never have a good answer for is that in SOCOM, a game on 1 map can last upwards of an 40min. Party systems in games work well for games that are quick, not games that can have a back and forth struggle for up to 40-50min on a single map. If your friend has to wait 40min until he can play in the same room with you, there is going to be some really annoying long waits in this game.

Which is why I propose a combination of the two, where you can create a party but instead of a match-making system, you browse the classic SOCOM briefing rooms with your party, looking for a game. This way when a friend of yours finds a good room, he doesn't have to IM, PM, or call you, to tell you were to go, or on the flip side, you don't have to stare at your friends list until you see your friend is in a room. You can simply join it together.

 

[Das-J]

I love how this thread has been blowing up on ZERO news... I suppose its the GAF way! :lol

Anyway, I hope you guys are right and they implement both systems or a combination thereof. Placating the traditional players while not throwing off those accustomed to more current matchmaking approaches would seem to be key here.

 

[Kittonwy]

Some people seem to be forgetting that t's already confirmed they're bringing back the classic SOCOM lobby system, whether they add a party system on top of that is something we'll find out.

But the one point that the pro-party system people never have a good answer for is that in SOCOM, a game on 1 map can last upwards of an 40min. Party systems in games work well for games that are quick, not games that can have a back and forth struggle for up to 40-50min on a single map. If your friend has to wait 40min until he can play in the same room with you, there is going to be some really annoying long waits in this game.

Which is why I propose a combination of the two, where you can create a party but instead of a match-making system, you browse the classic SOCOM briefing rooms with your party, looking for a game. This way when a friend of yours finds a good room, he doesn't have to IM, PM, or call you, to tell you were to go, or on the flip side, you don't have to stare at your friends list until you see your friend is in a room. You can simply join it together.

I don't have a problem with your suggestion. I just don't want to have to deal with starting a room and waiting for people to show and then for a bunch of people I don't know to show up to take the rest of the slots. As long as my group can stay together and join a game together on one team, that's cool with me.

 

[BirdBomb]

Uh... how about NO? So you're comparing SOCOM to online gaming on the DREAMCAST? Jeebus.

is your reading comprehension broken? i didn't compare socom to any of those titles.

Then make it GOOD and make it PARTY-BASED. Who's to say SOCOM gamers wouldn't want a GOOD party system and GOOD match-making?

you can't have ranked, party based matchmaking and still have the lobby system. at best you'd have to turn the lobbies into unranked only custom games where no one ranks up or collects stats and that's the dumbest thing i have ever heard. that isn't socom, that's halo.

You speak as if having a good online interface and having good gameplay are mutually exclusive, which is not the case.

i speak as if having good gameplay is a million times more important than fucking up the online setup.

SOCOM is proof of implementing vehicles and large map-size poorly, that has nothing to do with implementing a good online interface and improving on what you already have.

why would they implement a party based matchmaking system? oh yea because like you said, a lot of other online games have it. why did they make the maps huge and up the amount of players and add vehicles? oh yea because other online games were doing it. so yea, like i said, socom is solid proof that taking a formula that works and making drastic changes to keep up with the times is a horrible, horrible idea. you want a party system? fine, but not for matchmaking. keep the servers alive and well and ranked.

Like I said in Resistance you don't have groups being split and ranked games are standard. If a party-system can make SOCOM better then it definitely needs it, anything that can improve SOCOM, SOCOM needs. Just because the implementation is bad doesn't mean the idea itself is bad. Having vehicles could have made SOCOM better had they implemented them properly and tuned them well.

why do you keep falling back on resistance as if it is the only game to have ever had matchmaking and parties? problems do exist in online games, it happens guy. and as far as i know these guys have 0 experience in making an online game.

There's hardly any fluff to Resistance online, it's very easy to get into, ultimately it all came down to player skill, we have very skilled clans playing, the online gameplay is great. Making the online interface better isn't going to keep SOCOM from being true to itself.

you have no idea what you are talking about. splintering the online game into ranked matchmaking for parties and unranked custom games is a stupid idea, one that would only come from someone who wasn't a true socom fan. i don't want my game playing like halo, sorry. if i want to log on to an online game to play ranked matches on random maps against random douchebags over and over i'll play halo.

If you hate that map wouldn't the solution be NOT TO HAVE THAT MAP instead? That has nothing to do with the party system. Who's to say if SOCOM has a great party/match-making system that people aren't going to use it? You can still have your lobby system and custom games, it's just that people who want to play ranked games can, within a party.

that has everything to do with a party based matchmaking system. go play halo for awhile.

Probably why I don't play it these days, nobody I know is still playing it.

probably because it is old as fuck. i don't know many 4 year old console games on last generation hardware that a lot of people still play.

Once again if the match-making system is great people would use it, it might not be the hardcore users but then SOCOM needs more than the hardcore clans to survive, it can't survive as a niche title.

yea because i mean, having a matchmaking system with parties is so vital that without it, it just sits on the shelf as a niche title :lol

Now you're trying suggest that their failure to implement and tune gameplay in the last two games has anything to do with implementing a party/match-making system, it doesn't. If they fucked up the maps before, they can do it again, REGARDLESS of whether they implement a party system or not, a party/match-making system has proven to work extremely well for Resistance, and it can work for SOCOM..

no? where did i suggest anything of the sort? if they waste their time screwing up the online setup of the game, that leaves less time for ironing out gameplay and making sure everything is solid in the game, no weapon glitches or soft spots or any shit like that. it's not difficult logic to follow. look at halo 2, bungie said the matchmaking system took so long to perfect that they didn't have time to completely iron out all the problems and you had shit like flags going through walls and bombs going through floors. socom's online setup isn't what is broke, the gameplay was.

Once again I'm not even using COD4 as an example of party/match-making.

your point? you are using resistance because apparently it is problem free. well too bad, because not every implementation is like that.

Nope.

actually yea, it must have been. you know next to nothing about socom online and definitely nothing about what the gamers who made the games million sellers want to you should quit preaching like you do.

SOCOM's online set-up is not perfect. Custom games can be ranked if they're standardized.

socom's online setup as far as the lobby based games is perfect. i don't want standardized ranked games, that isn't socom.

WTF does that have to do with implementing a great party/match-making system? NOTHING.

why do you continue to ask questions we have already had answered posts and posts ago? should i paint it out for you in small words or something? i'll try a basic breakdown.

large maps, 32 players, vehicles = massive change
no ranked lobby games (or "standardized" at best), focus on party based matchmaking = massive change

what i said and what you are asking for are the same thing; massive changes to something that was already working great. both unwanted and unneeded. simple enough?

That's not what I'm proposing. I'm suggesting a better online interface, they implemented vehicles and big maps without tuning them properly, two completely different things. Oh and you can blame that on zipper, that's their fault.

we can go over this all fucking day man. "better" is subjective at best. you're proposing changes socom players don't want. if old school socom players don't buy this game it doesn't have a chance in hell.

I want SOCOM to play like Resistance, meaning I want it to be awesome.

it already did play awesome.

Having match-making to play ranked games is awesome, you're always playing against different people, you're not stuck on a single map over and over, it's always a fresh challenge, your team is always on their toes, they get experience on every map instead of having no idea on some maps while only being good at certain ones, if they want to do a custom game to practice on a certain map, they can.

see, a response like that just proves you are totally clueless when it comes to how socom works online. completely ignorant and clueless. i log onto socom, i join a game. my buddies join the game. we play against 8 people on one map. map is over. guess what? the map CHANGES. omg! then people come and go and we are playing against different people on a different map. wow! and then when that game ends, the map changes AGAIN. neato! and then again people come and go, teams are rarely exactly the same.

and hey, i like playing the same people over and over again. that's what makes halo's setup so fucking lame. if i have a great game against a group in matchmaking and the game ends, what happens? we all go our separate ways. the only way to go against each other again is to friend up and play unranked custom games or be lucky enough to be pitted against each other again. socom is not like that. if i have a great, epic 30 minute + battle in socom, we all go back to the same lobby where the next map comes up and we can all do it over again, with whatever weapons and accessories we want on or off and still play ranked. and if those people we beat want more, they know exactly where to find us, and they will. that is socom. you want quick, random matches against strangers, establishing no real community or uniqueness to the games and the best part is you think you are right and people want that :lol im done trying to explain to you why you are so wrong. enjoy resistance.

 

[Arsenic]

see, a response like that just proves you are totally clueless when it comes to how socom works online. completely ignorant and clueless. i log onto socom, i join a game. my buddies join the game. we play against 8 people on one map. map is over. guess what? the map CHANGES. omg! then people come and go and we are playing against different people on a different map. wow! and then when that game ends, the map changes AGAIN. neato! and then again people come and go, teams are rarely exactly the same.

and hey, i like playing the same people over and over again. that's what makes halo's setup so fucking lame. if i have a great game against a group in matchmaking and the game ends, what happens? we all go our separate ways. the only way to go against each other again is to friend up and play unranked custom games or be lucky enough to be pitted against each other again. socom is not like that. if i have a great, epic 30 minute + battle in socom, we all go back to the same lobby where the next map comes up and we can all do it over again, with whatever weapons and accessories we want on or off and still play ranked. and if those people we beat want more, they know exactly where to find us, and they will. that is socom. you want quick, random matches against strangers, establishing no real community or uniqueness to the games and the best part is you think you are right and people want that :lol im done trying to explain to you why you are so wrong. enjoy resistance.

I've been wanting to write a reply like this for so long, I just didnt know how to word it (plus I love kittonwy).

but you're absolutely right. when I played resistance before I joined the GAF clan, there were many occurrences when i played with a group of people that were real fun, but only to never see them again. this is my only problem with resistances' online. its hard to establish a community within the community.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

:lol

oh the Quote trees

 

[PuMa]

Which is why I propose a combination of the two, where you can create a party but instead of a match-making system, you browse the classic SOCOM briefing rooms with your party, looking for a game. This way when a friend of yours finds a good room, he doesn't have to IM, PM, or call you, to tell you were to go, or on the flip side, you don't have to stare at your friends list until you see your friend is in a room. You can simply join it together.

Finally some sense. This is exactly what I was thinking and seems to be a great way to mesh both the old with the new.

Reading all of this party vs. lobby debate was getting pretty annoying seeing as how some people hadn't played much SOCOM, if any, during its glory days.

The one point against the party system that I didn't see brought up was the fact that you would have no way of joining a room of people you knew if they weren't on your friends list. This was an integral part of the SOCOM community back in the day when people/clans would frequent one or two specific servers and they would know most of the people there. Without those lobbies set up, it would be almost impossible to have that same online community feel.

 

[PAYBACKill]

Some people seem to be forgetting that t's already confirmed they're bringing back the classic SOCOM lobby system, whether they add a party system on top of that is something we'll find out.

But the one point that the pro-party system people never have a good answer for is that in SOCOM, a game on 1 map can last upwards of an 40min. Party systems in games work well for games that are quick, not games that can have a back and forth struggle for up to 40-50min on a single map. If your friend has to wait 40min until he can play in the same room with you, there is going to be some really annoying long waits in this game.

Which is why I propose a combination of the two, where you can create a party but instead of a match-making system, you browse the classic SOCOM briefing rooms with your party, looking for a game. This way when a friend of yours finds a good room, he doesn't have to IM, PM, or call you, to tell you were to go, or on the flip side, you don't have to stare at your friends list until you see your friend is in a room. You can simply join it together.

wow what an amazing idea. I am glad I thought about it and posted it a page ago.

Kittonwy, I think I can help clear this up.


Resistance and other online shooters need a party system to keep folks together room to room because the matches don't last all that long.


a war in socom can go 11 6-minute rounds per map, out of 3 maps. This is the most extreme example of course but this would be a 3 hour 20 minute war, where you stayed in the same passworded server with your opponents and your clanmates. All you need to do is find one at the start of the evening, which happens within 5 minutes anyway.


I think the compromise between your idea and what we socom fans actually want would be a party system where once you got your clan in a room and counted up how many you had on that night, you could THEN go browse the lobby to find a war....then...here's the part where everyone wouldbe happy....then you could press a button to bring your clan TO that room, instantly. This would keep it socom while improving interface.

not that kittonwy bothers to read any logical post. resistance nub.

 

[LJ11]

I want a combination of both, lobbies and party system. If they choose to go with a Party system then they should replicate CoD4's. You find a room with your Party and then you stay in it, no bouncing around like Resistance and Halo 3. I want to find a room with a group and stay in it for as long as possible.

Party systems like Resistance/Halo suffer from one main problem, repetition (ranked games at least). You play X map, go back to matchmake and you may play X map again, unless everyone vetos. With CoD4, you get in a room and you stay in it unless the host quits, which IIRC is going to be patched. Your group stays in the room and plays a sequence of maps which can also be vetoed. CoD4's party system is the most flexible solution.

In a perfect world we would get lobbies like the old SOCOM games, and a party system ala CoD4.

 

[Greg]

I was fucking banned for over a month for making a joke about PS3 sales... one would think I could poke fun at the only system I own (launch purchase, too). Fuck.

Anyways, people on Resistance (the rare occasions I do show up) know how I feel about S2 - pretty much the best damn online game I've ever played for a console, and its community separated it from the rest. There is nothing wrong with implementing a party system into SOCOM, but it should compliment the structure that made S2 popular and not conflict with it.

No party matchmaking. Parties are fine for communication purposes, and the leader of a party searching for a lobby for the entire group to join is okay, but as soon as you implement party matchmaking, you eliminate half of the community aspect to a game. It's not even about accessibility either - mindlessly shuffling from random game to random game with random people is what COD4 and Resistance does, and it's the only reason I can come up with as to why I can't get into either game. Although the definition of community would say otherwise, to me, being in a 'party' isn't community - that's simply playing with people you know. If you break it down another level, my idea of community is playing on a certain server/lobby/map/setting with people who share similar interests in that particular server/lobby/map/setting, and SOCOM's system allowed you to do that.

When the entire party joins through matchmaking and you are stuck playing the same fucking map 4 times in a row (Somerset is the quickest example that comes to mind), do you consider that fun/accessible?

 

[Dibbz]

I agree match making should be left out, since Socom was all about joining your favourtie servers and rooms etc. Party system can just help guys get together and look for a room. Non of the match making stuff ala Resistance.

Hopefully we'll get that.

 

[Doel]

New SOCOM Confrontation preview up on 1up. But uhhh...there is nothing new in it except for a release date that I'm not so sure isn't just an estimate.

 

[TTP]

If you start winning, you're going to get rewards like different weapons and items. We even plan on having some higher-end tournaments that'll have a very specific reward for the person who wins that tournament. You'll be able to get things that set you apart from other people [and show] you've achieved a certain level of success in the game. It's about bragging rights.

when you're shooting your weapon, you're ejecting shells from your weapon9those bounce off the environment, they roll down hills, and you can walk around and kick them and they'll make noise.

Damn, cant wait

 

[Kittonwy]

see, a response like that just proves you are totally clueless when it comes to how socom works online. completely ignorant and clueless. i log onto socom, i join a game. my buddies join the game. we play against 8 people on one map. map is over. guess what? the map CHANGES. omg! then people come and go and we are playing against different people on a different map. wow! and then when that game ends, the map changes AGAIN. neato! and then again people come and go, teams are rarely exactly the same.

I know how it works, like Warhawk, but I don't necessarily want it to work like Warhawk, I want it to work like Resistance. Instead of people voluntarily leaving, I would like the match-making system to throw out the last sorry group we just beat and bring in the next group to face my clan, so we can beat them.

and hey, i like playing the same people over and over again. that's what makes halo's setup so fucking lame. if i have a great game against a group in matchmaking and the game ends, what happens? we all go our separate ways. the only way to go against each other again is to friend up and play unranked custom games or be lucky enough to be pitted against each other again. socom is not like that. if i have a great, epic 30 minute + battle in socom, we all go back to the same lobby where the next map comes up and we can all do it over again, with whatever weapons and accessories we want on or off and still play ranked. and if those people we beat want more, they know exactly where to find us, and they will. that is socom. you want quick, random matches against strangers, establishing no real community or uniqueness to the games and the best part is you think you are right and people want that :lol im done trying to explain to you why you are so wrong. enjoy resistance.

You friend up with people you play WITH, YOUR FRIENDS, not your enemies, they're just assholes that you and your team have to work together to beat. We beat them, then another clan, then another clan, gotta beat them all!!!

 

[Kittonwy]

wow what an amazing idea. I am glad I thought about it and posted it a page ago.

not that kittonwy bothers to read any logical post. resistance nub.

I read it, I think it's a good idea as long as you can keep all your friends on one side from game to game.

Go Resistance rawr.

 

[Kittonwy]

I was fucking banned for over a month for making a joke about PS3 sales... one would think I could poke fun at the only system I own (launch purchase, too). Fuck.

Anyways, people on Resistance (the rare occasions I do show up) know how I feel about S2 - pretty much the best damn online game I've ever played for a console, and its community separated it from the rest. There is nothing wrong with implementing a party system into SOCOM, but it should compliment the structure that made S2 popular and not conflict with it.

No party matchmaking. Parties are fine for communication purposes, and the leader of a party searching for a lobby for the entire group to join is okay, but as soon as you implement party matchmaking, you eliminate half of the community aspect to a game. It's not even about accessibility either - mindlessly shuffling from random game to random game with random people is what COD4 and Resistance does, and it's the only reason I can come up with as to why I can't get into either game. Although the definition of community would say otherwise, to me, being in a 'party' isn't community - that's simply playing with people you know. If you break it down another level, my idea of community is playing on a certain server/lobby/map/setting with people who share similar interests in that particular server/lobby/map/setting, and SOCOM's system allowed you to do that.

When the entire party joins through matchmaking and you are stuck playing the same fucking map 4 times in a row (Somerset is the quickest example that comes to mind), do you consider that fun/accessible?

Dude I love Somerset, that's like my favorite map (for Assault), although Axebridge is fast becoming another favorite of mine.

 

[Kittonwy]

New SOCOM Confrontation preview up on 1up. But uhhh...there is nothing new in it except for a release date that I'm not so sure isn't just an estimate.

I really want to see what they're doing with the visuals. They're obviously taking the vehicles out, I really want to see a strong clan-based community.

 

[Greg]

Dude I love Somerset, that's like my favorite map (for Assault), although Axebridge is fast becoming another favorite of mine.

Well, that's not the point - sub Somerset for a map you hate, and imagine being forced to play it multiple times in a row. :lol

I really want to see what they're doing with the visuals. They're obviously taking the vehicles out, I really want to see a strong clan-based community.

Yeah, the videos I've seen weren't the greatest display of graphics. I know most of that is placeholder (and SOCOM never had the best graphics to begin with), but after already seeing what the system can do, I'd be let down if there hasn't been much progress.

 

[blindrocket]

As for graphics, this is the PSN downloadable title, right? I think the full blown PS3 capable graphics will be reserved for the actual SOCOM sequel that gets a Blu-ray release.

 

[Greg]

As for graphics, this is the PSN downloadable title, right? I think the full blown PS3 capable graphics will be reserved for the actual SOCOM sequel that gets a Blu-ray release.

I know Warhawk was an interesting case because it was a shown off as one of the big hitters for PS3 before it went MP-only, but being a PSN game is not excuse for poor graphics at the price the game will probably sell for.

I understand that 10 dollar titles won't be pushing the system, but SOCOM shouldn't be written off as a budget title, as it WILL sell systems. I know multiple people that are specifically waiting for SOCOM to be released before they buy a PS3.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3165210

Location
Initial recon indicates subject is returning to previous areas of operation. "Crossroads is by far the fan favorite," Luisi says, "so we definitely wanted to show what this level would look like in the next generation. We're trying to maintain a smaller size; the largest level in this game is going to be smaller than anything we had in SOCOM 3. And so while we are going to expand Crossroads out a bit, it's not going to be this huge, expansive area. All the other maps we're going to ship initially with the game are all going to be new."

Expansion
Subject is expected to expand sphere of influence over time. "We wanted to have meaningful content packs that'll be available postrelease that aren't just new maps, but in many ways kind of a mini-expansion pack," Luisi reveals. "You get new weapons, special forces...and even features that are going to change and evolve the gameplay as it goes on. And we're looking at having them themed after different areas. The initial release is the North African theme, and we're looking at bringing in new environments.

Complexity
Subject is showing signs of increased guerrilla activity; expect dense resistance and close-quarters combat. Luisi cites "intimate" locations. "Instead of spreading 32 players over this huge area with vehicles," he says, "we want to have a tighter interaction between the players. There's still going to be plenty of cover in the environments -- it's not going to be a fragfest -- but you're going to have a much different experience. You're going to want to look around every corner and be very careful about how you move through the environment, because it's not going to be as spread out as it was."

Recruitment
Recon indicates subject is engaging in energetic recruitment, enlisting community participation though material incentives. "We'll have ways of unlocking equipment and customization options by participating in team tournaments and clan ladders," Luisi says. "If you start winning, you're going to get rewards like different weapons and items. We even plan on having some higher-end tournaments that'll have a very specific reward for the person who wins that tournament. You'll be able to get things that set you apart from other people [and show] you've achieved a certain level of success in the game. It's about bragging rights."

Transformation
In deference to "intimate" locations, subject has disabled vehicular transport. "For the initial release, vehicles are out," Luisi says. "We are looking at possibly bringing them back later on with downloadable updates, but initially, we want to focus on the on-foot combat, making that as visceral as possible."

Customization
Informant reveals subject is emphasizing adaptability in personal appearance, potentially resulting in increased difficulty in identifying hostiles. "We are going to focus more on what identifies your character," he says, "like camo, clothing, and some of the gear options. Being able to customize your uniform is a huge part of your identity. It plays a little bit into the strategy of how well you're concealed in the environment, as well."

Identification
Subject appears to be encouraging community members to establish group identities. While this may make groups easier to target, expect further difficulty in distinguishing hostiles from friendlies. "As a clan leader," says Luisi, "you can go in and customize the camo pattern -- including its density and color -- and the base uniform structure. Then the members of the clan can go in and further customize objects on their characters and further customize their look. The idea is that they will look like their own special force. So the same way you see these guys out there in the different special forces -- each one looks different but you can tell they're one team? That's what we want to go for."

Collateral Damage
Informant cites "more interaction" with regard to physical surroundings, indicating potentially dangerous elements in the environment that must be taken into account (e.g., exploding barrels). "There will be destructible elements to the environments," Luisi says. "We have to be careful so that people can't just blow up any area, because we've spent so much time on the design and the flow of the environment that it's hard for us to allow somebody to just blow up random pieces of it. But we definitely plan on having objects that can be destroyed or moved. So the way you interact with the environment is going to be a lot more complex."

Acoustics
Subject appears to be emphasizing audio reconnaissance to an unprecedented degree. "The audio system...is going to be highly detailed," says Luisi. "It uses occlusion, so if somebody's fighting around a corner, you can hear it, and it sounds as if they're fighting around a corner. The audio will follow paths through the environment. So if you're running around, you're going to be making noise, and it'll be a lot easier to find somebody."

Exposure
Subject is expected to employ environmental dynamics to assist in locating individuals. "We have a lot of interesting things involving interactivity with the environment," Luisi says. "Like when you're shooting your weapon, you're ejecting shells from your weapon -- those bounce off the environment, they roll down hills, and you can walk around and kick them and they'll make noise. So you'll need to be careful

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

I think the full blown PS3 capable graphics will be reserved for the actual SOCOM sequel that gets a Blu-ray release.

Speaking of that, it's been almost two years since Zipper has mentioned anything about their PS3 project. I cant believe we haven't even gotten a hint at what they're up to, aside from it being a major departure for the franchise. Confrontation being handed over to Slant6 to placate the hardcores points to a very different direction for Zipper's baby. Hell it might not even be SOCOM anymore. But it's just weird how Sony bought them out awhile back, and nary a peep from the studio since then. I just hope things didn't go off the rails or something. Maybe they're waiting for Confrontation to hit before revealing anything.

 

[TTP]

...

See 9 posts above yours

 

[TTP]

Speaking of that, it's been almost two years since Zipper has mentioned anything about their PS3 project. I can't believe we haven't even gotten a hint at what they're up to, aside from it being a major departure for the franchise. Confrontation being handed over to Slant6 to placate the hardcores points to a very different direction for Zipper's baby. Hell it might not even be SOCOM anymore. But it's just weird how Sony bought them out awhile back, and nary a peep from the studio since then. I just hope things didn't go off the rails or something. Maybe they're waiting for Confrontation to hit before revealing anything.

Well, considering what Zipper has done to the franchise after the great start with SOCOM I and how awesome Slant6's SOCOM Tactical Strike is, I have more faith in the latter to be honest.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Well, considering what Zipper has done to the franchise after the great start with SOCOM I and how awesome Slant6's SOCOM Tactical Strike is, I have more faith in the latter to be honest.

Ehh, I still have faith in Zipper to some degree. I was disgusted as any hardcore SOCOM nut with the direction they took after S2, but I gotta believe there's still something left in the studio that created the most addictive MP game I've ever played. I mean, the map design in S1 and S2 is still in a class of it's own IMO. I can't think of another MP map set that's even close as memorable or replayable. There has to be some of that talent left right? I hope so anyway.

 

[oneHeero]

"As a clan leader," says Luisi, "you can go in and customize the camo pattern -- including its density and color -- and the base uniform structure. Then the members of the clan can go in and further customize objects on their characters and further customize their look. The idea is that they will look like their own special force. So the same way you see these guys out there in the different special forces -- each one looks different but you can tell they're one team? That's what we want to go for."

Nice support for clans. I hope this is the first game to go all out in clan support. I would love to see ingame clans like on PC games. Well mainly like Red Alert 2 lol. With clan stats and what not. That was so awesome. I want that for console games, I hope we see that here seeing how big Socom is.

 

[PuMa]

I know how it works, like Warhawk, but I don't necessarily want it to work like Warhawk, I want it to work like Resistance. Instead of people voluntarily leaving, I would like the match-making system to throw out the last sorry group we just beat and bring in the next group to face my clan, so we can beat them.

Hmmm, SOCOM actually really didnt work like Warhawk. The only similaritity is that they both dont use matchmaking. SOCOM was different because of the division into separate servers. Clans and individuals all around were able to find a "home" in their own server. This was very unique and led to a great community.

You friend up with people you play WITH, YOUR FRIENDS, not your enemies, they're just assholes that you and your team have to work together to beat. We beat them, then another clan, then another clan, gotta beat them all!!!

I think this is wrong again. It seems you highly favor matchmaking, which is fine, but that just isn't SOCOM. Us SOCOMers loved going at it with the same group of guys for a few rounds especially when we had two clans or two groups that competed well against each other. You just cant do that with matchmaking, and its sad really.

 

[Doel]

So according to the latest EGM, SOCOM Confrontation is now a Fall 2008 game.

 

[UncleGuito]

So according to the latest EGM, SOCOM Confrontation is now a Fall 2008 game.

Damn. Regardless, this is one of my most anticipated games of the year.

 

[Totobeni]

So according to the latest EGM, SOCOM Confrontation is now a Fall 2008 game.

the hell , freaking fuck !!!

so now Zipper's new and "real" next gen SOCOM won't come for PS3 before mid 2009 ? come on

 

[AdventureRacing]

I want it to work like Resistance.

I don't. I already own resistance so if i want that type of matchmaking i'll go play resistance. I want socom to use the formula which made it so great in the first place.

 

[Doel]

I've debated about posting this because it's not really significant to anyone here, but whatever. This was posted from Slant Six on Friday:

Happy New Years Everyone!

The forums have been abuzz over the last month as a result of me being away combined with the lack of news and media coverage of the game. As for any new information on the game I can see that the community has already discovered the new 1UP preview that was posted on the 3rd but other then this there is nothing new for me to comment on.

I should clarify that Slant Six does not have a community manager; I am a developer working directly on the game every day which is why my updates aren’t quite as robust as some of the other game sites you might visit. We here at Slant Six understand the importance of being active with the community and I do my best to keep up communication with the forum, and I hope that the Community can understand I am not in a position to release information. As a reminder I can’t comment on official release dates or reveal and information on public betas so you can continue to ask but I am unable to comment.

Keep your questions coming and I will do my best to answer what I can.

SealTeam-6 Out

 

[Kittonwy]

So according to the latest EGM, SOCOM Confrontation is now a Fall 2008 game.

What is taking them so long and when is teh beta?

 

[Doel]

What is taking them so long and when is teh beta?

Doesn't bother me as long as they are listening to the community and giving us a proper selection of maps from the start.

Would also be amazing if they cut it down to 16 players max (would also cut down on their development resources and time), but that seems like a pipe dream. I don't know why they don't just do it though. Not only would it save them time and money, it would also make the community (the people they are trying to please) EXTREMELY happy, and the most successful online console shooters right now are 16 players or less (ie: Halo 3, CoD4, Gears of War).

 

[Doel]

Wrote an editorial on the "numbers game" that faces the developers of online shooters, using SOCOM as reference point. If anyone is interested you can read it here.

 

[Byakuya769]

With SOCOM, a game I was looking forward to play in fall 2007, being made a fall 2008 game, do you all think that it will be killed by competition from resistance 2 and killzone 2? The install base of ps3 is only so large, so given the hype behind killzone, and the pedigree behind resistance what will help to make the socom community a decent size? Oh yea.. not to mention that MGS4 will be out with online, though earlier in the year (hopefully.... right?).

 

[Crisis]

Sony is the new Nintendo when it comes to delays these days. Jesus Christ.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

Sony is the new Nintendo when it comes to delays these days. Jesus Christ.

just do what i do. at 9-12 months to the original release and that'll give you a good estimate of when it'll come out

 

[Kittonwy]

Doesn't bother me as long as they are listening to the community and giving us a proper selection of maps from the start.

Would also be amazing if they cut it down to 16 players max (would also cut down on their development resources and time), but that seems like a pipe dream. I don't know why they don't just do it though. Not only would it save them time and money, it would also make the community (the people they are trying to please) EXTREMELY happy, and the most successful online console shooters right now are 16 players or less (ie: Halo 3, CoD4, Gears of War).

On the PS3 the most successful shooter is 40 player (ie. Resistance). they need to come out sooner though because Resistance 2 is coming in winter 08 and that's going to take up a big chunk of the player base. I don't know why you guys are so against 32 players, if it's done well, it can be great, unless you don't have confidence in Slant Six in which case it's not like you can be sure they can execute even the existing concepts well anyway.

 

[Kittonwy]

Wrote an editorial on the "numbers game" that faces the developers of online shooters, using SOCOM as reference point. If anyone is interested you can read it here.

I've always thought that the design of the maps and NOT the number of players was SOCOM3's real downfall. The maps were too big even for 32 players, and when you have fewer than 32 players, the problem gets exacerbated. It's not a matter of numbers but a matter of execution, Resistance handled 40 players pretty much better than SOCOM 1 and 2 handled 8 vs 8, with lots of flow, lots of strategy, lots of intensity. It sounds more like you just want the existing SOCOM 1/2 maps prettied up, but that's not how a franchise would grow.

 

[Arsenic]

I've always thought that the design of the maps and NOT the number of players was SOCOM3's real downfall. The maps were too big even for 32 players, and when you have fewer than 32 players, the problem gets exacerbated. It's not a matter of numbers but a matter of execution, Resistance handled 40 players pretty much better than SOCOM 1 and 2 handled 8 vs 8, with lots of flow, lots of strategy, lots of intensity. It sounds more like you just want the existing SOCOM 1/2 maps prettied up, but that's not how a franchise would grow.

Actually that is exactly what us socom fans want. Sony owes us that. After years of unsatisfying online shooters, we want the old formula back.... UNCHANGED.

And I know you're going to say "Oh but what about the mainstream that will be turned off because of other online shooters like Ghost Recon and Resistance and Call of Duty does it better and blah blah....." fuck the casuals, fuck the mainstream. Wasn't this for the fans? We know what we want. I can care less about new players coming in, I care about the old veterans that stuck it through with the franchise coming back.

The franchise can grow with a new full socom game, but as for this version, its MUCH better off trying to catch the trust back of the old socomers.

 

[Evolved1]

Resistance handled 40 players pretty much better than SOCOM 1 and 2 handled 8 vs 8, with lots of flow, lots of strategy, lots of intensity. It sounds more like you just want the existing SOCOM 1/2 maps prettied up, but that's not how a franchise would grow.

My opinion: you're way off. Stick to Resistance dude. Socom I and II are some of greatest maps ever featured in a shooter. And near-perfectly balanced.

Resistance isn't my type of shooter, really... but I don't fault the game for that. There isn't a game out there that tops Socom's 8 vs 8. Certainly not Resistance... you're so off on this man. Which is weird, because you're one of the better Gaffers. You just don't know your Socom.

 

[Kittonwy]

Actually that is exactly what us socom fans want. Sony owes us that. After years of unsatisfying online shooters, we want the old formula back.... UNCHANGED.

And I know you're going to say "Oh but what about the mainstream that will be turned off because of other online shooters like Ghost Recon and Resistance and Call of Duty does it better and blah blah....." fuck the casuals, fuck the mainstream. Wasn't this for the fans? We know what we want. I can care less about new players coming in, I care about the old veterans that stuck it through with the franchise coming back.

The franchise can grow with a new full socom game, but as for this version, its MUCH better off trying to catch the trust back of the old socomers.

How many of these old socomers are even playing nowadays? How many of them actually own a PS3? They need a viable userbase for the game, it's a business. It's not like having new maps would mean shitty gameplay, it might even make the game better, if you want to play exactly the same game as SOCOM 2, why not just play SOCOM 2? I'd like to see how many of these "old veterans" actually have a PS3 before we start talking about this kind of loyalty nonsense.