MAG

By Dan Whitehead Published 8 January, 2010

Safety in numbers?

First-party exclusives are polarising beasts by nature, but Zipper Interactive's ambitious MMOFPS will likely prove more divisive than most. Some will dive in and find a game of uncommon depth and freedom, a richly designed long-term commitment that doesn't just recreate the boom-bang-a-bang of large-scale military conflict, but fosters the loyalty and fraternal co-dependence that holds armies together as well. Others, however, may find its epic 256-man battles too hardcore. To paraphrase Obi-Wan, both will be right. From a certain point of view.

This isn't to say that the quality of the game is in doubt. On the basis of the open beta, which runs until Monday 11th January, Zipper Interactive has created a muscular and intuitive shooter. Where other serious-minded soldier sims bury their nuances under elitist acronyms and arcane structures, everything about MAG is immediate, obvious and inviting.

It not only looks like a mainstream deathmatch-driven FPS, it feels like one too. Maps are varied without feeling artificial, and if you're getting pounded from one direction there are always other routes. Natural cover is abundant, and while it would be useful to be able to enter the decoratively mangled buildings for sniping or defensive purposes, it's not essential.

Nor do you feel the absence of vehicles. This is close-quarters troop-based combat - objectives and spawn points are close enough to get back into the fray within seconds - so adding wheels into the equation wouldn't add much (although the retail game will make some use of them). Movement is fast, if a little floaty for a game with such a weighty military style, and control is slick and arcadey. There are some minor balancing issues, with players pulling off instant headshots with heavy machine guns from 300ft or lobbing grenades superhuman distances, but on the whole it has a wonderful pick-up-and-play simplicity.

'MAG' Screenshot 1

The ability to detect the distance and direction of enemy fire is just one of the skills you can upgrade.

Two modes are available in the beta. Sabotage pits platoons of 32 players, divided into four eight-man squads, against each other in a battle to control two key installations. Domination, unlocked once you acquire enough XP to reach level 10, is the main attraction, throwing the full 256 players into battle with eight targets to fight over at the start.

Skirmishes are small and traditional in both scale and structure to start off. You'll be part of a small force focused on one of the targets. Nearby, other members of your faction will be doing the same. Once the battle conditions have been met - usually with the attackers seizing control of all the targets at the same time - then the conflict evolves and the targets are fewer, so more players are pitched in together.

The pace of the game does tug the action towards a typical run-and-gun approach in these initial battles, however, as opposed to the methodical militarism of ArmA and its kin, which may lead players astray. As players dash from spawn point to flashpoint, cracking off headshots, lobbing grenades and performing physically unlikely acrobatic leaps, there's little to illustrate the more sober teamwork-driven strategy that the game truly requires. The hype about the number of players in the game also means that the lack of vast, crowded battlefields may be jarring.

'MAG' Screenshot 2

The server load means that customising your character consists of choosing one of 11 different faces. A shame, since you'll be sticking with them for as long as any MMORPG character.

But if you can make your peace with the game's occasionally ambiguous place on the sliding scale of FPS play, then something genuinely thrilling remains: the speed and action of a Modern Warfare, but with the scope and depth of a SOCOM. It's hard not to be excited by that prospect, and when the pieces fall into place the result is undeniably invigorating.

Find yourself within a well-organised squad, with a smart leader, and the game comes alive as you move and strike with purpose beyond your own score. The knowledge that other squads are doing the same is rather abstract to begin with - you may occasionally get a chance to look over at the other objectives and see them scuttling around - but as objectives fall into place and the war escalates, it's brutally seductive. Those aren't just players on the same server, they're members of the same faction, and you start to develop an innate kinship with them that pays off when forces converge.

The downside is that all of this enjoyment relies to an unprecedented degree on the people with whom you're playing. Bad players can screw up a typical Capture the Flag match in any other game and be booted with no lasting damage, but in MAG's persistent, interlinked warzone the failure of one squad can bring everybody down.

Getting strangers to co-operate online is a lot like herding cats, and it's notable that the only game to really succeed in this Grail quest has been Left 4 Dead, a game that scaled everything back to the bare minimum: four players on a strictly defined path. By creating open-plan environments that can accommodate any strategy, MAG also leaves the way open for those with no strategy at all. Leadership seems to be a vague concept, not helped by the PS3 community's continued aversion to voice chat.

Some of my leaders during the beta have left a bit to be desired, too. You can put yourself forward for a leadership role once you crest level 15, enabling status perks to those who stay close and calling in special support functions, but the only words I heard out of one leader all match were "sniper was bad", while another gave an inspiring pep talk about the intricacies of the map and the danger of sniper points before proceeding to, well, hurl us at the same brick-wall defences over and over. Another was more interested in talking to his friend about hot sauce and bongwater than in giving any direction to our slapdash assault.

Such complaints are true of most team-based FPS games, but where MAG differs is in its reliance on mutually beneficial performance. You can lone-wolf it, of course, and I often found more success as a solo sniper creeping around the outskirts of battles than trotting dutifully behind the pack, but that rather defeats the object. There are dozens of games like that already.

'MAG' Screenshot 3

Nice screenshot, terrible tactics. Where's my rocket launcher?

MAG needs to show that it's something more, especially since you need all targets to be captured for the battle to reach the tantalising carrot of 256-man warfare. It only takes one squad to fail for things to come undone for the whole platoon. In Sabotage, whenever I found myself on a dependable team, actually capable of taking and holding an objective, chances were that the squad tackling the other installation failed to even get close. The timer ticks down, the game ends in a loss. The sense of elation when it works is immense, but frustrating doesn't begin to cover it when it doesn't.

Extrapolate that to the full battlefield where there are 127 human variables with the potential to muck things up, before you even factor in the 128 enemies actively trying to stop you, and you begin to see the mountain that MAG is boldly attempting to conquer. But of course, this is just a beta trial, and the first few days of one at that, so there's little point trying to draw any long-term conclusions regarding player behaviour. You can form your own clan relatively early, so hopefully as more players congeal into coordinated groups these problems will dissipate.

'MAG' Screenshot 4

Why is always red versus blue?

From beta experience, that's going to be the obstacle MAG must overcome if it's to fulfill its enormous potential. Judged purely from a software point of view, there's little doubt that Zipper has come up with something quietly remarkable. There's virtually no lag even with dozens of players on one map, and the only glitch I found was an occasional hiccup where one player's prone form would suddenly start sliding around the map.

If everyone takes it seriously and performs properly, it's conceivable that MAG could revolutionise online console FPS play. But that's a big "if", and it's the community that will not only define the experience but make or break it. The task before Sony, then, is arguably not one of promotion but of education. Treat it like any other FPS launch and the result will be a damp squib. Get people in the right frame of mind, however, and MAG could be explosive.

MAG is due out exclusively for PS3 at the end of January, with retailers agreeing on the 29th ahead of an official announcement.

Picture of Dan.

About Dan Whitehead

Dan has been writing for Eurogamer since 2006 and specialises in RPGs, shooters and games for children. His bestest game ever is Julian Gollop's Chaos.

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Whitehead archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (70) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • altitude2k #1 2 years ago

    I've said this ever since I tried the beta last year. MAG will be good ONLY if people stick to tactics. Unfortunately that's unlikely, and from what I've played of the game it just resorts to a constant flow of respawning adverseries running straight into the heat of the battle like headless chickens.

  • mcmonkeyplc #2 2 years ago

    I was surprisingly impressed with the few games I had yesterday. Although I did kill my team mate by mistake when trying out the buttons....
    :S

  • Widge #3 2 years ago

    For those who want to put the effort in and really get to know the game and play it to its strengths, they'll find this wonderful. I reckon on release, the matches will be a shambles but they'll mature over time. I have to ask myself the question, do I have the time to dedicate to one game in a year with a mental release schedule? I don't think so.

    However I like what its doing and I'm glad it exists. I reckon this will pick up a very hardcore following who will keep it more than alive.

  • buggerlugs75 #4 2 years ago

    hmmm, if it works, which is a big if, this could be really good, but from the couple of hours i've played it, not one match had a proper leader in my squad, and no discernable tactical behaviour.

    it just turned into a free-for-all, which made it pretty pointless. i found myself wishing to be playing on xbox live, so there was more voice-chat, but the PS3's lack of headsets was the main failing point for me...

    like i said tho, getting into a decent group, this game would be mint.

  • YoungPayters #5 2 years ago

    sounds very interesting! when i get a good bband connection and i mic, im there. savage cabbage!

  • Triggerhappytel #6 2 years ago

    I have enjoyed the Beta from what I've played, but I agree with the above sentiments that it feels like most people won't play to its full potential. I may look at picking it up if and when the price drops to £15/18, but with Battlefield: BC2 due out in a couple of months I don't think I really need or can invest time in MAG at the moment.
    Edited by 1 at 08/01/10 @ 14:01

  • KillerMonkey #7 2 years ago

    This sounds like a game that would be more at home on the PC.
    Quite an achievement that they've managed to do this on the PS3 without lag or performance issues.

  • SleepyDeathFred #8 2 years ago

    No chance of it ever coming to 360 then presumably? Without wishing to sound fanboy-ish it sounds like it would make a lot more sense there... Also I'd be able to play it!

    edit: -1? Really? Everyone else is saying about the headset thing too!
    Edited by 1 at 08/01/10 @ 12:30

  • mintycabbage #9 2 years ago

    I think that after three months the community will get a clue and acting as a team, but until then it may be a free-for-all. Finding the right clan in this game would help a hell lot.

  • Murton #10 2 years ago

    This games is going to be a bit sketchy on release I reckon. For most it will be the first FPS of 2010 and a lot people playing it online will be the people who have grown bored of the MW2 multiplayer. I predict a lot of matches being thrown away by people thinking the game can be won with deathmatch tactics as still happens now with Bad Company.

    If the player progression sufficiently rewards proper objective play over bellendery then a lot of these meatgrinder players will move on once the next shooter comes out and hopefully leave MAG to the serious players. Personally I think I'm gonna give this one a little while to get settled before I wade in, play with the guys who have established themselves and know what they're doing, that's how you'll get the most out of this game in my opinion.

  • Widge #11 2 years ago

    Yeah, I get the feeling that this is one to play on maturity. Like Warhawk, that started off with EVERYONE just pelting to the Warhawks and with no idea what on earth was going on... after a while, it settled down, became a more mature strategic game.

    Might keep my eye on the forum thread over the next few months to see how this matures.

    Is there a UK beta at the moment or is it just the US? And is the US beta dumping you in at the 256 player deep end?

  • lordofthedunce #12 2 years ago

    I'm sure once clans are formed and the community around the game grows there'll be some great fun to be had.

    L4D is one example where throwing randoms together can work, I'd also say Mercenary TDM in Modern Warfare is a good place for getting people to work together as no parties are allowed, though that is taking things in the exact opposite direction to clans.

  • cianchristopher #13 2 years ago

    Those screens are classic bullshots - there's no way the game employs that much anti-aliasing when it's in motion.

    The game sounds great - but I can't see it being a success! You'd need far too much coordination, and the fact that PS3s are sold without headsets (unlike the 360) means that no-one will talk online, meaing no-one will coordinate online, meaning the game will fail to achieve it's objective.

    Then again, there's little-to-no coordination on games on 360 with headsets, so maybe online coordination is doomed from the start. These sort of things always fare better on PC, where the self-serious players take the time and effort to work together...
    Edited by 1 at 08/01/10 @ 12:16

  • buggerlugs75 #14 2 years ago

    also, the mentioning of unbalanced play is spot on. couple of times, did come up against some obviously organised groups, who had got a lot of the upgrades, and they were simply unstoppable. headshots from the other side of the map, gradually closing in on our spawn point, to the point where our team was dying within seconds of respawn.

    that was no fun at all...

  • Byblos1 #15 2 years ago

    It's as if Sony wants to remind us how stupid it was not to bundle in a headset with the PS3.

  • Hantheman #16 2 years ago

    I understand the principle, but from every video I've seen the actual gun handlnig and ya know, the FPS part of the game looks cheap and tacked on.

  • Rirekon #17 2 years ago

    I've been gradually falling in love with MAG - for me as long as I'm in a good squad I thoroughly enjoy it, even fighting a losing battle against overwhelming odds is fun if there are a few other players around you doing their bit.
    I suspect launch week, like with most games, is going to suck hard in terms of team work but after all those who aren't in for the team play have got bored with dying constantly the rest of us will have a really good game.

    My PS3 hasn't seen much use since I got it (other than a Buzz/Singstar splurge over New Years), damn glad I still have it and I can almost forget how much I hate the controller while playing MAG.

    Those of you who have played a few games and thought "what tactics?" I seriously suggest trying out some of the support equipment. This is the first online FPS I've played where smoke grenades make a real difference to a fight. I've been in several situations (on both sides) where an area has been completely overrun or attacks stopped in their tracks by well placed smoke grenades.
    Edited by 1 at 08/01/10 @ 12:28

  • DanWhitehead #18 2 years ago

    @Widge - "Is there a UK beta at the moment or is it just the US?"

    It's an open beta, US and Europe, judging from the accents and languages I've been hearing. Just go to the PlayStation Store and download the beta client. Then sit back and enjoy a 2Gb download and install.

  • swissorc #19 2 years ago

    something like this screams download only where you don't have to dedicate your drive to it everytime you fancy a bash fifa is another prime example of this although based off a different time frame (quick bash at half time while watching sky sports). Taking this even further maybe Sony could install this into every PS3 they sell and it could be a staple game every PS owner has! TO add. Games like this need years to matuer and while some games caputure a long term fan base most (my beloved GRAW included) die a death after 9 monthes when the next new shiney thing comes along. IF sony really wish to push the PS3 for another 5 years or so long term games like this with epic MMO style communities really could carry it through droughts and keeping the fickle masses dedicates.
    Edited by 1 at 08/01/10 @ 12:32

  • mingster #20 2 years ago

    Played the closed beta last year and it was not enjoyable due to teams and team leaders having not a clue as to what to do.
    The objectives are not clearly signposted enough to even guess what you have to do next.
    Upgraded teams that have ranked up own any slightly lesser teams.
    Its too unbalanced due to xp upgrades.
    Each time should start off with the same perks and abilities just have a choice of weapon loadouts like counterstrike.
    Having some people upgraded and others not is not fair.
    The lack of decent leaders is also a major problem.

  • Widge #21 2 years ago

    L4D (and Warhawk I suppose) worked because there was just this 'understanding' of how to play together and make the game work. Both games work really well without communication, L4D especially so with its audio cues of "PILLS HERE!" and "I hear a hunter..."... meaning your in game characters are doing all the voice comms work for you.

    Warhawk kind of had this unwritted code, such as "player on team is shooting at my jeep with a pistol, this means 'stop so I can get on'"... and of course HONK HONK meant "get on board". Plus the game made sense to work together. Get a rocket and jumping into a tank meant sense, capping spawns meant sense, putting an APV in place made sense.

    I jumped into the original MAG beta and literally felt "WTF!". Might be one to read about and learn first before getting into place, also having established leaders by the time I grab the game could be better. Think it'd be a good PSN game, Warhawk was great as it just sat on your HDD ready to dive into.

  • lordofthedunce #22 2 years ago

    @swissorc

    nice idea, like the second version of the Master System with Alex Kidd. They'd have to select a universal rated game though!

  • swissorc #23 2 years ago

    oh yes stupid age restrictions. Then again a simple age blocker could cure that. But then that would alienate under 16 i guess.

  • betahoven #24 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:36:16 17-12-2011

  • Widge #25 2 years ago

    I'll bung the store on now. I like nothing more than watching a download counter going up.

  • jumpdeveraux #26 2 years ago

    Agree with the write-up - I've been enjoying the beta to an extent in that, for me at least, it yields memories of Joint Ops:Typhoon Rising ... fun but 'quirky'.

    "with players pulling off instant headshots with heavy machine guns" - this has been the source of most of my expletive laden outbursts to date. Further tweaks definitely required as I was head to head for 15 mins with a sniper over a very long distance last night (each a couple of pixels on each others screen) - I managed to kill them more... with my pistol.

  • Widge #27 2 years ago

    Not a bad download, kicked it off 3 mins ago and 10% done.

  • Lunastra78 #28 2 years ago

    I've been playing the Beta for the last couple of days and I'm surprised by how much I like it! The lack of voice-chatting players has generally not been an issue since the objectives are so clear: DEFEND A....SET CHARGES AT B. Of course, when playing against coordinated teams you will get your ass handed to you.

    The single best feature of this game so far seems to be the map themselves which huge and genuinely thrilling to play in and allow for a multitude of different tactics. Most of the games I've played seem to be won by the defending teams so they might need to balance it slightly in favor of the attacking team though.

    I will definitely buy this game when it comes out and I hope it sells a lot as it will need many players to sustain those 256 player matches.

  • infoxicated #29 2 years ago

    I remember taking a holiday from work to play SOCOM 2 online and playing for 10 hours straight one day after finding myself with a really good group who played the game "properly" on both sides.

    I'm an average player at best, but finding myself surrounded by team mates who communicated and were tactically astute meant I could play my part - even if it was just providing cover or guarding a particular weak point in our defences.

    That experience was rare, though - the run & gun folk could really mess up the game, so I think my enjoyment of MAG could hinge on what type of crowd it attracts.

  • razzastuta #30 2 years ago

    I managed to get a code for the closed Beta for this. I really worked hard to like MAG but it has some flaws that stop it from being fun to play. My major gripe is that when you die, you have to wait 11-12 seconds to respawn (even longer if you have to choose your spawn point) then try to get back to your squad, which can take a further 10 seconds, only to get to a position and then quickly die.

    In my experience of the MAG Beta, having a mic or not doesn't make a difference. If the Team Leader doesn't have a mic (which was the case for 99% of the time I was playing) then everyone runs around like headless chickens, if he does, then no-one really does what he says anyway. Anyone else on the team with a mic spends half his/her time asking the leader what to do. It just ended up in the most haphazard and painfully cringing FPS I played.

    Sorry folks I tried to stick with it but I struck it off my PS3. I'll go back to MW2 on my 360 now. Heck, no-one speaks on that much, but it's more fun and at least you know your objectives when playing online.

    Another point is the PS3 Community's "aversion" to online chatter. It's not aversion. The difference is that the 360 has a free mic and PS3 players have to buy one. At least X360 users have a proper choice whether to use their mic or not, compared to the PS3 owner who has to decide on paying to speak to their friends online or to choose to save their money. If MAG offered a free bluetooth mic (I know this won't happen) you'd probably encourage more online chat....although saying that, you'll encourage trash talk too!

  • Beige_Alert #31 2 years ago

    I lost interest rather fast, partly because there was no training map (that I could run at least) meaning jumping in without any idea of how to play and with no team work at all the matches I played. But also because I found the look of the game to be dark, and not dark in the good "SAS vs Spetznaz COD4" way, but in a dull and colourless one. Had a hell of a time telling friend from foe during the match.
    Maybe it'll grown on me, but it doesn't feel like a buy on launch for me now, not with Battlefield BC 2 so close in time.

  • Slipstream #32 2 years ago

    Kudos to this game for allowing you turn your 'lil cadet into a full blown Feild medic! Okay, so I'm not the best at first person shooters and generally dismiss them, but as a field medic I get to heal people (for decent points) and even elp repair and hold forts which is absolutely essential in the 128 man domination matches. The whole thing is pretty hectic but good fun when you discover your role.

    There are plenty of talents to play about with so alot of people withh find abilities and weapons they are comftable with. As the reads, the game is hardly set to redefine the genre, but what it does is adds more appeal for those who'll dismiss it as another 1st person shooter and also more gameplay variety which, really, is what the genre needs right now.

  • Rich72 #33 2 years ago

    The PS3 crowd really need to invest in the headset department. I have persuaded some of my friends on MW2 to invest as I pretty much refuse to play without the headset. It is just like a big free for all with people almost forced to camp as there is no communication.

    Since the purchase however, we have barely lost a game and none of us are particularly great.

    I tried MAG but it just seemed like a big mess at the time. has it improved?

  • Triggerhappytel #34 2 years ago

    SleeptDeathFred - "No chance of it ever coming to 360 then presumably? Without wishing to sound fanboy-ish it sounds like it would make a lot more sense there... Also I'd be able to play it!

    edit: -1? Really? Everyone else is saying about the headset thing too!"

    You've been marked down presumably for not realising this is a Sony-owned game. Zipper Interactive are a first-party Sony studio.

  • orpheus #35 2 years ago

    The only people who will play with any tactics in an online console FPS are hardcore 'clan' psychos - everyone else will just do what the hell they like, a la MW2 and nearly every other FPS in existence. Hoping for tactical play in a game this size is simply delusional; even if half the players in a room used tactics, the other half would balls it up by charging in like idiots.

    Enjoy the clusterfuck. Anyone who actually appreciates tactical FPS gaming on consoles will be on Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising (which, despite a few minor flaws, most of which have now been fixed by two decent title updates, is really good).

  • ianegg #36 2 years ago

    "Why is always red versus blue?"

    Quake 4 was orange versus green.

  • 00.00.01 #37 2 years ago

    The Xbox consumers pay for their headset, it's in the retailprice. Also, some peepz just use their PS3/Xbox offline. Nice that M$ made you fork out for a headset then?? The XBL T&C even advise that XBL isn't available in all countries and that not all BB/ISP's support XBL. So there you are with a 'free' headset but no possibility to use it. At least Sony gives consumers the option what to use, I know loads of gamers who use a £10 Bluetooth from Tesco and it works fine. Let's see, £10 for a headset or a free headset but a monthly fee for XBL_Gold...
    .
    As for MAG, I really like the beta. Our clan joined the beta with apr. 30 players, makes a good team and easy gameplay due to headset-bonanza. Some tweaking needs to be done regarding long-distance shooting, other than that I'd advised anyone who's not convinced to push through to lvl10 and play domination. Such a rush!
    .
    Further, for the future of FPS's, browse the net and look for IW's future plans....No more ModernWarfares, but aiming for a big MMOFPS.
    Your future has arrived with MAG.
    Edited by 1 at 08/01/10 @ 14:59

  • Accordi0n #38 2 years ago

    Strangely this article fails to mention how experience points are distributed. If you want to level up you need to be a team player. XP is heavily weighted on the objectives, giving double xp for actions at the objective, and perhaps more importantly Healing teammates gives more xp than killing an enemy.
    While new players are a bit lost, and play for kill, it doesnt take long for player to realise being a team player is the path to success both for the mission and individual experience points.

  • Phishfood #39 2 years ago

    The biggest problem with MAG is that the PS3 did not provide headsets by default.

  • Accordi0n #40 2 years ago

    you dont really need a headset for the 64 player game, it certainly helps in team awareness, but its not that hard to look at the mini map and be aware of your surroundings. THere is a huge amount of information displayed on the screen, and i really like th enemy fire radar showing direction and also whether fire is coming your direction or if you were hit.

    The only thing i dont like is that the medic kit has the same fire button for healing yourself as well as teammates, i have died a few times because a teammate ran in front of me when i used it, and ive also had others bleed out because i used it on myslef instead of reviving them…

  • jambo74 #41 2 years ago

    Good idea, played the beta but I think the concept will fail along with the game. You are never gong to get that many people working towards the common goal. Take FIFA 11 v 11 as an example...not played one decent game on it as everybody wants to just run and shoot.

  • Emmit_Assassin #42 2 years ago

    I really, really hope this works out well. I've only got a 360, and am so jealous PS3 owners are getting a game like this. If it does work, then maybe some bright spark will attempt it on the 360. I can't believe the PS3 is still behind on voice and party stuff. You'd have thought they'd have sorted that by now. Anyway, enjoy you buggers!

  • Widge #43 2 years ago

    approx 35 mins to download in the end, not too shabby.

  • Onelove1867 #44 2 years ago

    The headset thing is a double edged sword.

    On one hand it might encourage more users to communicate properly and actually work as a team.

    On the other it might just mean there are more under age numpties talking about nonsense, shouting and being abusive than if fewer people had headsets.

    Even if this was on 360 It wouldn't make a difference. MAG will live or die on the maturity of it's community, not how many of them have headsets. To that end this would certainly work better on PC than it would on either PS3 or 360, and that's coming from a 360/PS3 owner who owns a Mac (and therego, is a complete stranger to PC gaming)

  • busboy33 #45 2 years ago

    @orpheus:

    "The only people who will play with any tactics in an online console FPS are hardcore 'clan' psychos - everyone else will just do what the hell they like, a la MW2 and nearly every other FPS in existence."

    No question there are plenty of lone wolves out there on the InterTubes . . . but I've been suprised how many players on MW2 will play with and for the team.

    I play with a tight group of gaming friends (Team Waxy) but we're hardly "clan psychos" (we don't practice, we don't plan, and we're not a clan), and far more often than not if we have a few open slots filled with random players they happily work as part of the whole. In my experience, the determining factor usually seems to be the "vibe" of the team. If the majority of the team is calling enemy positions and movements (playing on a 360, so voice chat is near universal), then the randoms almost always join right in. Trusting your teammates to know how to play and just providing useful information ("3 at Charlie", "sniper in the treeline is down", "watch out -- knifer at the back of the warehouse", "they're pushing hard . . . Charlie to Alpha, top of the hill", "tubes covering Bravo from the Palace", "don't worry about Alpha, I got it covered", etc.) has only failed to get people on board maybe 5% of the time . . . and those people were hell bent on being nimrods.

    Conversely, the few times I jumped solo into a random room it was usually crap. One person who just wants to camp and work on their K/D and expects the rest of the team to worry about objectives screaming at everybody about how badly everybody sucks (except them, of course), the wannabe MacArthur bellowing orders at everybody (because he just finished watching a WWII movie and we're all idiots), etc. No fun at all.

    Some of my friends have PS3s, so I'm waiting on their first-hand report for MAG before I go one way or another on it . . . but I just don't see how this could possibly work without chat (work as anything other than pure chaos). I do agree that it certainly sounds like the game is going to reward clans moreso than other FPSs.

    Its an interesting theoretical question -- is there a functional limit to game sizes? I played Frontlines: Fuel of War (I think that was what it was called) a bit, and while the idea of 32-v-32 matches sounded awesome, it was just too big to functionally work except in rare and random circumstances. Certainly big shooters can and have been done (i.e.: Planetside), but maybe a console just isn't capable of replicating that kind of system (although I can't think of a practical reason why not). For the PS3ers out there, here's hoping MAG brakes the mold.

  • Miths #46 2 years ago

    I played closed beta for a handful of hours last month. I hated it at first, an hour later I loved it, and when I stopped playing I was somewhere in between - though probably leaning towards a negative impression.
    Aside from the potential for matches to turn into huge clusterfucks (which certainly happened in several of the ones I played, including the "small" 64 player matches), I never quite took to the feel of the movement and weapons. But perhaps they've been polishing it those areas over the last month?

    I better give the beta a try again, although I do suspect I'll end up holding out for Bad Company 2 instead (haven't played that beta, but if the game is just as good as the first one - and I'm hearing it's a fair bit better - I'll almost certainly love it, and 24 player matches are a bit more manageable).

  • dbranchevans #47 2 years ago

    Well I've been playing this since BETA on the 4th and am now squad leader with a headset so I guess maybe I don't have to worry about some of the complaints here about comms. I personally think its a fantastic game but fatally flawed at present, its very very hard on new players who don't have access to the skills the higher levels do (particularly poison grenades/ extra health) but that does give u a sense of achievement and you do level up fast. Whats far more of a problem is the inbalance between attackers/ defenders, I've only seen attackers win twice out of the 30 odd domination games although its a little more common with sabotage. I played a game earlier today where the enemy never even made it into the 2nd stage and I'm finding myself tempted to quit when attacker comes up. Still as my flatmate smugly points out, if I hate it, why am I playing it so much! They really, really need to patch it to move the spawn points forward...

  • orpheus #48 2 years ago

    @ Busboy33

    I see your point, it's great with a group of friends - I'm thinking just general plebs-you-meet-in-a-lobby gamers. I'm on 360 too, and I have a similar thing with my group of gaming friends. I think it's just the extremes I've been exposed to recently in terms of FPS gaming.

    MW2, even with a group of friends is tough to retain any real squad coherency, it's just a slightly more controlled chaos (and god help you if you get randoms on your team). OFP:DR shares some problems and adds some of it's own - you either get run & gun nutters who get wiped out in seconds or gleefully team-kill, or you get psychopathic 'clan' gamers who assign each other ranks and pretend to be real soldiers by playing (in front of a tv) in army boots and camo gear and shouting a lot. Both extremes annoy me!

    OFP:DR genuinely shines with three friends in co-op play or vs however, especially now the two title updates have fixed 99% of the AI malfunctions. It's much more involving than MW2 - I've never been freaked out by the sound of bullets whipping past me in a game before, or taken away memories of tank shells roaring metres over my head while roadie-running in utter panic over an open hilltop road ('RUN FOR THE FUCKING TREES! AAARGH! Etc.). I'd never play it with randoms, purely because you need the tactics and teamwork to survive and succeed.

    Simple fact is the vast majority of random lobby drop-in gamers are likely to be idiots - and putting 100-odd of them into a room and hoping for tactics is asking for trouble. Anyone who has listened to a Modern Warfare/Halo/Etc lobby over the last couple of years knows exactly what I mean. And if MW2 is a clusterfuck, how is MAG going to be any better? It's an excellent idea, granted - but very likely one that will be ruined by the very people who play the game. Shame, really, as it's a good idea.

    Re the functional limit to game sizes, it's a toughie. To use MW1 as an example, the Ground War maps were way too small, and every game turned into a nightmare, not to mention the myriad connection issues, so more players also means much larger maps, with a lot more variety. Also, the more people you have, the less cohesive each team/side will be. 4-8 a side (IMO) allows for some decent tactical control, if done right, but much higher than that and you start hitting the charlie foxtrot threshold! ;)
    Edited by 3 at 08/01/10 @ 18:49

  • TRUTH #49 2 years ago

    The only online games that work are Endwar(highly underrated RTS that works on consoles and great online), Borderlands, Fight Night 4 (plus other sports games), Left 4 Dead 2 (as you have to work together)...I think Mag will be to confusing and spoiled by no one bothering to play by rules... It seems like a basic run and gun shooter.

    I think Battlefield II will be the next best online game. Looks, feels, and sounds better from the demos seen.

  • orpheus #50 2 years ago

    'The only online games that work are Endwar(highly underrated RTS that works on consoles and great online), Borderlands, Fight Night 4 (plus other sports games), Left 4 Dead 2'

    Agree, agree, agree, though I never played FN4. I'd also add Magic: DOTP to that category too; never played a ranked match without getting a thank you message from my opponent, regardless of who won.

    Also, Endwar rocked. I still have it :D
    Edited by 1 at 08/01/10 @ 18:51

  • jag10 #51 2 years ago

    eh? so it's not going to work except it has been for ages lol. this isn't the first ever beta for it, hardcore players have been playing for a long time, take it from someone who has been in the other beta phases, the game definately works.

  • Climhazzard #52 2 years ago

    i do like the beta so far, enjoying it very much but i understand the bit about bad squads and people with no mics, very annoying!!

    anyone wants to play add me MeteorBarret
    Edited by 1 at 08/01/10 @ 19:54

  • Widge #53 2 years ago

    Yes, Black only appeared on the Xbox.

  • El-Dev #54 2 years ago

    Black was fucking awesome.

    Was it a sales success Donnie?

  • FenderMaster #55 2 years ago

    MAG, more than any other PS3 title, NEEDS to come bundled with a headset, it could really, really help the community aspect of the game...

    didn't like the november beta though, si i'll probably give it a miss...

  • man.the.king #56 2 years ago

    In my opinion, what Zipper Interactive & Sony can do to foster voice communication is to bundle a Bluetooth headset with the game. Warhawk bundled a headset, MAG can do it too. Also, leadership should be something that can not only be earned, but also taken away. That will give players who have risen to such positions pause, and an incentive to play with some amount of commitment. Also, what ZI can probably do to engender co-operation among teammates is to allow for a balanced leveling up, i.e. leveling up should be based not only on kill statistics or other similar metrics, but should also take into account what other activities the player does, like co-operation, not lone-wolfing it, and following orders.
    Edited by 1 at 08/01/10 @ 22:58

  • Lunastra78 #57 2 years ago

    To whoever complained about the newbie-players who run headlong into the fight; No, those are a great asset for any team. We call them cannon fodder. ;)

    Lone snipers who just try to rack up kills are a far bigger problem, as they have very little value pursuing the objectives.

  • Progguitarist #58 2 years ago

    Love the Beta. Some games can be a disaster ("attacking" teams all decide they want to snipe and sit at their spawn) but when you get 2 well matched squads its a hectic, intense experience. It really needs to be played with friends to get the most out of it too. It caters to different plays style very well...if you cant hit a barn door you can heal/revive/repair for tons of points, Cant wait for the full release.

  • davisorle #59 2 years ago

    Havent read opinions here but ill just repeat mine. As an FPS lover for way too many years I am more than possitive that this game will fail for many reasons. One of them being the lag with the few that will remain playing it after the first short period of release... Tryingt o connect the distant players. A game like this wouldnt even make it easily on the PC. Aka hating retards ruining the game for only 12 teamplayers in a game as known as CS:source. Can you count the number of them on MAG on the PS3? I wouldnt want to :/

    Im almost done installing APB beta... Now thats a game im not sure about o.O

  • Widge #60 2 years ago

    The DF article on it rather praised its net code for its lack of lag, I think they were doing lots of testing where they'd get all 256 players together in a small area and pounded the server.

    I think the main area of concern that it might be too hardcore for fence sitters to take a punt on thanks somewhat to its lack of identity and character beyond "the 256 player game".

  • Chufty #61 2 years ago

    Once you start playing with friends, these issues start to go away. It was exactly the same with Left 4 Dead.

    Ok, you need more friends, but not that much more. I always play L4D with 7 other friends in a versus mode, and that's your squad sorted in MAG.

  • scorch #62 2 years ago

    Will probably be as anonymous as SOCOM.

  • El-Dev #63 2 years ago

    MW2 is the most basic of FPS gameplay and it's a runaway success so I don't really get your point. Halo 3 and ODST are based on an engine from the previous gen and are runaway successes. I think you're talking out your ass as usual Donnie but you'll say the same shit over and over and over again anyways no matter what MAG does.

    I personally thought the gameplay in MAG was decent, I found it a bit hard to get my bearings at points and the teamwork was haphazard to say the least but I'm gonna pick this up at some point and give it a go, especially seeing as a good few on my friends list are getting it so playing with them in a squad could be good. Believe it or not they all have headsets!!!

  • Lunastra78 #64 2 years ago

    Fact: Most (as in: not all) of the negative comments here are from people who haven't even tried the game. It's quite obvious from how little they know of it. Perhaps they have seen a few screenshots and then go on to endlessly repeat what criticism they've heard before. Just ignore these jealous fanboy screams.

    Btw I'm sure this happens on 360 exclusive games too, but these kinda trolls are annoying in any case, can't we agree on that?

  • knightmt #65 2 years ago

    I love MAG it is slightly unbalanced towards the higher levels, but the maps give a lot of cover from sniper fire.
    The headset issue is bullshit, it is unnecessary for leadership as the important commands are on the D-pad also most of the time people are talking shit on the headsets.
    The three essentials are get a hand grip for your gun doubles accuracy. Get the ressusitation skill triples xp. And stick with other players you will live twice as long, especially leaders who have automatic leadership bonuses.
    You should only be allowed to use a headset for your squad, fuck me I do not want to know if someone is going to school tomorrow?

  • El-Dev #66 2 years ago

    @notmyrealname,

    Nothing excites the 360 only crowd on Eurogamer.net like a PS3 exclusive. The closer it gets to release date the crazier they get. It was crazy around the time of Killzone 2's release. It's like a waving a bitch on heat past a bunch of dogs with 2 dicks each, really gets them going.

  • MizzouGaming #67 2 years ago

    I've tried to like MAG, hell I'm getting ready to play it now. Unfortunately MAG simply is NOT a good game at all. MAG's biggest draw is its epic scale of players. In order to accomplish this level of scale Zipper has been forced to water down other key areas like overall visuals, framerate and even gameplay.

    If you are going to make sacrificies in those key areas you better make it worth it. Unfortunately for MAG, 128 players adds nothing of positive value to the game...NOTHING. What it does bring is clutter, chaos and confusion. Throw cluttered, chaotic confusing gameplay in a visually bland, generic environment and you are left with an extremely mediocre, generic FPS.

    On top of that Sony is throwing MAG into a community that has shown disappointing support for phenomenal online games like KILLZONE 2 and U2 is virtually product suicide. MAG flopped the day it was announced.



    Edited by 1 at 10/01/10 @ 04:50

  • dfish #68 2 years ago

    i hope digital foundry get a look at this soon. the IQ is fantastic no jaggies in sight at all. I was thinking 720p 4aa but it might be a custom solution. Impressive considering the scope of the game.

  • dbranchevans #69 2 years ago

    Never felt the need to comment twice before on these as I like to read what everyone else writes but for those people who think its a crap FPS I couldn't disagree more! Seems to be that it doesn't have MW2, killstreaks, perks, deathstreaks etc... well yes, because thats called plagerism! Its purely a teamgame and whilst you can call down artillery fire the enemy can neutralise your capability to do so, you don't have to deal with some twats boosting each other to get the nuke or the endless kills from being AC10'd etc.. They're different games and MAG doesn't try to do what MW2 does so quit complaining its not a copy! In fact personally I've found the guns very satisfying and the issue that you only get better guns at the higher levels does somewhat apply to MW2 as well. Oh and for the record I think MW1 is still the better multiplayer game but thats beside the point...

  • ThatGuyOverThere #70 2 years ago

    What I find interesting regarding MAG (and most other multi-player online games) is that their success is becoming less about technical issues and more about managing social ones.

    MAG looks interesting. The gfx aren't the best in the business but they do the job and in some cases are very effective (ie. the moving shadows cast by the radar dishes kept spooking me, and the frustration when I couldn't see the enemy because of smoke grenades was palpable).

    But for this game to really succeed comes down to the people playing it. I don't have anything particularly original or new to add to the topic but here's my two cents:

    If I can find a bunch of players who are focussed on working together in order to have fun and win, then MAG will be a keeper.

    If, on the other hand, I jump into this game and have to listen to a bunch of trash-talking juveniles who think we'll enjoy listening to R-Kelly down their microphones then this game will have a very short shelf life indeed.