Has anyone played the mag beta

very interested in this gm and want to know is it worth the hype?

I played the beta a couple of months ago and I gotta say that I quite liked it. Though, to be honest, you rly dont notice anything of the 256 players that are onine at the same time in the same game. Its split up in 2 teams of 128 players, those teams are split up in 4 platoons of 32 players and those platoons are split up in 4 squads of 8 players.

And those are also divided over the map, which means that a certain platoon has to defend a certain area of the map, so you wont even see the players of another platoon while you are playing. The only players you encounter during a game are the friendlies of your platoon and the enemies of the oposing platoon that has to defend the same area as you.

So ye, its kinda overhyped. If they said that you will play 32 vs 32 players in this game I would have believed it too, since you only encounter this many players when you are playing.

I was kinda disappointed by this, it didnt turn out to be a massive chaotic warzone like I had expected :(

In theory you do play with 128 vs 128 players, but you actualy play with 32 vs 32 players. So ye, that was kinda disappointing. Still liked it though, its defenitely not a bad game and it didnt have any lag either as they promised.

The Beta doesn't support the max players, only about 64 per match (if I am not mistaken).

It was alright from what I played, I will probably pick it up when it comes out, but not on launch.

Comms were fine & no lag which is a good starting point. The game itself is worth a punt but it's unlikley to be a classic.

I'm downloading the last part of the update for the game and it seems the way Zipper was to pull the amount of players per game is they created mini games surrounding the main game. The 128 per team being broken down into seperate groups that are broken down even more into smaller squads (which can b just as effective as a mass number of players).jimm895

The Beta doesn't support the max players, only about 64 per match (if I am not mistaken).

It was alright from what I played, I will probably pick it up when it comes out, but not on launch.

WiiMan21

It started out with 64 and they did open it up to 256. Atleast thats how the first beta went.

It just felt average to me. Didn't like it too much and it just felt kind of bland

Its awesome beta :D

[QUOTE="WiiMan21"]

The Beta doesn't support the max players, only about 64 per match (if I am not mistaken).

It was alright from what I played, I will probably pick it up when it comes out, but not on launch.

It started out with 64 and they did open it up to 256. Atleast thats how the first beta went.

I think it's being wrongfully criticized and criminally underrated despite how robust the ranking system is and the ambitious nature of the multiplayer is both admirable and enjoyable.

I think it's being wrongfully criticized and criminally underrated despite how robust the ranking system is and the ambitious nature of the multiplayer is both admirable and enjoyable.

GingerDeadMan

Wholly disagree. It doesn't matter how ambitious it is or how good the ranking system is when the gameplay itself is so bland and dated. The gameplay is what's important, and the competition (COD, BF) simply does it much much better.

When it comes down to it, this game, with it's 256 player matches, is pretty much a G-I-M-M-I-C-K.

Owns COD, different gameplay to BF. [/thread]

One word - Terrible

The last time I checked (yesterday), I couldn't play it. :?

It's one of those beta's that you just want to delete for good.

[QUOTE="GingerDeadMan"]

I think it's being wrongfully criticized and criminally underrated despite how robust the ranking system is and the ambitious nature of the multiplayer is both admirable and enjoyable.

amsfm6

Wholly disagree. It doesn't matter how ambitious it is or how good the ranking system is when the gameplay itself is so bland and dated. The gameplay is what's important, and the competition (COD, BF) simply does it much much better.

When it comes down to it, this game, with it's 256 player matches, is pretty much a G-I-M-M-I-C-K.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by bland and dated. The gameplay is just like every other FPS with a heavy focus on squad and team cooporation. There is no deathmatch it's team objective oriented and if your looking for a game to rack up kills to level up you'll be sorely disappointed as you are. Thats why you should probibly just stick with what you know, CoD and BF.

One word - Terrible

M0wen10

[QUOTE="M0wen10"]

One word - Terrible

Texas2089

[QUOTE="amsfm6"]

[QUOTE="GingerDeadMan"]

I think it's being wrongfully criticized and criminally underrated despite how robust the ranking system is and the ambitious nature of the multiplayer is both admirable and enjoyable.

360hammer

Wholly disagree. It doesn't matter how ambitious it is or how good the ranking system is when the gameplay itself is so bland and dated. The gameplay is what's important, and the competition (COD, BF) simply does it much much better.

When it comes down to it, this game, with it's 256 player matches, is pretty much a G-I-M-M-I-C-K.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by bland and dated. The gameplay is just like every other FPS with a heavy focus on squad and team cooporation. There is no deathmatch it's team objective oriented and if your looking for a game to rack up kills to level up you'll be sorely disappointed as you are. Thats why you should probibly just stick with what you know, CoD and BF.

No I'm talking about the actual feel of the controls: the movement and the shooting (don't get me started on the graphics). And I'm all for team oriented gameplay, but based on my experience with the game, it rarely works. No one has mics, and even when they do, the game just seems like a constant barrage of enemies from all directions.

The only thing new is the 256 players.. its very bland and not unique.. not worth a purchase IMO.