MAG online better than MW online

Seriously its not even comparable. MW online game end quickly or in the middle of a match because of poor connections. In my time playing MAG this did not happened. I decided to play MW1 while I wait for the MAG to come out and I could not stand these issues and wondered how did I ever even find it bareable. Seriously all online games need dedicated servers.

Oh and don't forget the lag so much lag. MAG has no lag.

And this is not even an argument. Only the biggest fanboys would say otherwise. Dedicated server is so much better than P2P its not even a question.

Wheter you like MW better than MAG you can argue but you cannot argue dedicated servers vs P2P.

dedicated servers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>P2P

Wow. :lol:

And no.

I get no lag in MW2 and I can count on one hand how many times it did a host migrate. Everyone I know that played Mag said the game is lame. Wait for the reviews.

MAG is an Online only game.

And no.

Wow. :lol:

And no.

EndorphinMaster

the best thing about MAG is the bigger team and dedicated servers, each game has its own goods and bads, i enjoyed the beta and going to get the game but not first day

With the crappy animations and last gen GRAFIX!11!! its bounds for no more than an 8.5

Haven't played MAG but MW definitely isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

lol, I've played both and your argument makes no sense. rolo107

MAG is better because it isnt based entirely on DUR DUR close quarters spraying and praying.

I do enjoy the persistence of MAG and how it actually feels like it has a global impact within your faction. Other then that, I'll play both and enjoy both. MAG is awesome though just based on the open beta. I'd expect nothing less from Zipper.

With the crappy animations and last gen GRAFIX!11!! its bounds for no more than an 8.5

Modern_Unit

Haven't played MAG but MW definitely isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

mixmax5

[QUOTE="Modern_Unit"]

With the crappy animations and last gen GRAFIX!11!! its bounds for no more than an 8.5

Arctic_Grillz

[QUOTE="Modern_Unit"]

With the crappy animations and last gen GRAFIX!11!! its bounds for no more than an 8.5

Arctic_Grillz

sorry, mag sucks, /threadmtradr43

Battlefield Bad Company 2 takes both of them out as garbage 93soccer

Anyone who says they haven't experienced lag or many host-migrations on the PC is flat-out lying.

To this day they still haven't resolved even half the issues.

So there is no question. Dedicated servers own P2P. MAG's online play will be much better than MW2's.

MAG is an Online only game.

LegatoSkyheart

No lag in MAG, pfft.

I play games on dedicated and I still lag, especially when tons of zombies start to populate the screen. What would 100+ do to me? oh, well, I'd lag, even more.

Wow. :lol:

And no.

EndorphinMaster

[QUOTE="93soccer"]Battlefield Bad Company 2 takes both of them out as garbage illegalimigrant

because BC2 actually has destructible environments? and good graphics and good animations?

Why do you think MAG has 2nd rate graphics and little destruction, to cut back on the inevitable lag....

[QUOTE="EndorphinMaster"]

Wow. :lol:

And no.

ermacness

Then Planetside must be 1.5x better. and that's from 2003.

[QUOTE="ermacness"]

[QUOTE="EndorphinMaster"]

Wow. :lol:

And no.

HavocV3

Then Planetside must be 1.5x better. and that's from 2003.

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="93soccer"]Battlefield Bad Company 2 takes both of them out as garbage HavocV3

because BC2 actually has destructible environments? and good graphics and good animations?

Why do you think MAG has 2nd rate graphics and little destruction, to cut back on the inevitable lag....

[QUOTE="cametall"]Too add to the "no lag in MAG" comments. There was lag when I played. Rubberbanding (the most frustrating kind imo) and freezing for a few seconds at a time. It happened every few matches. And no, it wasn't my connection because squad mates would also remark about lag spikes. It wasn't lag that lasted entire matches, just for short bursts, but it was still there.illegalimigrant

no lag is impossible, especially if you live far far away from the dedicated server. Extra hops through each router and switch adds some small fractions of a second and increases chances of packet loss.

the only thing I can think they are doing is using a high-speed, high-power server, that compresses it in some way and then forwards the information around to reduce lag significantly at best. If it's getting compressed, then there's another reason for poor graphical detail.

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="93soccer"]Battlefield Bad Company 2 takes both of them out as garbage HavocV3

because BC2 actually has destructible environments? and good graphics and good animations?

Why do you think MAG has 2nd rate graphics and little destruction, to cut back on the inevitable lag....

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"] I agree with you that battlefield Bad Company 2 is better than MW in every way and in terms of gameplay its better than MAG. But its only 24 players. WTF is that! Its a battlefield game it should at least be 64. But the way I look at it is MAG = battlefield 2.5 and Bad Company 2 = Battlefield 3 prologue.killzowned24

because BC2 actually has destructible environments? and good graphics and good animations?

Why do you think MAG has 2nd rate graphics and little destruction, to cut back on the inevitable lag....

And BC2 looks amazing for huge maps, destruction despite 24 players. If you tried 256 players with BC2, you'd have that jag fest.

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="cametall"]Too add to the "no lag in MAG" comments. There was lag when I played. Rubberbanding (the most frustrating kind imo) and freezing for a few seconds at a time. It happened every few matches. And no, it wasn't my connection because squad mates would also remark about lag spikes. It wasn't lag that lasted entire matches, just for short bursts, but it was still there.HavocV3

no lag is impossible, especially if you live far far away from the dedicated server. Extra hops through each router and switch adds some small fractions of a second and increases chances of packet loss.

the only thing I can think they are doing is using a high-speed, high-power server, that compresses it in some way and then forwards the information around to reduce lag significantly at best. If it's getting compressed, then there's another reason for poor graphical detail.

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"] I agree with you that battlefield Bad Company 2 is better than MW in every way and in terms of gameplay its better than MAG. But its only 24 players. WTF is that! Its a battlefield game it should at least be 64. But the way I look at it is MAG = battlefield 2.5 and Bad Company 2 = Battlefield 3 prologue.illegalimigrant

because BC2 actually has destructible environments? and good graphics and good animations?

Why do you think MAG has 2nd rate graphics and little destruction, to cut back on the inevitable lag....

"good graphics don't make a good game"

I'm pretty sure I saw a number of your posts today that would contradict that statement.

And I agree with that statement either way, but I'm only outlining the reasons to why the graphics are bad and trying to understand your claims that a game with 256 players can be 'lag free'. Because it's impossible.

They still need to make a better effort on animations, but regardless, my interest lies with BC2 solely on the destruction, which can be use for strategy: putting a hole in a 2nd story building and using it as a sniping post, would be a good example.

MAG team coordination feels wrong, they SHOULD be bundling this game with a MIC like Socom was. It is an online only game, so why not?

edit: and BC2 needs improvement to controls, MW2's pinnacle feature would be a superior control layout.

I mean, really, left trigger to accelerate? fail.

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="HavocV3"]

because BC2 actually has destructible environments? and good graphics and good animations?

Why do you think MAG has 2nd rate graphics and little destruction, to cut back on the inevitable lag....

HavocV3

And BC2 looks amazing for huge maps, destruction despite 24 players. If you tried 256 players with BC2, you'd have that jag fest.

dedicated servers are only great when they are runned by gamers, admins ftw

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="HavocV3"]

because BC2 actually has destructible environments? and good graphics and good animations?

Why do you think MAG has 2nd rate graphics and little destruction, to cut back on the inevitable lag....

HavocV3

And BC2 looks amazing for huge maps, destruction despite 24 players. If you tried 256 players with BC2, you'd have that jag fest.

Seriously its not even comparable. MW online game end quickly or in the middle of a match because of poor connections. In my time playing MAG this did not happened. I decided to play MW1 while I wait for the MAG to come out and I could not stand these issues and wondered how did I ever even find it bareable. Seriously all online games need dedicated servers.

Oh and don't forget the lag so much lag. MAG has no lag.

And this is not even an argument. Only the biggest fanboys would say otherwise.

dedicated servers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>P2P

illegalimigrant

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="HavocV3"]

because BC2 actually has destructible environments? and good graphics and good animations?

Why do you think MAG has 2nd rate graphics and little destruction, to cut back on the inevitable lag....

HavocV3

"good graphics don't make a good game"

I'm pretty sure I saw a number of your posts today that would contradict that statement.

And I agree with that statement either way, but I'm only outlining the reasons to why the graphics are bad and trying to understand your claims that a game with 256 players can be 'lag free'. Because it's impossible.

They still need to make a better effort on animations, but regardless, my interest lies with BC2 solely on the destruction, which can be use for strategy: putting a hole in a 2nd story building and using it as a sniping post, would be a good example.

MAG team coordination feels wrong, they SHOULD be bundling this game with a MIC like Socom was. It is an online only game, so why not?

edit: and BC2 needs improvement to controls, MW2's pinnacle feature would be a superior control layout.

I mean, really, left trigger to accelerate? fail.

[QUOTE="EndorphinMaster"]

Wow. :lol:

And no.

illegalimigrant

.... Even as much as I hate on MW2 and didn't really like it its 1000 times better than that crap mag.

No [/thread]

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"]

[QUOTE="EndorphinMaster"]

Wow. :lol:

And no.

Jamex1987

.... Even as much as I hate on MW2 and didn't really like it its 1000 times better than that crap mag.

walkerctranger

[QUOTE="Jamex1987"]I get no lag in MW2 and I can count on one hand how many times it did a host migrate. Everyone I know that played Mag said the game is lame. Wait for the reviews.

And no.

illegalimigrant

I have to say TC you have no clue what your talking about. MAG has been great in the BETAs so far and i will be picking it up tuesday, and i personally like it better then MW2, but MW2 is still an excellent game. Ironically today is the day ive had the most problems with the online, it seems like every game i went it was laggy or got dropped, idk whats up with that.