Sections

Sony’s MAG to be rebranded as SOCOM title?

Monday, 21st July 2008 06:34 GMT By Patrick Garratt

Massive Action Game, while certainly an apt description of Sony’s 256-player action title, isn’t the punchiest moniker we’ve ever heard. Luckily, according to an insider who contacted Kotaku, the game’s current ID may soon be a thing of the past.

The source was apparently part of a focus group that saw the game a month or so before E3. They claim that the game may sport one of a few potential taglines, such as “Shadow War,” “Zero,” “Global War,” or “Final Hour.” Since Zipper Interactive, erstwhile developer of the SOCOM series, is slaving away at MAG, the insider believes it’s not much of a stretch to expect a new SOCOM title to be the end result of the whole deal. More telling, he says that Zipper used images from SOCOM 3 as visual examples of the possibilities that MAG offers.

In addition, the blab-prone focus tester detailed MAG’s rank system, which allows players to eventually reach a near RTS-like state of omniscient power – even allowing those high-ranked players to set objectives for their team.

For even more in-depth details about MAG, click the link.

By Nathan Grayson

Latest

25 Comments

  1. Gekidami

    Wonder if its the same Kotaku insider who told us RE5 would be based in Haiti… That turned out to be BS…

    #1 6 years ago
  2. patlike

    I have no idea if this is true, to be honest. Wouldn’t surprise me that they were using SOCOM assets to sell it, though.

    #2 6 years ago
  3. Daniel Plainview

    makes sense, tom clancy style

    #3 6 years ago
  4. Shatner

    Hmm. If you’re in a focus group then you’ve signed a non-disclosure agreement.

    If you break that agreement then, clearly, you’re untrustworthy.

    Why should this information be anything other than bullshit when we know the source is untrustworthy?

    And where is the value of ‘protecting’ an individual who will not honour agreements he makes? If using their real name will mean they might not get such ‘work’ in the future then, really, you have to appreciate that the reason he might not get the work is because he’s not a good worker and will lie to get his 30 seconds of internet glory. What a remarkably backward sense of principles at play here.

    #4 6 years ago
  5. Dr.Haggard

    Hmm. If you’re in a focus group then you’ve signed a non-disclosure agreement.

    If you break that agreement then, clearly, you’re untrustworthy.

    Why should this information be anything other than bullshit when we know the source is untrustworthy?

    Does not compute.

    #5 6 years ago
  6. Shatner

    If “Orange” is in a focus group then by ‘leaking’ this information he has broken his agreement not to disclose details revealed to him in the focus group. These agreements are very standard focus group stuff.

    Yet he has revealed details. As such he has broken his agreement. As such he is untrustworthy. As such, we know he lies. If he lies about one thing then he’s capable of lying about others.

    Very simple logic. Have a coffee and try re-computing.

    #6 6 years ago
  7. patlike

    Do you speak to people like this in your day-to-day life, Shatner?

    #7 6 years ago
  8. Dr.Haggard

    @Shatner, you said:

    1. He claims to have been in a focus group

    2. Breaking his non-disclosure agreement proves he is untrustworthy

    3. Therefore we can’t rely on anything he says

    2 and 3 require 1 to be true, but if 3 is true then 1 is not necessarily true. If you believe he was in a focus group and he’s broken the non-disclosure agreement you can’t then conclude that the information he revealed is unreliable because of that.

    You said it yourself, “If he lies about one thing then he’s capable of lying about others”. Apply that to your own reasoning.

    Perhaps you’re the one who needs some coffee ;)

    #8 6 years ago
  9. Whizzo

    What I think is most obvious anyway is that MAG is a shit name.

    #9 6 years ago
  10. Vahn16

    @Whizzo: Would you like your high-five mailed or in-person?

    #10 6 years ago
  11. Shatner

    Haggard,

    If 2 and 3 are true due to 1 being true then he is untrustworthy.

    If 1 isn’ true then he is untrustworthy as he is lying about being in a focus group in the first place.

    Whatever way you want to boil it down, the guy is untrustworthy and a liar. I take notice of news from credible sources. I don’t decide a source is credible based on whether I like the sound of the news or not.

    And Pat, internet is not real life. Regardless, my response was delivered in the same vein as to the post it was in response to.

    #11 6 years ago
  12. Dr.Haggard

    If 2 and 3 are true due to 1 being true then he is untrustworthy.

    No, if 1 is true then he told the truth about something so your conclusion doesn’t follow. If 1 is false then your whole argument is pointless because everything he said is false.

    Look it’s very simple. You are basing your conclusion that he is untrustworthy on information he provided. It’s a circular argument. Since the only source we have to say that he was in a focus group is him, you can’t then say “Look he was in a focus group and he’s broken his non-disclosure agreement, he must be unreliable”.

    We have no reason to believe anything he says of course, but that’s not saying the same thing at all.

    If you weren’t so infuriatingly smug I really wouldn’t have felt the need to argue with you.

    #12 6 years ago
  13. Shatner

    If 1 is true, then he broke his (standard focus group) agreement. He is untrustworthy.

    If 1 is false then he lied about being in the focus group anyway.

    Very simple. Very logical. Absolutely watertight. Your alternative has more unknown factors in it in order for it to be workable.

    The same logic applies to any “EXCLUISVE! I’M IN THE CLOSED BETA BUT I CAN TELL YOU THIS” kind of ‘leak’ that ‘anonymous’ people like to use to garner their bit of internet fame.

    And I’m not smug. I’m simply right. That’s the problem with being right – people tend think you’re arrogant. Usually people who are wrong. It’s ok. I’ve learned to live with it.

    Either way, you’re still agreeing with me, you just don’t like to admit it. :)

    #13 6 years ago
  14. Dr.Haggard

    OK, so perhaps it was me who needed the coffee after all.

    This was all based on you trying argue that we can conclude, a priori, that nothing he says is true, which we can’t. I was right.

    Unfortunately it seems that’s not what you tried to argue at all, and I had taken a firm hold of the wrong end of the stick. That’s ok, I do it a lot.

    This, however:

    And I’m not smug. I’m simply right. That’s the problem with being right – people tend think you’re arrogant. Usually people who are wrong. It’s ok. I’ve learned to live with it.

    Makes me want to stick pins in your eyes.

    #14 6 years ago
  15. Dr.Haggard

    On second thought your conclusion that he’s unreliable still requires the assumption that something he said was true, and that was my point all along. So either way it’s not an interesting argument, it’s just stating the obvious that his actual information is not reliable. We’re still at square one.

    #15 6 years ago
  16. Shatner

    You can assume SOMETHING he says is true in order to find him unreliable if you like.

    Or, if you don’t, you end up reasoning that he’s unreliable.

    The outcome is the same. You’re still agreeing with me. He’s still unreliable. And it’s still fucked up that he’s given any credibility or taken under Kotaku’s protective wing so that his future prospect of getting more of this sort of ‘work’ aren’t jeopardised. (Which is the biggest crock of shit in all of this).

    You seem to keep finding new and interesting ways of proving me right. I don’t really need the support but, for what it’s worth, I’m grateful. I can make you my intern or something. Just sign this NDA first, ok?

    #16 6 years ago
  17. Dr.Haggard

    My point is only that him being unreliable is not an interesting conclusion to reach. If you can only prove he’s unreliable by assuming something he said is true, then the subsequent steps of the argument may not be logically flawed but it gets you nowhere.

    Did he take part in a focus group? Well if he did then he broke the NDA, so he’s unreliable (about that you’re right of course) but he did tell the truth about being in a focus group, so we’re still at square one in terms of validating his information. Pointless argument.

    I don’t think anyone would dispute that these sort of sources can never be relied upon, but is reporting on it such a bad thing? It’s not like it’s anything new, and I don’t think your crusade is going to make the slightest bit of difference because people will always be interested in reading about them.

    I’ll ignore your trademark condescending bullshit this time.

    #17 6 years ago
  18. Shatner

    Did he take part in a focus group? Well if he did then he broke the NDA, so he’s unreliable (about that you’re right of course) but he did tell the truth about being in a focus group, so we’re still at square one in terms of validating his information. Pointless argument.

    Well, that’s hardly conclusive. You’re choosing to give him the benefit of the doubt in order to assert your preferred theory (that still ends up with you agreeing with my conclusions anyway).

    As I already said your theories rely on more leaps of faith than any of mine do. And the end result is the same: he’s unreliable.

    Sure, being unreliable might be interesting but I’d rather know something truthful than be expecting to believe in the fanciful rantings of an unrelibale twerp who, it seems, values internet fame over much else. Not a particularly flattering set of qualities if I’m being told to either give this person the benefit of the doubt or find some integrity in his actions.

    There’s a gulf of understanding being widened by practices such as this were the blind lead the blind and expectations get raised on bullshit, lies and rumour and, at the end of the day, these little lying shitbags waste everyone’s time and sour the experience for people when the final *real* product comes out and a bunch of misled people go “Oh. I read on the internet is was going to do so much more”.

    See? I’m doing all of this FOR YOU. So that YOU can enjoy games more. And you claim you want to stick pins in my eyes as a result and then try to claim the moral highground by “ingoring your trademark condescending bullshit”. Well, aren’t YOU the paragon of virtue, eh? :)

    Hell, I bet you’re not even a real Doctor.

    #18 6 years ago
  19. Dr.Haggard

    Well, that’s hardly conclusive.You’re choosing to give him the benefit of the doubt in order to assert your preferred conclusion.

    As I already said your theories rely on more leaps of faith than any of mine do. And the end result is the same: he’s unreliable.

    What theories? I’ve only reiterated yours. I’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt, it’s your argument.

    I have no preferred conclusion, I said that your argument relies on either something he said being true or none of it being true, but it doesn’t shed any light on the validity of his information.

    There are two possibilities:

    1. He lied about the focus group

    2. He told the truth about the focus group, but broke his NDA

    You can pick either one, but if you choose the latter most would argue there’s a good chance his information might be true, since reaching that conclusion didn’t require him to have actually lied.

    I’m not interested in the argument about whether or not this sort of thing is news worthy, and I couldn’t give a shit about MAG. The debate was about whether or not you could argue that the source is necessarily unreliable based on the information we have, no more or less. The obvious conclusion being yes, of course the source is unreliable, but it doesn’t follow that the information is false.

    Bit of a waste of everyone’s time really. If the whole thing is just another skirmish in your crusade against what you perceive as bad games journalism then take it up with someone else, I’m not interested.

    #19 6 years ago
  20. Shatner

    I never claimed the information was false. Just untrustworthy and unreliable based on the means by which it was delivered. Pay attention.

    The information MAY be sound – but to trust this guy is folly. And to treat him as some valued ‘mole’ who can leak information despite it meaning he should continue to disregard agreements he makes is simply fucked up.

    My only crusade is for greater professionalism. Sure, rumours and guesswork may be terribly exciting. The problem is when, as happens more and more, rumours get posted as news, the rumour mongers get celebrated, the urban myth gets adopted as fact and all the poor ickle gamers end up being disappointed and ranting on the internet about how they were lied to by evil corporations.

    Sure, I’d like a decent (read: not entirely crappy as it is today) standard of journalism in this industry. Heck, I’m more qualified as a journalist than half the clowns reporting ‘news’ (or rather, reprinting forum posts, reprinting press releases, reposting images sent to them from publishers and other no-intiative work). It’s a cushy number getting to write what you want, play the victim and then talk down anyone who criticises you simply because you’re the people that always do the talking and you can make some pretence at impartiality.

    But, at the end of the day, all you’ve done is post numerous ways in which my original comments were right and tried to prove you’re a better human being than me in one instant whilst saying you want to stick pins in my eyes the next.

    If I were you, I’d try and go for a more consistent tone in the future and not spend so much time trying to look argumentative when you’re simply agreeing with me.

    SEE YOU NEXT GAME! :)

    #20 6 years ago
  21. Syrok

    Are you two still going on about that…?

    #21 6 years ago
  22. Psychotext

    You must be new here. Say hi to Shatner. :)

    #22 6 years ago
  23. Syrok

    Heh, I’m not new but I’ve never seen such an excessive argument about, well, argumentation here. :)

    #23 6 years ago
  24. morriss

    i’ve lied before.

    #24 6 years ago
  25. Shatner

    I know.

    #25 6 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.