Mag is bad because???? (besides graphics)

I want to know why other people dislike this game?

LAG....I mean MAG(joking) is ok.I thought it was solid....nothing revolutionary...just solid.

Yea I agree... I for one love the team factor, because I have yet to see a game this generation offer that on consoles. But just like you said a solid game... however I wonder what is everyone's beef about it.

I know my beef right now is the price... but I havent played the full game yet so that might quickly change.

LAG....I mean MAG(joking) is ok.I thought it was solid....nothing revolutionary...just solid.

MarcRecon

These were my thoughts. I thought it was good.

Nothing revolutionary, but solid online game play. The complete lack of single player really bothers me. I doubt I'm getting it, but it really isn't "bad". I'm just waiting for Bad Company 2 (and probably getting it on PC).

When I played the beta, I didn't feel like I was in a 256 person battle because different squads just run to the same place after spawn each time. I thought it was okay, not terrible.

ok

I wonder what is everyone's beef about it.

baller72

From what I been hearing/reading...it's been 50-50. Some like it, some don't. I think it will get an 8.0 or MAYBE an 8.5 at best.

Zipper made it

It's a cheap and poor rip off of Battlefield

It's only selling point is "256 players!":roll: lol

How is MAG a rip-off of battlefield? IF anything, it plays like socom but in first person. Which Zipper happens to make. Now that would make more sense.Molotovrock

Not even close..

its just......stale. very stale man. the graphics aren't great, customization isn't anything new, and the guns don't feel awesome like in MW2 nor do is there killzone/uncharted-esque mapping etc. Now, perhaps these critiques are a bit harsh, but each comes with its own game that excels in the respective area: guns: MW2 lag-freeness: MW2 maps: MW2/Killzone/Uncharted Graphics: U2/MW2/Killzone so besides having a buttload of people in one game, what does MAG bring to the table? in my mind, not much. i think it was a wrong move to let out so much beta play: we saw what the game was actually like. (just my opinion! don't hurt me!)Thesahandbfhf

The beta was fun, and solid. Not amazing, but fun

add what everyone said and add in, you have to switch to your gernade just to toss it..(SWITCH). you can't just push R2 or l2 and throw it.. how lame is that. plus there was like i second or two delay when you throw it but im sure that will be fixed .. also add.. mics.. in the beta i think it was 30/30 or it could of been 60/60. i cant remember but i only heard about 3 to 4 people talking.. wtf lol

Ok none of the issues on here gain any points with me.

MAG brings a great sense of team to the table and communication. Without that granted the game will be awefull. Call of duty and killzone is not any fun anymore to me because it just seems like mindless killing. There is no overall goal.

Agreed MAG should come with mics since it is a $60 value game.

And the grenade issue is no problem with me. I like the fact you have to switch to a grenade to throw it... this way you will not just have a grenade fest all the time plus it is more realistic... I mean I find it hilarious sometimes how you can be carring a rocket launcher in some games and be able to jump a then just toss a grenade in a split second.

I understand ya'll beef with it though. It is just not for everyone.

add what everyone said and add in, you have to switch to your gernade just to toss it..(SWITCH). you can't just push R2 or l2 and throw it.. how lame is that. plus there was like i second or two delay when you throw it but im sure that will be fixed .. also add.. mics.. in the beta i think it was 30/30 or it could of been 60/60. i cant remember but i only heard about 3 to 4 people talking.. wtf lol

iamshivy

The reason that you can only hear 3 or 4 people is because you can only hear your squad members... then if you are a squad leader you can hear other leaders.. it is just a chain of command.

MAG is bad because it doesn't play like COD and everyone knows all good fps are suppose to. Its obvious that any fps that requires teamwork, has weapon recoil, no regenerating health, or anythings else outside the COD formula is gonna suck.:lol:

Idont think its bad per se its just.....meh.

Ok none of the issues on here gain any points with me.

MAG brings a great sense of team to the table and communication. Without that granted the game will be awefull. Call of duty and killzone is not any fun anymore to me because it just seems like mindless killing. There is no overall goal.

Agreed MAG should come with mics since it is a $60 value game.

And the grenade issue is no problem with me. I like the fact you have to switch to a grenade to throw it... this way you will not just have a grenade fest all the time plus it is more realistic... I mean I find it hilarious sometimes how you can be carring a rocket launcher in some games and be able to jump a then just toss a grenade in a split second.

I understand ya'll beef with it though. It is just not for everyone.

baller72

What are you talking about? Especially at the lower levels, nobody felt the need to cooperate. Face it, the majority cares more about fulfilling individual goals than working as a team to execute strategies and pull off a victory. When half of the players don't see the value of teamwork, then there is no point in playing a game with shallow shooting mechanisms and graphics which are nothing special.

Obviously, some of the more dedicated players willing to work as a team will be prevalent as you get to a higher level match. But still, as far as lower levels go it's a bunch of players running around shooting each other in what can be described as a mediocre shooter at best.

Because the average person online has no interest in playing as a team.Giangio

it isn't codmw2 therefor it's bad.

- The game takes skill, unlike MW2.

- The game doesn't have instant health regeneration like MW2

- The game doesn't AIM for you like MW2 does, seriously the aim assist is so insane the game plays itself.

Therefor it's a terrible game that will be lost and forgotten.

/sarcasm

Truly though, MAG will revolutionize tactical shooters. It has already upped the bar, BF:BC2 looks and feels completely dull and stale compared to MAG. Not to mention it reminds me of Planetside which makes it an instant win.

People complaining about lack of teamwork or mikes need to get some friends to play with. When me and my clan take over a squad and all heal and communicate together the game is simply amazing.

it isn't codmw2 therefor it's bad.

- The game takes skill, unlike MW2.

- The game doesn't have instant health regeneration like MW2

- The game doesn't AIM for you like MW2 does, seriously the aim assist is so insane the game plays itself.

Therefor it's a terrible game that will be lost and forgotten.

/sarcasm

Truly though, MAG will revolutionize tactical shooters. It has already upped the bar, BF:BC2 looks and feels completely dull and stale compared to MAG. Not to mention it reminds me of Planetside which makes it an instant win.

SamGv

I usually read long posts. When paragraphs are used, and punctuation is at least attempted, it's readable. Even when others are saying what's with the WoT. This below is a true wall that one could hide behind. I'm sorry outkast but I am not attempting to read that. Hard on my old eyes.

Personally I love Mag... with that being said I think that most people dont like it because of the framerate. People want to turn very fast like in halo or modern warfare...and if they have to adjust the default settings to accomplish this "feeling" it will feel as though the game itself was set up improperly. They want that "turn fast" mechanism without any adjustments being made. I also think that people think mag is bad because a lot of people are used to being a "rambo" running and gunning their way around the map. You wont see people running around knifing everyone like crazy...(mw2)....or see people jumping all over the place at high heights (halo)....and your life will not regenerate right away....or your shields for that matter.... The main issue i think people have a hard time adjusting to is the realism or difficulty of this game. TEAMwork is a must to succeed. Personal success isn't the top priority (as the top killer in Mag will not beat out the top Medic in scores most of the time). People that arent used to a lvling system also may have a hard time understanding mag. Judging a LVL 1 medic (who doesnt even have a revive kit yet) and saying that tmedics suck without having reached their basic potential (the ability to revive some1) isnt a fair evaluation... Games with a leveling system take time to blossom...as you will see the fruits of your labor the higher you get in lvl. Games like MW2 or Halo have lvling systems but they are more in terms of RANK and GUN unlocks where as MAGS LVLs actually increase the performance of your CLASS...so if your not used to Classes and LVLing systems combined you can get the wrong impression of mag...and first impressions are huge. Another reason people might have hated mag is because when the beta had been released to the public a lot of people didnt know what they were doing...as far as objectives go....and it was chaotic. People werent playing their roles... It would be as if a running back decided to kick a field goal...and offensive lineman decided to run the football....and the kicker decided to coach the game... -_- A poor new player wouldve joined a game...saw how wild it was...saw how weak a lvl 1 medic is...and judged the game right off of that. I like to believe that mag improves over time. The community as a whole will grow in skill and you will see more competitve games down the rode instead of pure chaos. Other than these reasons i cant see why people would hate mag..i mean they ARE trying to revolutionize FPS games...if this 256 player game fails...think about what other companies will say when they wish to do something new.... example : "LETS MAKE A NEW 500 player FPS...! - worker "*cough** "remember mag.....256 fail?" -boss Mag is a doorway game....and its a great game as well!uso_outkast

I agree with some of the negatives. When first announced, I was excited for the 256 players, but then I heard about the team aspect of it and was turned off. I thought at first how amazing it would be to play 128 vs 128. :)

I agree with some of the negatives. When first announced, I was excited for the 256 players, but then I heard about the team aspect of it and was turned off. I thought at first how amazing it would be to play 128 vs 128. :)

feryl06

Dunno if any of you played Arma 2, and i never played the beta, but if its like Arma 2 i'm getting it. It might not be a casual / noob friendly game or even a revolutionary game for that matter but its gonna have a huge dedicated community and that works too. Hell i'll pick it up even if it scores as little as a 7/10

I thinks MAG is ok/ solid like some have said. I don't even think the graphics are bad, i think there pretty good considering the scale of the maps so i don't get why people complain about that. One thing that could have been better is the controls, and when zooming in with some guns, it has no animation which is a little frustrating, dunno if this was because of lack of ram or what...

terrible animations. terrible gameplay, grapchics worse then counter strike. i mean just try to aim a gun, it looks soo bad, its not fluid. guns have no proper recoil like childish COD. everything u can think of. i dont understand why sony would let zipper go through with this game. i want socom 4 allready

MAG is about an 8.5/10

add what everyone said and add in, you have to switch to your gernade just to toss it..(SWITCH). you can't just push R2 or l2 and throw it.. how lame is that. plus there was like i second or two delay when you throw it but im sure that will be fixed .. also add.. mics.. in the beta i think it was 30/30 or it could of been 60/60. i cant remember but i only heard about 3 to 4 people talking.. wtf lol

iamshivy

MAG isnt bad. There are just better shooters coming out that deserve peoples hard earned money more. Like Bad company 2 or Bioshock 2

[QUOTE="Giangio"]Because the average person online has no interest in playing as a team.asdasdrgr

MAG is bad because it doesn't play like COD and everyone knows all good fps are suppose to. Its obvious that any fps that requires teamwork, has weapon recoil, no regenerating health, or anythings else outside the COD formula is gonna suck.:lol:

marcl18123

^ This and it's sad that people are warped into that...

I tried the demo and it wasn't bad at all. With a bit of polishing the game will be really good.

One thing that did bother me was the sounds the grenades made. It's nothing major but I hope they really change the explosion sound heh.

Because the average person online has no interest in playing as a team.Giangio

I think most people hate it because they suck at it.

Honestly though, the only problem I have is balance issues. But recent dev quotes at least imply that they will or already have corrected those.

One thing that did bother me was the sounds the grenades made. It's nothing major but I hope they really change the explosion sound heh.

gial240

Lol yeah I mentioned that on the BETA forums they kind of sounded like those little white snapper things you throw at the ground and go POP just a little louder ha. I just didnt get a "grenadey" feeling when they went off in this game.

[QUOTE="baller72"]

Ok none of the issues on here gain any points with me.

MAG brings a great sense of team to the table and communication. Without that granted the game will be awefull. Call of duty and killzone is not any fun anymore to me because it just seems like mindless killing. There is no overall goal.

Agreed MAG should come with mics since it is a $60 value game.

And the grenade issue is no problem with me. I like the fact you have to switch to a grenade to throw it... this way you will not just have a grenade fest all the time plus it is more realistic... I mean I find it hilarious sometimes how you can be carring a rocket launcher in some games and be able to jump a then just toss a grenade in a split second.

I understand ya'll beef with it though. It is just not for everyone.

Bobzfamily

What are you talking about? Especially at the lower levels, nobody felt the need to cooperate. Face it, the majority cares more about fulfilling individual goals than working as a team to execute strategies and pull off a victory. When half of the players don't see the value of teamwork, then there is no point in playing a game with shallow shooting mechanisms and graphics which are nothing special.

Obviously, some of the more dedicated players willing to work as a team will be prevalent as you get to a higher level match. But still, as far as lower levels go it's a bunch of players running around shooting each other in what can be described as a mediocre shooter at best.

Also someone pointed out the grenade sound... now out of all the complaints this is my one of my beefs too. The sounds of some guns and explosions are weak... hopefully they will fix that in the real version.

And I hope my price is justified :)

also the website is pretty cool too... hopefully they keep that newscast going.

I want to know why other people dislike this game?

baller72

The game seems alright, I was only able to get to level 5 but it was interesting. grenades annoyed me but having no lag is really awesome. My serious beef with this game is having no split-screen. Warhawk was able to do it so why can't this game do it? And Warhawk was even cheaper.

There's nothing bad about it, it's a good, solid game with heaps of customization. haven't played 256 as of yet (only got to like level 5-6 during beta) though.

and why do people complain about the graphics?? the graphics look great, sort of Crysis-esque in style, anyone who differs probably hasn't played the open beta (if there was a graphical difference between closed and opened)