Every Warhawk rumor extend extra: this time, "32"

Posted Feb 25, 2007 at 6:10PM by QJ Staff Listed in: PS3 Tags: Incognito Entertainment, PlayStation Network, PlayStation Store, SIXAXIS, Sony
Ó


32-player Warhawk dogfights? D*** it, where's Maverick when you need him?! - Image 1However the debate over those rumors that Incognito Inc. will launch Warhawk as multiplayer-only with the PlayStation Network and Store turns out, it probably won't end until definite PRs from Sony or Incognito step up to bat. Until then, the rumors will likely continue to fly and hit the fan like... Like this one from the Rumor Reporter blog, whose reliability is too hard to gauge on this one, without some supporting data. Still...

The first claim is that Warhawk will hit the Store this fall, "easily a year earlier than expected." Second claim is that Sony will continue to remain "tight-lipped" about Warhawk until their library of Network-only titles beefs up (that way, it doesn't stick out. Then again, after TGS, and after its use as a SIXAXIS demo, it's still gonna stick out anyway, if only for its media profile). Third claim of note is that players should look to 32-player dogfights.

And our take on this is... really, 32-player dogfights? ... Man, we're still going to miss the single-player experience (you are looking at a writer who plays Ace Combat for the story as much as the pwnage), but... 32-player dogfights? On its own, it's admittedly not a perfect replacement for missing out on single-player (unless there are features that we still haven't heard of). Still, some of us can perhaps fill that void in our hearts with mass aerial slaughter, perhaps.

 
 
 

Comments [refresh]

by jj - 2007-02-25 14:18
» just wondering

they make 32 player dogfights seem like a bad thing. Is it good or bad? because i guess i would be happy with that!

by Chris L. - 2007-02-25 14:35
» It's not a bad thing.

Nothing to worry about there. I really like single-player experiences, too, but even I agree that online multiplayer was something Ace Combat sorely lacked.

by JJLOOC - 2007-02-25 15:22
» OMG

32!!! that's the opposite of 23!

by 666 - 2007-02-25 15:23
» 666

Fu ck you QJ~!

by RastaDator - 2007-02-25 15:58
» 32

it is a pretty good number for a dogfight, but knowing that RFoM got 40 players online, WarHawk must try a bit harder

by Chris L. - 2007-02-25 17:32
» Wish they could, too...

64 perhaps? What's the world record for the largest dogfight in military history, anyway?

by Lurker - 2007-02-26 04:40
» Another Sony bomb

Im sorry, but anyone who isnt a bit miffed with Sony at this point is nothing but a fantard. How many games have to have features removed, promises broken, before you realize developers are doing this to try and possibly gain a little money from there investments, and are not willing to put more into it to finish them. The ship is sinking and developers are just trying to milk it before it sinks.

by soundgarden - 2007-02-26 10:45
» i wonder...

does 32 player dogfights mean 32 player online or 32 planes per map? 32 people sounds nice, but if half are on the ground, and half are in planes, its a little less sick

by Mike - 2007-02-27 07:39
» Sounds cool

the idea that it more than likely won't be a full-fledged game does kinda suck, but 32 planes fighting in the sky still sounds like a helluva lot of fun for a DL'd multiplayer. regardless as to how this game turns out, I'll probably get it either way. I own one of the Ace Combat games for the PS2, so I know the fun that can be had during dogfights. the motion SIXAXIS capabilities should make it sweet.

Add QJ.NET
Add to My Yahoo!
Google Reader Subscribe with Bloglines
Add  to your Kinja digest Subscribe in NewsGator Online
Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader Add 'www.qj.net' to Newsburst from CNET News.com
Subscribe with SearchFox RSS del.icio.us www.qj.net
Add to Technorati Favorite! Add to My AOL
furl! it Stumble for Treehugger!