I love MAG.. But i fail to see how 256 players couldnt be done on PS2.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Kennysolidsnake
Kennysolidsnake

1068

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Kennysolidsnake
Member since 2009 • 1068 Posts

First and foremost let me say that Im loving MAG. its highly addicitive, rewarding and i cant put it down. But i keep hearing how 256 players on a console is so revolutionary for consoles and how it will set a new standard for future FPS to come. But im missing how the PS3 has anything to do with this, its just servers that make it possible for 256 players to be in one match. the PS2 and even the Regular Xbox could easily also do 256 players online if there was enough servers. So can someone explain to me how 256 players in one match online couldnt be done on last gen consoles?

Avatar image for MrFanboy
MrFanboy

397

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 MrFanboy
Member since 2010 • 397 Posts

First and foremost let me say that Im loving MAG. its highly addicitive, rewarding and i cant put it down. But i keep hearing how 256 players on a console is so revolutionary for consoles and how it will set a new standard for future FPS to come. But im missing how the PS3 has anything to do with this, its just servers that make it possible for 256 players to be in one match. the PS2 and even the Regular Xbox could easily also do 256 players online if there was enough servers. So can someone explain to me how 256 players in one match online couldnt be done on last gen consoles?

Kennysolidsnake

Networking wasn't that advanced at the time.

Avatar image for 15strong
15strong

2806

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 15strong
Member since 2007 • 2806 Posts

ps2 hardley had any online games. You also had to buy an adapter. There would not be a big enough audience.

Avatar image for Kennysolidsnake
Kennysolidsnake

1068

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Kennysolidsnake
Member since 2009 • 1068 Posts
[QUOTE="Kennysolidsnake"]

First and foremost let me say that Im loving MAG. its highly addicitive, rewarding and i cant put it down. But i keep hearing how 256 players on a console is so revolutionary for consoles and how it will set a new standard for future FPS to come. But im missing how the PS3 has anything to do with this, its just servers that make it possible for 256 players to be in one match. the PS2 and even the Regular Xbox could easily also do 256 players online if there was enough servers. So can someone explain to me how 256 players in one match online couldnt be done on last gen consoles?

MrFanboy
Networking was that advanced at the time.

So basically if Zipper wanted to, they could easily make MAG on the PS2 today since internet is so much faster now?
Avatar image for Skittles_McGee
Skittles_McGee

9136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Skittles_McGee
Member since 2008 • 9136 Posts
Because every player you see on the screen has their own mesh and textures, same for the gun they're carrying. There isn't nearly enough memory in the PS2 to hold that much texture and mesh data for the game to be playable. Simple.
Avatar image for Kennysolidsnake
Kennysolidsnake

1068

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Kennysolidsnake
Member since 2009 • 1068 Posts

ps2 hardley had any online games. You also had to buy an adapter. There would not be a big enough audience.

15strong
right, but what i mean is technically it could easily be done on PS2. Socom had 32 players on PS2 no problem, MAG could easily do 256 players online on the PS2
Avatar image for Messiahbolical-
Messiahbolical-

5644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Messiahbolical-
Member since 2009 • 5644 Posts
I could've been done last gen under the name L.A.G. instead of M.A.G.
Avatar image for MrFanboy
MrFanboy

397

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 MrFanboy
Member since 2010 • 397 Posts
[QUOTE="MrFanboy"][QUOTE="Kennysolidsnake"]

First and foremost let me say that Im loving MAG. its highly addicitive, rewarding and i cant put it down. But i keep hearing how 256 players on a console is so revolutionary for consoles and how it will set a new standard for future FPS to come. But im missing how the PS3 has anything to do with this, its just servers that make it possible for 256 players to be in one match. the PS2 and even the Regular Xbox could easily also do 256 players online if there was enough servers. So can someone explain to me how 256 players in one match online couldnt be done on last gen consoles?

Kennysolidsnake
Networking was that advanced at the time.

So basically if Zipper wanted to, they could easily make MAG on the PS2 today since internet is so much faster now?

With crappy graphics maybe. I also meant "wasn't" sorry for that.
Avatar image for Midnightshade29
Midnightshade29

6003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 301

User Lists: 0

#9 Midnightshade29
Member since 2008 • 6003 Posts

Because every player you see on the screen has their own mesh and textures, same for the gun they're carrying. There isn't nearly enough memory in the PS2 to hold that much texture and mesh data for the game to be playable. Simple.Skittles_McGee
I guess Mr. flip flopping sides never got your post... Or just decided to ingore it as it basically invalidates his whole thread.

Avatar image for dragonfly110
dragonfly110

27895

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#10 dragonfly110
Member since 2008 • 27895 Posts

PS2 wouldnt be able to handle it at all. Xbox originaly MIGHT be able to, IDK itd be stretching its hardware to the max though...

Avatar image for Messiahbolical-
Messiahbolical-

5644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 Messiahbolical-
Member since 2009 • 5644 Posts
[QUOTE="15strong"]

ps2 hardley had any online games. You also had to buy an adapter. There would not be a big enough audience.

Kennysolidsnake
right, but what i mean is technically it could easily be done on PS2. Socom had 32 players on PS2 no problem, MAG could easily do 256 players online on the PS2

Only one problem: The whole game would be lagging so bad it that playing it would be equal to watching a slide show. :| Handling 256 players without lag in a genre such as FPS that takes quick reactions is very impressive. Especially when there's so many games that can't even handle 20 or less most of the time without lag(Gears 2, Call Of Duty 4-6, Halo 3, BFBC2). Whether it can "only be done on the PS3" or not is a whole other subject though. It CAN be done on the PC, that much I can guarantee. However, it highly doubt it could be done on the 360. Not without being heavily downgraded, at least. It would probably have more lag too, since most online 360 games tend to in comparison to their respective PS3 counterparts.
Avatar image for RavenLoud
RavenLoud

2874

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 RavenLoud
Member since 2009 • 2874 Posts
I could've been done last gen under the name L.A.G. instead of M.A.G.Messiahbolical-
:lol: Nice one. Also isn't there like a limit of 64 players in the same area in those 256 player matches? Correct me if I happen to be misinformed. You can't see 100 people rushing at you :P (good thing IMO, less frag fest) The PS2 cannot handle 256 player shooter (KZ1 lagged with 15-25 fps with a tenth of that player amount), the hardware limits are obvious and the shooter audience for PS2 is less than for the 360 (everyone I know who bought the PS2 before 2005 bought it for MGS/FFX, but that's just my experience). Even with timesplitters 1 graphics they wouldn't be able to pull it off. The net code wasn't as advanced and broadband internet is a luxury back then. Not to mention, releasing a multiplayer only game is suicide last gen. I can't remember any but I only had a GC back then so I wouldn't know anyway. :P
Avatar image for St_muscat
St_muscat

4315

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#13 St_muscat
Member since 2007 • 4315 Posts

I could've been done last gen under the name L.A.G. instead of M.A.G.Messiahbolical-
:lol: great call.

Avatar image for Skittles_McGee
Skittles_McGee

9136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 Skittles_McGee
Member since 2008 • 9136 Posts
[QUOTE="Kennysolidsnake"][QUOTE="15strong"]

ps2 hardley had any online games. You also had to buy an adapter. There would not be a big enough audience.

Messiahbolical-
right, but what i mean is technically it could easily be done on PS2. Socom had 32 players on PS2 no problem, MAG could easily do 256 players online on the PS2

Only one problem: The whole game would be lagging so bad it that playing it would be equal to watching a slide show. :| Handling 256 players without lag in a genre such as FPS that takes quick reactions is very impressive. Especially when there's so many games that can't even handle 20 or less most of the time without lag(Gears 2, Call Of Duty 4-6, Halo 3, BFBC2). Whether it can "only be done on the PS3" or not is a whole other subject though. It CAN be done on the PC, that much I can guarantee. However, it highly doubt it could be done on the 360. Not without being heavily downgraded, at least. It would probably have more lag too, since most online 360 games tend to in comparison to their respective PS3 counterparts.

Not necessarily. The 360 has more memory than the PS3, allowing it to hold more graphical assets at one time. If built correctly, the experience would be the same.
Avatar image for killa4lyfe
killa4lyfe

3849

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#15 killa4lyfe
Member since 2008 • 3849 Posts
I could've been done last gen under the name L.A.G. instead of M.A.G.Messiahbolical-
:lol: nice one :D
Avatar image for mirriorman
mirriorman

1946

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#16 mirriorman
Member since 2009 • 1946 Posts

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]Because every player you see on the screen has their own mesh and textures, same for the gun they're carrying. There isn't nearly enough memory in the PS2 to hold that much texture and mesh data for the game to be playable. Simple.Midnightshade29

I guess Mr. flip flopping sides never got your post... Or just decided to ingore it as it basically invalidates his whole thread.

i think he has a splilt personlity one a lemming the other a cow

Avatar image for Dibdibdobdobo
Dibdibdobdobo

6683

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#17 Dibdibdobdobo
Member since 2008 • 6683 Posts
[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"][QUOTE="Kennysolidsnake"][QUOTE="15strong"]

ps2 hardley had any online games. You also had to buy an adapter. There would not be a big enough audience.

right, but what i mean is technically it could easily be done on PS2. Socom had 32 players on PS2 no problem, MAG could easily do 256 players online on the PS2

Only one problem: The whole game would be lagging so bad it that playing it would be equal to watching a slide show. :| Handling 256 players without lag in a genre such as FPS that takes quick reactions is very impressive. Especially when there's so many games that can't even handle 20 or less most of the time without lag(Gears 2, Call Of Duty 4-6, Halo 3, BFBC2). Whether it can "only be done on the PS3" or not is a whole other subject though. It CAN be done on the PC, that much I can guarantee. However, it highly doubt it could be done on the 360. Not without being heavily downgraded, at least. It would probably have more lag too, since most online 360 games tend to in comparison to their respective PS3 counterparts.

LMAO please dont post!! The comedy is too funny that my sides have split.
Avatar image for Messiahbolical-
Messiahbolical-

5644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 Messiahbolical-
Member since 2009 • 5644 Posts
[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"][QUOTE="Kennysolidsnake"] right, but what i mean is technically it could easily be done on PS2. Socom had 32 players on PS2 no problem, MAG could easily do 256 players online on the PS2

Only one problem: The whole game would be lagging so bad it that playing it would be equal to watching a slide show. :| Handling 256 players without lag in a genre such as FPS that takes quick reactions is very impressive. Especially when there's so many games that can't even handle 20 or less most of the time without lag(Gears 2, Call Of Duty 4-6, Halo 3, BFBC2). Whether it can "only be done on the PS3" or not is a whole other subject though. It CAN be done on the PC, that much I can guarantee. However, it highly doubt it could be done on the 360. Not without being heavily downgraded, at least. It would probably have more lag too, since most online 360 games tend to in comparison to their respective PS3 counterparts.

Not necessarily. The 360 has more memory than the PS3, allowing it to hold more graphical assets at one time. If built correctly, the experience would be the same.

At the end of the gen, we'll see if the 360 has anything even close to MAG. Hell, the 360 doesn't even have anything to compare to Resistance 2's 60 players let alone MAG's 256. If Gears struggles to run lag-free with 10 player online, Halo 3 struggles with 16, and Modern Warfare 2 struggles with 12. Compared to UC2 which handles 10 with no noticeable lag at all, Resistance which handles 60 great, Killzone 2 which handles 32 no problem, and MW2 on PS3 has a significantly less amount of laggers on the PS3 than the 360(although I don't know if that has anything to do with the actual hardware or not, could just be that there's more people with crappy connections on the 360) It just seems like the PS3 has the advantage in networking over the 360 and that could have something to do with MAG working so beautifully on the PS3.
Avatar image for patriots7672
patriots7672

3249

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#19 patriots7672
Member since 2008 • 3249 Posts

PS2 doesn't have enough processing power! There you go and now you know.

The servers don't do it all as you think and the regular Xbox only did 8 vs 8 with Halo 2 and it was maxed out.

Avatar image for Skittles_McGee
Skittles_McGee

9136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 Skittles_McGee
Member since 2008 • 9136 Posts
[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"][QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"] Only one problem: The whole game would be lagging so bad it that playing it would be equal to watching a slide show. :| Handling 256 players without lag in a genre such as FPS that takes quick reactions is very impressive. Especially when there's so many games that can't even handle 20 or less most of the time without lag(Gears 2, Call Of Duty 4-6, Halo 3, BFBC2). Whether it can "only be done on the PS3" or not is a whole other subject though. It CAN be done on the PC, that much I can guarantee. However, it highly doubt it could be done on the 360. Not without being heavily downgraded, at least. It would probably have more lag too, since most online 360 games tend to in comparison to their respective PS3 counterparts.

Not necessarily. The 360 has more memory than the PS3, allowing it to hold more graphical assets at one time. If built correctly, the experience would be the same.

At the end of the gen, we'll see if the 360 has anything even close to MAG. Hell, the 360 doesn't even have anything to compare to Resistance 2's 60 players let alone MAG's 256. If Gears struggles to run lag-free with 10 player online, Halo 3 struggles with 16, and Modern Warfare 2 struggles with 12. Compared to UC2 which handles 10 with no noticeable lag at all, Resistance which handles 60 great, Killzone 2 which handles 32 no problem, and MW2 on PS3 has a significantly less amount of laggers on the PS3 than the 360(although I don't know if that has anything to do with the actual hardware or not, could just be that there's more people with crappy connections on the 360) It just seems like the PS3 has the advantage in networking over the 360 and that could have something to do with MAG working so beautifully on the PS3.

I have to ask what lag you notice. When someone has a bad connection, thats the only time I see lag. Which I've seen on both PSN and XBL. There's no real difference playing a P2P game on PSN and a P2P game on XBL. If someone's connection sucks, it sucks.
Avatar image for punkrocker163
punkrocker163

2087

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 punkrocker163
Member since 2006 • 2087 Posts
Because every player you see on the screen has their own mesh and textures, same for the gun they're carrying. There isn't nearly enough memory in the PS2 to hold that much texture and mesh data for the game to be playable. Simple.Skittles_McGee
This, I dont know why flip flopping TC ignores this. It couldnt be done last gen.
Avatar image for nhh18
nhh18

6538

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 nhh18
Member since 2009 • 6538 Posts

It is a kennysolidsnake topic.

Avatar image for dog_dirt
dog_dirt

2813

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 dog_dirt
Member since 2009 • 2813 Posts

really?

Avatar image for Messiahbolical-
Messiahbolical-

5644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 Messiahbolical-
Member since 2009 • 5644 Posts
[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"][QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"] Not necessarily. The 360 has more memory than the PS3, allowing it to hold more graphical assets at one time. If built correctly, the experience would be the same.Skittles_McGee
At the end of the gen, we'll see if the 360 has anything even close to MAG. Hell, the 360 doesn't even have anything to compare to Resistance 2's 60 players let alone MAG's 256. If Gears struggles to run lag-free with 10 player online, Halo 3 struggles with 16, and Modern Warfare 2 struggles with 12. Compared to UC2 which handles 10 with no noticeable lag at all, Resistance which handles 60 great, Killzone 2 which handles 32 no problem, and MW2 on PS3 has a significantly less amount of laggers on the PS3 than the 360(although I don't know if that has anything to do with the actual hardware or not, could just be that there's more people with crappy connections on the 360) It just seems like the PS3 has the advantage in networking over the 360 and that could have something to do with MAG working so beautifully on the PS3.

I have to ask what lag you notice. When someone has a bad connection, thats the only time I see lag. Which I've seen on both PSN and XBL. There's no real difference playing a P2P game on PSN and a P2P game on XBL. If someone's connection sucks, it sucks.

Like I said, I don't know if it has anything to do with the actual hardware or not. I don't know which PS3 games run on dedicated servers and which don't. I only brought up MW2 because I play on both and there's almost always 1-3 people with yellow bars in games on the 360 and it's usually pretty rare to play against people with yellow bars on the PS3 version unless you're playing against like... Australians or Japanese people. I'm pretty sure Killzone 2 runs on dedicated servers though, as well as Resistance 2.... but I think Uncharted 2 runs P2P. Uncharted 2 is typically compared to Gears 2 on the 360. They both have 10 players P2P and yet Uncharted 2 runs WAYYYY better. But this leads me to ask a question I've always wondered... why don't 360 games run on dedicated servers? I don't get it. PSN is free and most of it's exclusives run dedicated servers, yet 360 chargers for Live and doesn't run dedicated servers. I just don't understand that. P2P usualy sucks. Why not run servers? Is there a real reason not to?
Avatar image for ULTIMATEZWARRIO
ULTIMATEZWARRIO

6026

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#25 ULTIMATEZWARRIO
Member since 2004 • 6026 Posts
Well one of the simplest reasons is that the network infrastructure could not nearly do what it can now, also, all the characters would look like blocks if they even managed to do it
Avatar image for sora16perfect
sora16perfect

730

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 sora16perfect
Member since 2007 • 730 Posts
[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"]I could've been done last gen under the name L.A.G. instead of M.A.G.RavenLoud
:lol: Nice one. Also isn't there like a limit of 64 players in the same area in those 256 player matches? :P

no
Avatar image for falldogout
falldogout

429

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#27 falldogout
Member since 2009 • 429 Posts

I love MAG..BUT I fail. 256 PLAYERS COULDNT BE DONE ON PS2. SEE?

Fix'd

Avatar image for LegatoSkyheart
LegatoSkyheart

29732

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 1

#28 LegatoSkyheart
Member since 2009 • 29732 Posts

I see that you have already forgotten Final Fantasy Online for the PS2(FF11)

Avatar image for Messiahbolical-
Messiahbolical-

5644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 Messiahbolical-
Member since 2009 • 5644 Posts

I see that you have already forgotten Final Fantasy Online for the PS2(FF11)

LegatoSkyheart
I don't think anyone forgot about that downgraded lag fest. That version was hell compared to the PC version. If a FPS game lagged as much as that, it'd be virtually unplayable.
Avatar image for LegatoSkyheart
LegatoSkyheart

29732

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 1

#30 LegatoSkyheart
Member since 2009 • 29732 Posts

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

I see that you have already forgotten Final Fantasy Online for the PS2(FF11)

Messiahbolical-

I don't think anyone forgot about that downgraded lag fest. That version was hell compared to the PC version. If a FPS game lagged as much as that, it'd be virtually unplayable.

BUT it had online servers! :P

Avatar image for RavenLoud
RavenLoud

2874

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 RavenLoud
Member since 2009 • 2874 Posts
[QUOTE="RavenLoud"][QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"]I could've been done last gen under the name L.A.G. instead of M.A.G.sora16perfect
:lol: Nice one. Also isn't there like a limit of 64 players in the same area in those 256 player matches? :P

no

k thanks.
Avatar image for Leo-Magic
Leo-Magic

3025

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 Leo-Magic
Member since 2005 • 3025 Posts
The graphic of MAG is actaully pretty ugly in some way, I believe the this game can be done in other platform, for sure.
Avatar image for Brendissimo35
Brendissimo35

1933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 1

#33 Brendissimo35
Member since 2005 • 1933 Posts

Well such player numbers are certainly nothing new on the PC, the technology has been there for the entirety of this decade.