MAG graphics...are they really THAT bad???

im sure a lot of you have seen it or played the beta...but the complaints about the graphics make it seem as if MAG has Horrible graphics not even worthy of a game..are they REALLY that bad?

No they are not that bad. Keep in mind any game like this is bound to have countless haters bashing on what ever they can find. The graphics in MAGare "pretty good" as compared to stunning or Jaw-dropping due to the needs of the game. Don't listen to the haters, the game looks more than good enough for what it is doing. I actually kind of like the graphics.

They do suck. But they're not THAT bad.

If you haven't been spoiled by U2, KZ2 or mw2 then yeah MAGs graphics are fine.

Is Mag better than Warhawk? at least...

It depends what you mean by 'bad.' What other 256 player FPS on consoles looks better?

It depends what you mean by 'bad.' What other 256 player FPS on consoles looks better?

BZSIN

If you haven't been spoiled by U2, KZ2 or mw2 then yeah MAGs graphics are fine.

SamGv

No you got it all wrong. If you havent been spoiled by said games, the graphics are BAD. With games like U2 and KZ2 out, MAGs graphics are just THAT bad. Ive played the BETA so I would know. The people who are saying it has great graphics or even decent graphics, are just overly grateful gamers from the SNES days.

And yeah gameplay over graphics, but the gameplay is almost as bad. If youre looking for a game like MAG with great gameplay and great graphics, Battlefield Bad Company 2 is coming out in March. Its nothing like the first one. Definitely a 8.5-9 game.

The graphics look great taking into consideration that their is 256 players playing at one time with hardly any lag.

they could be better but they could be worse. im fine with the graphics im just not sold on the game yet.

Honestly, who cares? THe game has 256 players running at full tilt, no lag, and most people actually work as a team.

What more can you want? I already preordered it, picking it up tomorrow.

I personally found the graphics fine, they certainly don't affect the game in a negative way. Most of the time you're to busy to notice them anyway.

If your too worried about how the graphics look, and running around doing nothing but staring and comparing graphics, I don't want you on my team.

If your too worried about how the graphics look, and running around doing nothing but staring and comparing graphics, I don't want you on my team.

The_saint1976

graphics do not make a game for me. as a gamer with over 20 years experience i know this.i know i sound like an old man but "in my day" the gameplay made the game. not the graphics. due to my busy schedule i only played the beta 4 times but each of the 4 times was very enjoyable. is MAG going to be for everybody???? of course not, but there are plenty of people myself included, that are going to like it.

Is Mag better than Warhawk? at least...

Bikouchu35

Actually the graphics can sorta surprise you, they looked alot better than I was expecting. By no means U2 or KZ2, but definitly surprised me when considering 256 player matches.

The graphics are nice IMO, or at least way better than I expected. Besides, you'll forget about them once you realize how smooth everything runs.

I don't mind the graphics for I understand the need to keep them low.

I would rather a decent-looking lag-free experience than a beautiful horrifyingly laggy one.

let me help you out.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mag+ps3+gameplay

[QUOTE="SamGv"]

If you haven't been spoiled by U2, KZ2 or mw2 then yeah MAGs graphics are fine.

No you got it all wrong. If you havent been spoiled by said games, the graphics are BAD. With games like U2 and KZ2 out, MAGs graphics are just THAT bad. Ive played the BETA so I would know. The people who are saying it has great graphics or even decent graphics, are just overly grateful gamers from the SNES days.

And yeah gameplay over graphics, but the gameplay is almost as bad. If youre looking for a game like MAG with great gameplay and great graphics, Battlefield Bad Company 2 is coming out in March. Its nothing like the first one. Definitely a 8.5-9 game.

[QUOTE="CZVA"]

[QUOTE="SamGv"]

If you haven't been spoiled by U2, KZ2 or mw2 then yeah MAGs graphics are fine.

Adziboy

No you got it all wrong. If you havent been spoiled by said games, the graphics are BAD. With games like U2 and KZ2 out, MAGs graphics are just THAT bad. Ive played the BETA so I would know. The people who are saying it has great graphics or even decent graphics, are just overly grateful gamers from the SNES days.

And yeah gameplay over graphics, but the gameplay is almost as bad. If youre looking for a game like MAG with great gameplay and great graphics, Battlefield Bad Company 2 is coming out in March. Its nothing like the first one. Definitely a 8.5-9 game.

I dont know how you can argue that the graphics are good when so many others say its bad. We'll just have to wait until tomorrow to see what the reviewers say. Im giving MAG 7.0-8.0.

[QUOTE="Bikouchu35"]

Is Mag better than Warhawk? at least...

EmperorSupreme

i thought the graphics looked pretty good.... certainly no U2 or killzone, but they are easily on par with MW/MW2....

anyone who says otherwise is just a hater. the graphics are more than acceptable...

i thought the graphics looked pretty good.... certainly no U2 or killzone, but they are easily on par with MW/MW2....

anyone who says otherwise is just a hater. the graphics are more than acceptable...

Roland123_basic

Its more on par with Resistance 1. Its like in between Resistance 1 and 2. Not even close to looking like MW2.

Considering the size of the game and what it's achieving (256 players simultaneously running on huge maps) the visuals are great.

I might add surprisingly good, I wasn't expecting the clarity and sharp textures it manages to execute.

They're good.

Not great, not bad, just good.

[QUOTE="Roland123_basic"]

i thought the graphics looked pretty good.... certainly no U2 or killzone, but they are easily on par with MW/MW2....

anyone who says otherwise is just a hater. the graphics are more than acceptable...

CZVA

Its more on par with Resistance 1. Its like in between Resistance 1 and 2. Not even close to looking like MW2.

looks better and plays better than mw2...on my setup at least.

[QUOTE="Roland123_basic"]

i thought the graphics looked pretty good.... certainly no U2 or killzone, but they are easily on par with MW/MW2....

anyone who says otherwise is just a hater. the graphics are more than acceptable...

CZVA

Its more on par with Resistance 1. Its like in between Resistance 1 and 2. Not even close to looking like MW2.

I think they are fairly similar to MW2 MP, not the SP campaign but that is a given.

If you haven't been spoiled by U2, KZ2 or mw2 then yeah MAGs graphics are fine.

i like the game but i have to say it looks pretty i mean pretty bad but it is a fun game and everyone should at least give it a chance

They do suck. But they're not THAT bad.

good_sk8er7

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"][QUOTE="Bikouchu35"]

Is Mag better than Warhawk? at least...

MassMayham57_

[QUOTE="Bikouchu35"]

Is Mag better than Warhawk? at least...

EmperorSupreme

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"][QUOTE="Bikouchu35"]

Is Mag better than Warhawk? at least...

TheWiikestLink

The graphics look great taking into consideration that their is 256 players playing at one time with hardly any lag.

muller39

I agree with that, they're including 256 players in it with no lag, so they're probably gonna have to throw graphics away for that