how can someone say MAG lacks innovation?.. (update)

firstly, a disclaimer: i personally enjoyed the Beta.. the game actually exceeded my expectations and the few gripes i had (like not being able to melee while reloading) have seemed to been addressed post-beta.. i know alot of people on these boards didnt enjoy the beta.. and that's fine.. i just wanted to clear up what seems to be some common misconceptions..

firstly, i can readily admit that MAG isnt for everybody.. considering the size, scale, and scope of the combat, it's actually more like a FPS/RTS hybrid rather than your typical run-n-gunner.. as i read alot of posts from MAG bashers, i'm thinking that plenty of my fellow gamers arent taking this into account.. i mean, there are some very good baseball games out there.. i've never really been a fan ofbaseball games, so just because i dont like that particular style of play, does that mean that the baseball game im playing sucks?.. no.. it just means that it's probably a great baseball game and that baseball probably isnt my sports game of choice.. i think a similar thing is happening with MAG..

let's face it, most diehard Halo or CoD:MW players probably arent going to get excited about a traditional RTS.. RTS type gameplay is a far cry from the fast pace of these type FPSs.. and this is where the MAG problem begins.. MAG isnt CoD:MW2 and it isnt trying to be.. the same people that are saying that MAG isnt innovative and that it's "bland" are the same people who are trying to shoehorn MAG into the MW2 mold, imo..

MAG is a FPS that uses RTS type gameplay elements to allow real players to coordinate up to 256 player battles in real-time.. let that sink in for a second.. that is truly a FPS/RTS hybrid.. not your typical 16 player FPS..

we're not talking about 8 v 8 battles with one simple objective.. sure that's fast paced fun and if that's what you want, i can respect that.. but this obviously isnt what MAG is going for.. so dont bash it for not fitting into that mold.. MAG is about huge 64 - 256 player battles that are commanded in real-time by a handfull of qualified leaders.. leadership positions that are earned, not given.. u want innovation?.. there it is.. what other console shooter lets you fight through the ranks to eventually command a 128 man company helmed by 4 platoon leaders and 16 squad leaders?.. NONE.. there's your innovation.. is this type of gameplay for everybody?.. no.. but dont say the game lacks innovation when no other console FPS has even approached this level of ambition..

in MAG, the people who want to hop in, complete some objectives and get some kills in a relatively intimate combat setting can do just that.. typically only 1 or 2 eight-player squads will be assigned to either attack or defend a given objective.. which equates to your typical 16 v 16 FPS fare.. Sabotage is the perfect example of this.. and in bigger 128 and 256 player battles, this basic principle holds true for the majority of a given game because initially the individual squads have to push back the defenders (an 8 player squad destroying a bunker that's being defended by another 8 player squad for example) until eventually the fullscale battle ensues at the climatic final objective.. and all this action will be coordinated by the more hardcore players who have become squad, platoon, and company leaders.. you simply cant find this on consoles anywhere else on this scale.. once again, there's your innovation and there's your ambition.. and with that, you've still offered something for both the extremely hardcore and the more casual.. personally, i dont think Zipper is getting enough credit for their efforts.. and its probably because of the wild popularity of a blockbusters like MW2 that offer a more simple and accessble style of play.. which is fair.. but also recognize that this isnt the style of play MAG is aiming for in the first place..

bottomline?.. atleast judge MAG based upon the type of game that Zipper was aiming to make.. the first FPS/RTS of this scale on consoles.. dont judge it for not providing your quick run-and-gun MW2 fix.. and yea, sry for "teh wall of text".. after reading so many people bashing MAG for the wrong reasons i felt like atleast somebody should start a discussion to set some misconceptions straight..

thank you to anybody that took the time to actually read all this, lol..

**UPDATE**

my thoughts on the subject are echoed by the joystiq review of MAG:

"MAG is one of the most ambitious, innovative games I've played over the course of the past year -- and considering the past year has seen the introduction of a disc-jockey simulator and a game you play exclusively with your feet, I think that's a braggable claim."

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/01/28/review-mag/

....um blog?

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"] ****Wall of text***** Nibroc420

well, there was alot that needed to be said..and ofcourse MAG (being a PS3 exclusive) is getting alot of negative attention from players that either havent played it, played it and immediately compared it to MW2 or Halo, and/or just blindly want the game to fail because it's a PS3 exclusive..

See that's the problem. You get control over the team but what if the team doesn't follow your orders? You can't say "Oh PSN doesn't have people like that". Truth is, people communicate on PSN less than XBL and with this kinda game, communication is key but what happens when people won't listen to you? Ruins the whole fun of being a leader imo93soccer

well, there's an enormous encentive to "listen" to your leaders and follow objectives.. simply because you can EASILY get double to triple your exp by following the objectives that are clearly laid out by your leaders.. sure, you can go lonewolf.. but you'll be leveling up extremely slow by comparison to simply following the objective that plainly displayed in the top left corner of your screen.. and who willingly wants to level up slower than everyone else?.. going lonewolf may get you more xp in other shooters.. not in MAG,,

PS2's Online had SOCOM, one of THE BEST communities for online gaming and teamwork I've ever experienced.

Pointing at PSN fails, since PSN > PS2's Online.

I think a great way to summarize the game is battlefield 3 with destructible environments replaced with a deep communication and battlefield management system.illegalimigrant

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"]I think a great way to summarize the game is battlefield 3 with destructible environments replaced with a deep communication and battlefield management system.peaceoutmedusa

[QUOTE="93soccer"]See that's the problem. You get control over the team but what if the team doesn't follow your orders? You can't say "Oh PSN doesn't have people like that". Truth is, people communicate on PSN less than XBL and with this kinda game, communication is key but what happens when people won't listen to you? Ruins the whole fun of being a leader imoillegalimigrant

good point.. i mean, as you level up, learn the game, and have a desire to reach your next level, the typical player is going to improve his skill set and also follow the objectives.. also, people who have been squad leader before will typically respect your orders.. and this doesnt even mention the leadership point system.. there are plenty of reasons to play this game correctly..

The game isnt my cup of tea but after playing beta a know that what it offers is much different to games like halo/CoD/KZ/R ect. This is a game that ppl who enjoy strategies and working together for a common objective will want to buy.

firstly, a disclaimer: i personally enjoyed the Beta.. the game actually exceeded my expectations and the few gripes i had (like not being able to melee while reloading) have seemed to been addressed post-beta.. i know alot of people on these boards didnt enjoy the beta.. and that's fine.. i just wanted to clear up what seems to be some common misconceptions..

firstly, i can readily admit that MAG isnt for everybody.. considering the size, scale, and scope of the combat, it's actually more like a FPS/RTS hybrid rather than your typical run-n-gunner.. as i read alot of posts from MAG bashers, i'm thinking that plenty of my fellow gamers arent taking this into account.. i mean, there are some very good baseball games out there.. i've never really been a fan ofbaseball games, so just because i dont like that particular style of play, does that mean that the baseball game im playing sucks?.. no.. it just means that it's probably a great baseball game and that baseball probably isnt my sports game of choice.. i think a similar thing is happening with MAG..

let's face it, most diehard Halo or CoD:MW players probably arent going to get excited about a traditional RTS.. RTS type gameplay is a far cry from the fast pace of these type FPSs.. and this is where the MAG problem begins.. MAG isnt CoD:MW2 and it isnt trying to be.. the same people that are saying that MAG isnt innovative and that it's "bland" are the same people who are trying to shoehorn MAG into the MW2 mold, imo..

MAG is a FPS that uses RTS type gameplay elements to allow real players to coordinate up to 256 player battles in real-time.. let that sink in for a second.. that is truly a FPS/RTS hybrid.. not your typical 16 player FPS..

we're not talking about 8 v 8 battles with one simple objective.. sure that's fast paced fun and if that's what you want, i can respect that.. but this obviously isnt what MAG is going for.. so dont bash it for not fitting into that mold.. MAG is about huge 64 - 256 player battles that are commanded in real-time by a handfull of qualified leaders.. leadership positions that are earned, not given.. u want innovation?.. there it is.. what other console shooter lets you fight through the ranks to eventually command a 128 man company helmed by 4 platoon leaders and 16 squad leaders?.. NONE.. there's your innovation.. is this type of gameplay for everybody?.. no.. but dont say the game lacks innovation when no other console FPS has even approached this level of ambition..

in MAG, the people who want to hop in, complete some objectives and get some kills in a relatively intimate combat setting can do just that.. typically only 1 or 2 eight-player squads will be assigned to either attack or defend a given objective.. which equates to your typical 16 v 16 FPS fare.. Sabotage is the perfect example of this.. and in bigger 128 and 256 player battles, this basic principle holds true for the majority of a given game because initially the individual squads have to push back the defenders (an 8 player squad destroying a bunker that's being defended by another 8 player squad for example) until eventually the fullscale battle ensues at the climatic final objective.. and all this action will be coordinated by the more hardcore players who have become squad, platoon, and company leaders.. you simply cant find this on consoles anywhere else on this scale.. once again, there's your innovation and there's your ambition.. and with that, you've still offered something for both the extremely hardcore and the more casual.. personally, i dont think Zipper is getting enough credit for their efforts.. and its probably because of the wild popularity of a blockbusters like MW2 that offer a more simple and accessble style of play.. which is fair.. but also recognize that this isnt the style of play MAG is aiming for in the first place..

bottomline?.. atleast judge MAG based upon the type of game that Zipper was aiming to make.. the first FPS/RTS of this scale on consoles.. dont judge it for not providing your quick run-and-gun MW2 fix.. and yea, sry for "teh wall of text".. after reading so many people bashing MAG for the wrong reasons i felt like atleast somebody should start a discussion to set some misconceptions straight..

thank you to anybody that took the time to actually read all this, lol..

Antwan3K

MAG is a amazing game. Bottem line.

Because it lacks innovation?

there is nothing innovative in MAG every thing in it has been done before, and done better in some ways.

firstly, a disclaimer: i personally enjoyed the Beta.. the game actually exceeded my expectations and the few gripes i had (like not being able to melee while reloading) have seemed to been addressed post-beta.. i know alot of people on these boards didnt enjoy the beta.. and that's fine.. i just wanted to clear up what seems to be some common misconceptions..

firstly, i can readily admit that MAG isnt for everybody.. considering the size, scale, and scope of the combat, it's actually more like a FPS/RTS hybrid rather than your typical run-n-gunner.. as i read alot of posts from MAG bashers, i'm thinking that plenty of my fellow gamers arent taking this into account.. i mean, there are some very good baseball games out there.. i've never really been a fan ofbaseball games, so just because i dont like that particular style of play, does that mean that the baseball game im playing sucks?.. no.. it just means that it's probably a great baseball game and that baseball probably isnt my sports game of choice.. i think a similar thing is happening with MAG..

let's face it, most diehard Halo or CoD:MW players probably arent going to get excited about a traditional RTS.. RTS type gameplay is a far cry from the fast pace of these type FPSs.. and this is where the MAG problem begins.. MAG isnt CoD:MW2 and it isnt trying to be.. the same people that are saying that MAG isnt innovative and that it's "bland" are the same people who are trying to shoehorn MAG into the MW2 mold, imo..

MAG is a FPS that uses RTS type gameplay elements to allow real players to coordinate up to 256 player battles in real-time.. let that sink in for a second.. that is truly a FPS/RTS hybrid.. not your typical 16 player FPS..

we're not talking about 8 v 8 battles with one simple objective.. sure that's fast paced fun and if that's what you want, i can respect that.. but this obviously isnt what MAG is going for.. so dont bash it for not fitting into that mold.. MAG is about huge 64 - 256 player battles that are commanded in real-time by a handfull of qualified leaders.. leadership positions that are earned, not given.. u want innovation?.. there it is.. what other console shooter lets you fight through the ranks to eventually command a 128 man company helmed by 4 platoon leaders and 16 squad leaders?.. NONE.. there's your innovation.. is this type of gameplay for everybody?.. no.. but dont say the game lacks innovation when no other console FPS has even approached this level of ambition..

in MAG, the people who want to hop in, complete some objectives and get some kills in a relatively intimate combat setting can do just that.. typically only 1 or 2 eight-player squads will be assigned to either attack or defend a given objective.. which equates to your typical 16 v 16 FPS fare.. Sabotage is the perfect example of this.. and in bigger 128 and 256 player battles, this basic principle holds true for the majority of a given game because initially the individual squads have to push back the defenders (an 8 player squad destroying a bunker that's being defended by another 8 player squad for example) until eventually the fullscale battle ensues at the climatic final objective.. and all this action will be coordinated by the more hardcore players who have become squad, platoon, and company leaders.. you simply cant find this on consoles anywhere else on this scale.. once again, there's your innovation and there's your ambition.. and with that, you've still offered something for both the extremely hardcore and the more casual.. personally, i dont think Zipper is getting enough credit for their efforts.. and its probably because of the wild popularity of a blockbusters like MW2 that offer a more simple and accessble style of play.. which is fair.. but also recognize that this isnt the style of play MAG is aiming for in the first place..

bottomline?.. atleast judge MAG based upon the type of game that Zipper was aiming to make.. the first FPS/RTS of this scale on consoles.. dont judge it for not providing your quick run-and-gun MW2 fix.. and yea, sry for "teh wall of text".. after reading so many people bashing MAG for the wrong reasons i felt like atleast somebody should start a discussion to set some misconceptions straight..

thank you to anybody that took the time to actually read all this, lol..

Antwan3K

bottom line battlefield 2 came outr in 2004 with commands like this

operation flashpoint was there in 2001 with theoretically unlimted players

As someone who has payed little attention to MAG, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say more players=/=innovation.

As someone who has payed little attention to MAG, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say more players=/=innovation.

DarkLink77

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

As someone who has payed little attention to MAG, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say more players=/=innovation.

illegalimigrant

As someone who has payed little attention to MAG, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say more players=/=innovation.

DarkLink77

Agreed. Increasing the player count is an improvement, not innovation.

I haven't played the game though, so whether its innovative or not I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt it'll be a good game regardless.

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

firstly, a disclaimer: i personally enjoyed the Beta.. the game actually exceeded my expectations and the few gripes i had (like not being able to melee while reloading) have seemed to been addressed post-beta.. i know alot of people on these boards didnt enjoy the beta.. and that's fine.. i just wanted to clear up what seems to be some common misconceptions..

firstly, i can readily admit that MAG isnt for everybody.. considering the size, scale, and scope of the combat, it's actually more like a FPS/RTS hybrid rather than your typical run-n-gunner.. as i read alot of posts from MAG bashers, i'm thinking that plenty of my fellow gamers arent taking this into account.. i mean, there are some very good baseball games out there.. i've never really been a fan ofbaseball games, so just because i dont like that particular style of play, does that mean that the baseball game im playing sucks?.. no.. it just means that it's probably a great baseball game and that baseball probably isnt my sports game of choice.. i think a similar thing is happening with MAG..

let's face it, most diehard Halo or CoD:MW players probably arent going to get excited about a traditional RTS.. RTS type gameplay is a far cry from the fast pace of these type FPSs.. and this is where the MAG problem begins.. MAG isnt CoD:MW2 and it isnt trying to be.. the same people that are saying that MAG isnt innovative and that it's "bland" are the same people who are trying to shoehorn MAG into the MW2 mold, imo..

MAG is a FPS that uses RTS type gameplay elements to allow real players to coordinate up to 256 player battles in real-time.. let that sink in for a second.. that is truly a FPS/RTS hybrid.. not your typical 16 player FPS..

we're not talking about 8 v 8 battles with one simple objective.. sure that's fast paced fun and if that's what you want, i can respect that.. but this obviously isnt what MAG is going for.. so dont bash it for not fitting into that mold.. MAG is about huge 64 - 256 player battles that are commanded in real-time by a handfull of qualified leaders.. leadership positions that are earned, not given.. u want innovation?.. there it is.. what other console shooter lets you fight through the ranks to eventually command a 128 man company helmed by 4 platoon leaders and 16 squad leaders?.. NONE.. there's your innovation.. is this type of gameplay for everybody?.. no.. but dont say the game lacks innovation when no other console FPS has even approached this level of ambition..

in MAG, the people who want to hop in, complete some objectives and get some kills in a relatively intimate combat setting can do just that.. typically only 1 or 2 eight-player squads will be assigned to either attack or defend a given objective.. which equates to your typical 16 v 16 FPS fare.. Sabotage is the perfect example of this.. and in bigger 128 and 256 player battles, this basic principle holds true for the majority of a given game because initially the individual squads have to push back the defenders (an 8 player squad destroying a bunker that's being defended by another 8 player squad for example) until eventually the fullscale battle ensues at the climatic final objective.. and all this action will be coordinated by the more hardcore players who have become squad, platoon, and company leaders.. you simply cant find this on consoles anywhere else on this scale.. once again, there's your innovation and there's your ambition.. and with that, you've still offered something for both the extremely hardcore and the more casual.. personally, i dont think Zipper is getting enough credit for their efforts.. and its probably because of the wild popularity of a blockbusters like MW2 that offer a more simple and accessble style of play.. which is fair.. but also recognize that this isnt the style of play MAG is aiming for in the first place..

bottomline?.. atleast judge MAG based upon the type of game that Zipper was aiming to make.. the first FPS/RTS of this scale on consoles.. dont judge it for not providing your quick run-and-gun MW2 fix.. and yea, sry for "teh wall of text".. after reading so many people bashing MAG for the wrong reasons i felt like atleast somebody should start a discussion to set some misconceptions straight..

thank you to anybody that took the time to actually read all this, lol..

washd123

bottom line battlefield 2 came outr in 2004 with commands like this

operation flashpoint was there in 2001 with theoretically unlimted players

Hardly anyone used the commands in battle field 2 because it didnt give you any reward for it this fixes that problem.

As someone who has payed little attention to MAG, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say more players=/=innovation.

DarkLink77

what other console FPS/RTS hybrid lets you fight through the ranks of leadership to eventually lead a 128 man company with 4 platoon leaders and 16 squad leaders comprised of real players commanding every single event in the game in realtime (not to mention the persistent world "shadow war" that is dependant upon your chosen faction's battle success and failure)?..

none?.. yep, sounds like innovation to me..

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

As someone who has payed little attention to MAG, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say more players=/=innovation.

DarkLink77

It lacks innovation because it has all been done before. What's so hard to understand about that? The only thing innovative in gaming this gen has been the motion controls on the Wii, and even that has been done before, but not on such a large level. To believe that an onlive FPS/RTS hybrid is somehow innovative is just plain silly.

farrell2k

ok, well name another console FPS this gen that has done 256 players with this type of command structure, communication system,and persistent world faction tracking..

and by the way, according to your logic, the Wiimote isnt innovative either.. it's just the logical progression established by the power glove and light guns.. so how does the larger scale of the wiimote qualify as innovation yet the larger scale of MAG doesnt?...

the fact that you slapped RTS 'style' all over this game made me hate it more:

why?

first, and will never be done better as an FPS/RTS.

[QUOTE="farrell2k"]

It lacks innovation because it has all been done before. What's so hard to understand about that? The only thing innovative in gaming this gen has been the motion controls on the Wii, and even that has been done before, but not on such a large level. To believe that an onlive FPS/RTS hybrid is somehow innovative is just plain silly.

Antwan3K

ok, well name another console FPS this gen that has done 256 players with this type of command structure, communication system,and persistent world faction tracking..

and by the way, according to your logic, the Wiimote isnt innovative either.. it's just the logical progression established by the power glove and light guns.. so how does the larger scale of the wiimote qualify as innovation yet the larger scale of MAG doesnt?...

MAG is definitely the first of this scale on consoles (it's been done on PC with Battleground Europe and Planetside). Dust 514 offers what you're describing, and judging from this demonstration it will be far more impressive than MAG. Dust 514 is also going to connect to EVE Online, which is going beyond MAG's level of persistence.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

Because it lacks innovation?

there is nothing innovative in MAG every thing in it has been done before, and done better in some ways.

illegalimigrant

lol great comeback, and actually in the early days of the beta 256players would be open at random days to any one. the gametypes were not level restricted in the beta all the time, infact all the gametypes weren't even open the gametype most played was aquisition because zipper interactive would have that gametype and only that gametype open the majority of the time. don't try to debate MAG knowledge with me, i will likely destroy you.

256p is a mess...KZ2's 32p warzone is alraedy a mess.

beside 256p, what's new about MAG?

256p is a mess...KZ2's 32p warzone is alraedy a mess.

beside 256p, what's new about MAG?

oajlu

Hardly anyone used the commands in battle field 2 because it didnt give you any reward for it this fixes that problem.

brumley53

which means its not innovative

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

Because it lacks innovation?

there is nothing innovative in MAG every thing in it has been done before, and done better in some ways.

WilliamRLBaker

lol great comeback, and actually in the early days of the beta 256players would be open at random days to any one. the gametypes were not level restricted in the beta all the time, infact all the gametypes weren't even open the gametype most played was aquisition because zipper interactive would have that gametype and only that gametype open the majority of the time. don't try to debate MAG knowledge with me, i will likely destroy you.

I don't think MAG brings anything new to the FPS table whatsoever, but if the game floats your boat, enjoy it.

firstly, i can readily admit that MAG isnt for everybody..Antwan3K

what other console shooter lets you fight through the ranks to eventually command a 128 man company helmed by 4 platoon leaders and 16 squad leaders?

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

firstly, a disclaimer: i personally enjoyed the Beta.. the game actually exceeded my expectations and the few gripes i had (like not being able to melee while reloading) have seemed to been addressed post-beta.. i know alot of people on these boards didnt enjoy the beta.. and that's fine.. i just wanted to clear up what seems to be some common misconceptions..

firstly, i can readily admit that MAG isnt for everybody.. considering the size, scale, and scope of the combat, it's actually more like a FPS/RTS hybrid rather than your typical run-n-gunner.. as i read alot of posts from MAG bashers, i'm thinking that plenty of my fellow gamers arent taking this into account.. i mean, there are some very good baseball games out there.. i've never really been a fan ofbaseball games, so just because i dont like that particular style of play, does that mean that the baseball game im playing sucks?.. no.. it just means that it's probably a great baseball game and that baseball probably isnt my sports game of choice.. i think a similar thing is happening with MAG..

let's face it, most diehard Halo or CoD:MW players probably arent going to get excited about a traditional RTS.. RTS type gameplay is a far cry from the fast pace of these type FPSs.. and this is where the MAG problem begins.. MAG isnt CoD:MW2 and it isnt trying to be.. the same people that are saying that MAG isnt innovative and that it's "bland" are the same people who are trying to shoehorn MAG into the MW2 mold, imo..

MAG is a FPS that uses RTS type gameplay elements to allow real players to coordinate up to 256 player battles in real-time.. let that sink in for a second.. that is truly a FPS/RTS hybrid.. not your typical 16 player FPS..

we're not talking about 8 v 8 battles with one simple objective.. sure that's fast paced fun and if that's what you want, i can respect that.. but this obviously isnt what MAG is going for.. so dont bash it for not fitting into that mold.. MAG is about huge 64 - 256 player battles that are commanded in real-time by a handfull of qualified leaders.. leadership positions that are earned, not given.. u want innovation?.. there it is.. what other console shooter lets you fight through the ranks to eventually command a 128 man company helmed by 4 platoon leaders and 16 squad leaders?.. NONE.. there's your innovation.. is this type of gameplay for everybody?.. no.. but dont say the game lacks innovation when no other console FPS has even approached this level of ambition..

in MAG, the people who want to hop in, complete some objectives and get some kills in a relatively intimate combat setting can do just that.. typically only 1 or 2 eight-player squads will be assigned to either attack or defend a given objective.. which equates to your typical 16 v 16 FPS fare.. Sabotage is the perfect example of this.. and in bigger 128 and 256 player battles, this basic principle holds true for the majority of a given game because initially the individual squads have to push back the defenders (an 8 player squad destroying a bunker that's being defended by another 8 player squad for example) until eventually the fullscale battle ensues at the climatic final objective.. and all this action will be coordinated by the more hardcore players who have become squad, platoon, and company leaders.. you simply cant find this on consoles anywhere else on this scale.. once again, there's your innovation and there's your ambition.. and with that, you've still offered something for both the extremely hardcore and the more casual.. personally, i dont think Zipper is getting enough credit for their efforts.. and its probably because of the wild popularity of a blockbusters like MW2 that offer a more simple and accessble style of play.. which is fair.. but also recognize that this isnt the style of play MAG is aiming for in the first place..

bottomline?.. atleast judge MAG based upon the type of game that Zipper was aiming to make.. the first FPS/RTS of this scale on consoles.. dont judge it for not providing your quick run-and-gun MW2 fix.. and yea, sry for "teh wall of text".. after reading so many people bashing MAG for the wrong reasons i felt like atleast somebody should start a discussion to set some misconceptions straight..

thank you to anybody that took the time to actually read all this, lol..

brumley53

bottom line battlefield 2 came outr in 2004 with commands like this

operation flashpoint was there in 2001 with theoretically unlimted players

Hardly anyone used the commands in battle field 2 because it didnt give you any reward for it this fixes that problem.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"] Why keep trolling man? Everywhere a MAG thread starts you are there to say you played the beta it was awful. The 256 battles were lame. However you had to have played at least 7 hours to get to level 10 to even play the 256 battles. And if you played 7 hours the game was not that bad now was it. You bash any sony game so why should anyone give a brown cake about your opinion.

illegalimigrant

lol great comeback, and actually in the early days of the beta 256players would be open at random days to any one. the gametypes were not level restricted in the beta all the time, infact all the gametypes weren't even open the gametype most played was aquisition because zipper interactive would have that gametype and only that gametype open the majority of the time. don't try to debate MAG knowledge with me, i will likely destroy you.

Come back when you have a stronger argument till then your own logic is what doesn't make sense, If we go by your logic then reviewers dont play games they dislike they only play games they like, Its called having a sense of a thing, you play it to get a sense of a thing, so as to know weither its worth the extended play time, it only took me about a week or 2 to know most every thing about MAG when it came to internal gameplay, MAG is not hard to learn

Your argument was failed upon inception when you claimed i was trolling. If you knew any thing I've hyped the Game A-AA not crap, not horrible, but A-AA not worth 60 dollars at retail but maybe 30 dollars. I've gone so far as to say i had fun with the game when i did play it, but not enough fun to warrant a AAA or even AAAA score, and certainly not shoveling out 60 dollars for the purchase of it.

I know one fact, Atleast when I put down a game i try to play it to see if i am justified in my dislike of a game.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

Because it lacks innovation?

there is nothing innovative in MAG every thing in it has been done before, and done better in some ways.

illegalimigrant

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

Because it lacks innovation?

there is nothing innovative in MAG every thing in it has been done before, and done better in some ways.

delta3074

I see the same old haters xD

I read your wall of text , agree with you!

You've never played an RTS have you. Commanding people =/= an RTS. There's no strategy in trying to get a bunch of people to follow you to an objective, just face it, it's a team based FPS, same as LOTS of FPS that have come before it.bobbetybob

and you havnet played MAG because you have many more leadership abilities that simply commanding people..

You've never played an RTS have you. Commanding people =/= an RTS. There's no strategy in trying to get a bunch of people to follow you to an objective, just face it, it's a team based FPS, same as LOTS of FPS that have come before it.bobbetybob

Then what is a RTS if it isn't about maneuvering units to accomplish an objective?

Mag honestly doesn't bring anything new to the table. It just a average fps at best. With 256 players. and probley 100 campers

it wouldn't be bad if you can get a bunch of friends together and play it

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"]

and you havnet played MAG because you have many more leadership abilities that simply commanding people..

Antwan3K

You're right I haven't played MAG, so I just looked it up and yeah, it still doesn't sound much like an RTS. It actually sounds irritating that one guy getting the ability to call in parachute drops and supplies, especially if they don't do it well. Just because they're a high level player doesn't necessarily mean they'll want to do this stuff. As for commanding troops, I just don't think people will listen, sorry but even in online co-op games, people rarely listen to you, or aren't paying attention enough to follow your commands, and what if they want to go on the game and speak to a friend? They won't be able to because they'll have to listen to the commands constantly.

I think the big, big problem is, this is only happening for one person, only one person is getting this "RTS" experience, the other are getting, from what I've heard, a fairly dull shooter, where they're not allowed to even do their own thing without getting killed constantly. And that's another problem, is how the game has been marketed. Listening to all this is sounds like it's almost a tactical shooter, I didn't know that, most people didn't know that, because Zipper have been too busy going "Look 256 player! Big battles!" When they should, by the sounds of it, been touting the teamwork aspect.

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"]You've never played an RTS have you. Commanding people =/= an RTS. There's no strategy in trying to get a bunch of people to follow you to an objective, just face it, it's a team based FPS, same as LOTS of FPS that have come before it.shane_orija

Then what is a RTS if it isn't about maneuvering units to accomplish an objective?

That's not what I meant, what I meant is that the ability to command people does not make a game an RTS, you can command people in Op Flashpoint, does that make it an RTS? What about RS:Vegas? Nope, both tactical shooters.

I can appreciate what Zipper is trying to do. But you can't have something different for the sake of being different. If a game mechanic just doesn't resonate with many people, then is it a good innovation? Or is it innovation for innovation's sake?

There has to be a balance between something familiar and somthing different. It could be that MAG skews too far to "different" for people to get their heads wrapped around. That's not just in terms of buying the game, but in terms of playing the game in the way that the developers originally envisioned.

But who knows? Maybe once it's out in the wild for a bit, it'll catch on. I wouldn't expect immediate acceptance on the day of release.