Pages: 1 2 3

 

2010-01-05 07:52:52
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6661|London, England
For those who don't know what MAG is.

Anyway you can download the public beta if you have an American PSN account. About 250-odd MB. Then you gotta download a 30-odd MB update for that. Then you enter the game properly, and they make you download a 1.8 GB update.

Anyone played this game yet? Seems interesting enough. (I haven't tried it yet, though)

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2010-01-05 07:53:05)

2010-01-05 08:03:07
henno13
A generally unremarkable member
+230|6389|Belfast
Might get it. When does the Beta end?

Last edited by henno13 (2010-01-05 08:03:44)

2010-01-05 08:08:35
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6661|London, England
10 or 11th of January. Nothing compared to the BC2 beta which lasted for ages
2010-01-05 08:19:10
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6487|Chicago, IL
The game will utilize a new server architecture[6] to support online battles with up to 256 players


we'll see what kind of lag it creates on the playstation though
2010-01-05 15:55:42
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6754|Purplicious Wisconsin
Did get in 1 game but now I keep getting disconnected.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
2010-01-05 16:28:01
Spidery_Yoda
Member
+399|6310
The premise sounds completely stupid to me. Why on earth would you want a 256 player game? 64 in BF2 was far far too many.

In fact it's only reason to exist seems to be for console fanboys to be able to use the 256 number in PS3 v Xbox arguments (which has in fact been happening since it was announced), as the gameplay video looked incredibly generic.

Not trying to put a downer on the topic, i've not even played it after all, but is it just me?

Last edited by Spidery_Yoda (2010-01-05 16:30:30)

2010-01-05 16:29:20
Miggle
FUCK UBISOFT
+1,411|6782|FUCK UBISOFT

Spidery_Yoda wrote:

The premise sounds completely stupid to me. Why on earth would you want a 256 player game? 64 in BF2 was far far too many.

In fact it's only reason to exist seems to be for console fanboys to be able to use the 256 number in PS3 v Xbox arguments, as the gameplay video looked incredibly generic.
It's an easily quantifiable "benefit". It's not hard to sell a gimmick like that.

That said, I can't see any way the 256 players will play well, regardless of lag.
https://i.imgur.com/86fodNE.png
2010-01-05 16:31:10
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6540|so randum
eve (aside from lag) does work fantastic on the 500v500 scale tbf, but being said it's borderline RTS at that point.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2010-01-05 16:58:04
GR34
Member
+215|6585|ALBERTA> CANADA
256 players online wow I wish PR could have that
2010-01-05 18:12:51
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|6695

Since it's free, sure, why not give it a shot.
2010-01-05 18:25:20
CC-Marley
Member
+407|6869

GR34 wrote:

256 players online wow I wish PR could have that
agreed.love pr.
2010-01-05 18:30:45
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6754|Purplicious Wisconsin
It's not too bad, could be better. Can't wait to unlock the mp7.

Last edited by War Man (2010-01-05 18:31:09)

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
2010-01-05 19:31:38
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,053|6663|Little Bentcock

Spidery_Yoda wrote:

The premise sounds completely stupid to me. Why on earth would you want a 256 player game? 64 in BF2 was far far too many.

In fact it's only reason to exist seems to be for console fanboys to be able to use the 256 number in PS3 v Xbox arguments (which has in fact been happening since it was announced), as the gameplay video looked incredibly generic.

Not trying to put a downer on the topic, i've not even played it after all, but is it just me?
64? far far too many? What the hell? Not enough..
2010-01-05 20:41:24
Fallschirmjager10
Member
+36|6501

Adams_BJ wrote:

Spidery_Yoda wrote:

The premise sounds completely stupid to me. Why on earth would you want a 256 player game? 64 in BF2 was far far too many.

In fact it's only reason to exist seems to be for console fanboys to be able to use the 256 number in PS3 v Xbox arguments (which has in fact been happening since it was announced), as the gameplay video looked incredibly generic.

Not trying to put a downer on the topic, i've not even played it after all, but is it just me?
64? far far too many? What the hell? Not enough..
2010-01-05 21:23:52
TimmmmaaaaH
Damn, I... had something for this
+725|6480|Brisbane, Australia

The more players you have the more of a clusterfuck the game becomes.
https://bf3s.com/sigs/5e6a35c97adb20771c7b713312c0307c23a7a36a.png
2010-01-05 21:57:33
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|6695

Seems like an alright game. Still needs more polishing, but it's a beta so whatevs. Haven't witnessed much teamwork though, and it's definitely a game that needs it. Also, it's really annoying that when you pick a faction for your character, in the only level on the beta, one team is fixed as attackers and the other as defenders. I assume when the game will come out, there will be more maps with different attacking/defending setups, but still annoying that it's the same for one map.
2010-01-05 22:11:35
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|6695

Now that I think of it, it's almost like BF2 (minus the vehicles; though apparently you can call in airstrikes and the like) except on a console; which is why it's going to fail. Hell, even I just thought, "Fuck it, no one's gonna use teamwork and capture an objective, I might as well sit here and snipe." Can't wait to unlock some medic shit, then I'll just be running around healing and racking up the points even faster.
2010-01-05 22:53:13
TopHat01
Limitless
+117|5945|CA
I grab an M4, run to the back of the map, and ass-rape all of the enemies who parachute in.  Mindless fun.

As far as teamwork goes, there isn't any.  Haven't been revived once (can we even revive each other?), and picking a squad is a useless motion just so the game can group randoms together--there are no options to spawn on squad members, no different colored name tags to distinguish your squad members, and nobody really sticks together.
Check out my YouTube channel
2010-01-05 22:59:59
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|6695

Yes, you can revive. Although you need the equipment necessary to do so (forget how many upgrade points it costs). The upgrade system looks neat though, and I can't wait to start racking up the big points. But where it counts is in the game, which isn't that great.

3 or 4 people of the same squad, at most, will be together, but everyone just kinda runs off and does their own thing.

It's disappointing because I definitely see potential and this game could be very very cool. Just a few minor things here and there, as well as a completely retarded user-base without the slightest idea of how to play it, are going to (or already have) ruin it. Everyone's stuck in their MW2/CSS mindset.

Last edited by mtb0minime (2010-01-05 23:00:31)

2010-01-06 07:42:26
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6754|Purplicious Wisconsin
Um, your squad does show different color and there are at least 3 maps
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
2010-01-06 07:47:03
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6661|London, England
Game has potential, but for some reason I can't do the training level and I can only do the Sabotage mission which is 64 player max, and even then it seems more like about 24 or so people are in the server. Not sure why everything is so sucky like that.

Does anyone else get that with the Training mission. You go to deploy, go to training, then it shows you all sorts of stuff, then what? The only thing I can do is go back to the mission select screen thing. I don't get this game.

From what I've played of it so far, it's nothing special. There's far more teamwork/squad orientated combat in the BC2 beta than this game. I honestly can't believe they think this game will be released this month. It looks more like a few good months too early. Most of the shit barely even works.

This game completely pales in comparison to BC2. Utterly.
2010-01-06 11:19:56
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6754|Purplicious Wisconsin
^I also can't seem to figure out the training mission. What faction are you guys btw? I'm Raven as they are said to be the more technologically advanced army than the other 2.

Last edited by War Man (2010-01-06 11:20:35)

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
2010-01-06 11:25:31
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6661|London, England
I chose S.V.E.R at first, but I couldn't log in with them. Then I tried Valour, and it worked fine.

S.V.E.R seems like the badass one. Valour seems to be all professional and shit, so they're ok.

Raven is definitely the little gay War Man/sh1fty style faction.
2010-01-06 12:36:45
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|6695

I chose Raven also, then realized that

Mekstizzle wrote:

Raven is definitely the little gay War Man/sh1fty style faction.
but whatever, their guns are decent.

I also can't get into the training mission, so it's nothing but attempting to capture two points and then a third while everyone else on your team sits there sniping.

And yes, even though your squadmates are different colors, it doesn't make them stick together.

I was also surprised when I found out it was supposed to be coming out in a few weeks. I think it should be held off for at least a year! There's a lot of potential but it'll take some time to hammer out a lot of things.
2010-01-06 12:58:06
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6754|Purplicious Wisconsin

Mekstizzle wrote:

I chose S.V.E.R at first, but I couldn't log in with them. Then I tried Valour, and it worked fine.

S.V.E.R seems like the badass one. Valour seems to be all professional and shit, so they're ok.

Raven is definitely the little gay War Man/sh1fty style faction.
You're just saying that to get me pissed and I think shifty would choose valor. Anyway out of all the games against valor, only 1 time did I lose to them. As for SVER well when attacking I lost but defending I always won.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard