MAG Beta

[Huleboeren]

Not going to bother with this.

It won't be as good as COD:MW2 and the larger number of players = less ability for decent teamwork.

Small teams >>>>> large teams

COD? Teamwork? gtfo :p

Just because you are on the same team does not imply you actually work as a team :s

Most COD is just guys lonewolfing run'n'gunning

btw I love COD

[DPyro]

I think the words Call of Duty and team work are an oxymoron.

[Tech Star]

This is turning out to be REALLY amazing! :D I just wish I could play. :p

[AbandonedTrolley]

Will be playing tonight :) Was out last night and didn't get home till 2, was up for work at 6 :( Currently drinking redbull by the pint :)

[peacemf]

once i got the controls working, i find the map to be a bit poo.......as in the little map that appears at the corner of your screen.....

i tend to get shot often, lol, but no idea where its coming from till the last second! :(

[MrArifPatel]

i think the servers are going live at 3 today, il be on then :D

[jerzdawg]

damn... sounds like this could turn out to be an epic game... anyway to get into the beta still or was it Qore and random picks only??

[Huleboeren]

This 2.7gig update is going slower than ****

When Im finally done, the beta is over :s

Average dl speed is 50KB/s according to my router :s

[AbandonedTrolley]

This 2.7gig update is going slower than ****

When Im finally done, the beta is over :s

Average dl speed is 50KB/s according to my router :s

Mine was a bit flaky, did the first 85% in about 2 hours, the final 15 took about 3 :/

[MightyJordan]

Right, my first impressions are that it's not as good as Call of Duty, but it's not far off. The only things it's missing are 60FPS gameplay and good graphics. If it had that, it'd be almost perfect.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Right, my first impressions are that it's not as good as Call of Duty, but it's not far off. The only things it's missing are 60FPS gameplay and good graphics. If it had that, it'd be almost perfect.

60FPS with 256 players?

It's a PS3 not a ?1500 PC:pp I think the textures and what not could/will be improved a little though.

Different style of game than COD, you can't really lonewolf in this, you can in COD. There's far too many opponents to run around yourself, you'll be picked off within seconds. Any time I've ran away from my team I've either ended up out numbered by opponents sticking together, or I get sniped. On defence you might be able to setup camp as a sniper yourself somewhere, but again most of the attackers will be working in groups and once they've flagged you, bye bye.

I also just found out it's not just more XP you get for sticking around your team leader, you get buffs as well.

[Coldgunner]

Different style of game than COD, you can't really lonewolf in this, you can in COD. There's far too many opponents to run around yourself, you'll be picked off within seconds. Any time I've ran away from my team I've either ended up out numbered by opponents sticking together, or I get sniped.

Sure you're not just a bit... crap? :p

Still not sold on this game. Reeks too much of battlefield for me, as it stands its a definite avoid when it comes out.

[MightyJordan]

60FPS with 256 players?

It's a PS3 not a ?1500 PC:pp

It's got around the same technology though. I would have thought by now the developers would have finally tapped into the PS3's power. I know it's not as big a scale, but Polyphony Digital can get a constant 60FPS in Gran Turismo 5 with 16 cars on a photorealistic track with photorealistic cars and their interiors.

[Sethos]

Teamwork is trash, especially online with randoms - Lone wolf, spec ops style any day of the week :cool:

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Sure you're not just a bit... crap? :p

Put it this way, if you want to finish 2/3rd in your team and overall win one of the top teams at the end of the game running around yourself won't help, you'll score low and have hardly any XP. You net 5XP usually when you kill away on your own, within your leaders proximity and it's 10XP. Within your leaders proximity and at a target location they've set, even higher.

I die a **** load, in fact usually highest or second highest in my team, but my XP is always high as I've been sticking and communicating with the leader, which in return means I finish near the top ;)

It's got around the same technology though. I would have thought by now the developers would have finally tapped into the PS3's power. I know it's not as big a scale, but Polyphony Digital can get a constant 60FPS in Gran Turismo 5 with 16 cars on a photorealistic track with photorealistic cars and their interiors.

Does it hell, a ?1500 PC would be running everything on 1920x1200 or higher, max textures and probably 4/6/8x AA. A high spec PC kicks the arse out of a PS3 any day.

Think about it MJ, 256 user controlled characters all sending information to the server, and all firing weapons/setting off explosions at once.

[Sethos]

Think about it MJ, 256 user controller characters all sending information to the server, and all firing weapons/setting off explosions at once.

Has nothing to do with the hardware itself, that is totally up to the servers, distance etc. to provide that experience. What they have to accommodate for is the possible scenario where a large number of players actually get into a major firefight in the same area. I'm certain the game works off some sort of streaming engine, only rendering what is in the immediate area and everything else is just an information "blob" which is held by the network, so when you move along players get rendered when they are within a certain distance.

That is how you achieve this sort of game. So most of the time I'm willing to bet you there's enough power left over to have improved graphics but they have to go for the lowest common denominator which is when the sh ... hits the fan and 60-70 players or more have to be rendered on screen :)

Bit like World of Warcraft, not the best looking game but will bring even a top-end PC to its knees with lots of players on screen.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Still not sold on this game. Reeks too much of battlefield for me, as it stands its a definite avoid when it comes out.

It reeks of battlefield, so it's a definite avoid for you? What do you have against Battlefield?

Just asking, as this is the reason I personally like it a whole lot. It reminds me more of Battlefield 2 than Battlefield Bad Company reminds me of Battlefield 2, and although I imagine Bad Company 2 might address this, as of now that is why I do really like it a lot, it reminds me a WHOLE LOT of Battlefield 2.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Has nothing to do with the hardware itself, that is totally up to the servers, distance etc. to provide that experience. What they have to accommodate for is the possible scenario where a large number of players actually get into a major firefight in the same area. I'm certain the game works off some sort of streaming engine, only rendering what is in the immediate area and everything else is just an information "blob" which is held by the network, so when you move along players get rendered when they are within a certain distance.

That is how you achieve this sort of game. So most of the time I'm willing to bet you there's enough power left over to have improved graphics but they have to go for the lowest common denominator which is when the sh ... hits the fan and 60-70 players or more have to be rendered on screen :)

Well the games lag free, and when you're parachuting out a plane you can see across the map.

When playing with 256 players there's times it clusters everyone together to defend or attack an objective and it still ran fine.

I've got no doubts when you're on the ground it's not "rendering" the back end of the map, but why would it, you can't see the back of the map? The information from there though still gets passed onto you, and still happens in real time.

The game is still an impressive technical feat, even if it's just on a network level, it works, people were sceptical but it works.

[Coldgunner]

Teamwork is trash, especially online with randoms - Lone wolf, spec ops style any day of the week :cool:

Another reason I dislike it too. Teamwork is nice when it works, but I don't want to be punished for being a lone wolf.

[Sethos]

Well the games lag free, and when you're parachuting out a plane you can see across the map.

When playing with 256 players there's times it clusters everyone together to defend or attack an objective and it still ran fine.

I've got no doubts when you're on the ground it's not rendering the back end of the map, but why would it, you can't see the back of the map? The information from there though still gets passed onto you, and still happens in real time.

Exactly, it's a streaming engine! It will not render 256 players when you got an overview of the map, even if it does it won't be in its normal resolution - Everything will be blobs, that looks genuine. I'm not sure exactly why you are telling me it's running fine, I'm just giving you a reason for why it's running fine and that is all down to the streaming engine employed by larger games, like MMOs. It will send the required information of what happens in the background - Sounds etc. but it will NOT render players across the map or textures of any significance, it will scale everything down to basically a one-colour texture with no details because you just can't see it. So the game will constantly scale and change depending how many players are on screen as well, like in a 128 v 128 on screen fight it'll further reduce the outlying terrain quality and basically everything without use at the given moment - That is how games like this are achieved, not saying this as a negative, most large games does this.

Some games just have bad streaming engines and that's basically what really needs to get in place for games like this, an excellent streaming engine and it seems they've pulled it off. Other games will hit you in the face with micro-stutters, textures not loaded etc.

EDIT. And yes, the network aspect also plays a huge role but I'm just talking about the hardware aspect.

Another reason I dislike it too. Teamwork is nice when it works, but I don't want to be punished for being a lone wolf.

Totally agree, give me a choice and don't punish me for it!

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Exactly, it's a streaming engine! It will not render 256 players when you got an overview of the map, even if it does it won't be in its normal resolution - Everything will be blobs, that looks genuine. I'm not sure exactly why you are telling me it's running fine, I'm just giving you a reason for why it's running fine and that is all down to the streaming engine employed by larger games, like MMOs. It will send the required information of what happens in the background - Sounds etc. but it will NOT render players across the map or textures of any significance, it will scale everything down to basically a one-colour texture with no details because you just can't see it. So the game will constantly scale and change depending how many players are on screen as well, like in a 128 v 128 on screen fight it'll further reduce the outlying terrain quality - That is how games like this are achieved, not saying this as a negative, most large games does this.

Some games just have bad streaming engines and that's basically what really needs to get in place for games like this, an excellent streaming engine and it seems they've pulled it off. Other games will hit you in the face with micro-stutters, textures not loaded etc.

Totally agree, give me a choice and don't punish me for it!

Ah okay I misunderstood you.

As for being punished for lone wolfing, you aren't punished at all, just good luck with staying alive for long. The only modes available so far have been 128 and 256 player objective based. 64 player deathmatch would be better for lone wolfing, that's not been enabled though.

It's just difficult against 128 enemy players, same as it would be in any war with those kinds of numbers. Bullets kill quick and there's no crouch down regen :p If you come up against a group of 3/4 enemies you stand very little chance.

I guess the point to make is no one should expect this to be a COD replacement, it was never going to be, you're setting yourself up for disappointment looking at it that way.

[Coldgunner]

It reeks of battlefield, so it's a definite avoid for you? What do you have against Battlefield?

Just asking, as this is the reason I personally like it a whole lot. It reminds me more of Battlefield 2 than Battlefield Bad Company reminds me of Battlefield 2, and although I imagine Bad Company 2 might address this, as of now that is why I do really like it a lot, it reminds me a WHOLE LOT of Battlefield 2.

To tell you the truth, I was never a fan of the battlefield games on console. Its mainly a personal thing, especially not being into gaming online. It just felt too similar to battlefield for the game to feel fresh. I really enjoyed Battlefield on PC, but the 'Battlefield' type games hasn't appealed to me Battlefield 2.

My other offputting issue is not being able to play the beta at times convenient to me, but thats obviously a short term thing.

As I said, this is mostly due to my personal preference of single player games and not being into the online gaming scene. Don't get me wrong though, when I rarely do game online I can more than hold my own!

[Sethos]

I guess the point to make is no one should expect this to be a COD replacement, it was never going to be, you're setting yourself up for disappointment looking at it that way.

I doubt anyone is doing that, most will see this as a Battlefield replacement - MW2 will be the real COD replacement :p

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I doubt anyone is doing that, most will see this as a Battlefield replacement - MW2 will be the real COD replacement :p

Nooo, World at War 2 :p

And for the record this better be sold in a bundle like Socom with a headset, seeing as it's multiplayer only (lessens retail value) and communication is rather important.

[Coldgunner]

I wonder if this'll be priced at ?20 like SOCOM or at a more ripoff worthy ?40.