Post: Why Xbox 360 owners DON'T want M.A.G....
Options
02-10-2010, 01:36 PM
#1
Shepleklet
u mad cuz ur ***git
Why do Xbox users not want M.A.G? Could it be just another one of those games that cause gargantuous (I love that word) amounts of hype, and then turn out to be a waste of your time and money? Voice your opinons in the form of a comment. I would be intested to hear them.
You must login or register to view this content.
Originally posted by another user
Well, congratulations Playstation 3 owners, MAG has finally been out for a bit and admittedly, I’m still not sure how I feel about it. The prospect of games totaling 256 players is intriguing, but should we as 360 owners catch a case of the Green-Eyed Monster and feel some kind of envy? The short answer is no, at least for now. First and foremost, the Xbox 360 community isn’t currently hurting for an amalgamation of multiplayer games. While it already goes without saying that the 360 has a dominatingly large library of games, it seems the desire may not quite be there yet for massive multiplayer titles. Also, anyone who has played online will be well aware of the quality of teammates met randomly. Unfortunately, this immediately rules out a significant amount of the objective based combat that MAG revolves around. In the meantime, what’s already being played on Xbox Live has a dominating presence and those games being played don’t necessarily cater to the style that MAG is offering. The currently obtainable multiplayer titles that are most popular on Xbox Live, oddly enough are those that have significantly smaller player counts. Furthermore, these modes don’t necessarily pit player against player so much as players versus the environment. If you disagree with our opinion click here to head over to our forums and sound off with passion.
You must login or register to view this content.
Gears of War 2, upon release, offered something that many players had been raving for on Xbox LIVE for a very long time, a co-op experience that grouped players together against an increasingly difficult enemy. While co-op play had been done previously, with 4-player co-op being present in Halo 3, Gears of War 2 offered this in the form of a singular multiplayer mode. Not only could you play on a very large amount of maps, but you could enjoy the mode with up to four other players for a total of five. An odd number? Yes, but five players against wave after wave of Locust eventually made sense to just about everyone.
You must login or register to view this content.
Alternatively, Halo 3: ODST expanded on this game type with their own Firefight mode which allowed up to four players to stand their ground against innumerable waves of Covenant. As with Horde mode, this co-operative play still supplied the competitive edge of players while removing the inevitable result of players flaming eachother in player versus player modes.
In my eyes, MAG is just another one of those games that is very similar to every other FPS game on the planet. The only thing that makes it differ from the rest of the pack is the fact that it holds a substaintially large amount of players in each lobby.
But at what sacrifice is this single addition? Very low frame rate, poor graphics and bad playability.
PLEASE realise that I am not flaming. I have played a lot of the PS3. I, personally, think it is the better console. However, I can't buy one because I don't have enough money. Realise that my argument is that even if I could buy a PS3, I don't think I would buy MAG for it purely because I am not willing to give up excellent frame-rate/graphics/playability solely for a couple of hundred more players in the matches. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Thanks for reading, I hope you enjoyed my rant!
Please comment on this, as I really would like to hear what you guys have to say. Do you agree or disagree with my comments? Are all Xbox exclusives better than PS3 ones?
Last edited by
Shepleklet ; 02-10-2010 at 05:05 PM.
02-11-2010, 03:32 PM
#21
hod
Keeper
First off let me say MAG is agreat game,must admit was not too impressed with the beta cause it was very limited,having said that i went out and brought the game anyway.
been playing it for awhile now and what agame i just love it,no lag wot so ever,great game havent played mw2 since
been playing it for awhile now and what agame i just love it,no lag wot so ever,great game havent played mw2 since
02-11-2010, 03:45 PM
#22
born2destroy
Banned
Originally posted by Shepleklet
I wasn't atually having a go at you or the game, so feel free to go buy some tampons if you're so close to your period. Clean the sand out of your vagina please Mr. Crankypants.
And i lol'd because most of your points actually had nothing or little to do with what I said in my thread. So please calm down. Flaming me for my opinions of a game I played is retarded, especially since you're obviously such a fanboy. I did say that I love the PS3, so please... STFU... I am not gunna go on any further with this and you're retarded if you reply to this to try and get me going again.
I was just making a post for the Xbox users in this community because there are so few of us on this site that we need a little thing to read that is just for Xbox users. Where did you get the thought that I hate the PS3 from? Please don't judge just from a couple of sentences.
So when you say "p.s don't start posting why xbox 360 owners don't want Uncharted 2, God of War 3", THINK for a second. I am actually genuinely annoyed that Heavy Rain, God of War 3 and Uncharted 2 are not coming out on the Xbox 360.
I have even made threads about how good some of those games are going to be.
I have nothing against fanboys in particular, but you're taking it to the next level by abusing me constantly for giving my opinions on a laggy game I played. I'm a completely un-biased guy, therefore I should not be made to feel like a twat by the likes of you.
And yes i am basing my facts on a Beta, well done. Because when I started writing this, the Beta was all that was out. I know that games in Beta stages are not exactly like they will be from the release, but you cannot say the main aspects will change. the graphics will stay the same, the online connection will stay almost exactly the same, the gameplay will stay the same.
If you would actually just read my original post in a calm way, not thinking that I am abusing PS3 in any way, you would actually see how harmless I was trying to be. I was being negative on a SINGLE aspect of a SINGLE game. Don't you think starting all this flaming over it was a little pathetic?
And i lol'd because most of your points actually had nothing or little to do with what I said in my thread. So please calm down. Flaming me for my opinions of a game I played is retarded, especially since you're obviously such a fanboy. I did say that I love the PS3, so please... STFU... I am not gunna go on any further with this and you're retarded if you reply to this to try and get me going again.
I was just making a post for the Xbox users in this community because there are so few of us on this site that we need a little thing to read that is just for Xbox users. Where did you get the thought that I hate the PS3 from? Please don't judge just from a couple of sentences.
So when you say "p.s don't start posting why xbox 360 owners don't want Uncharted 2, God of War 3", THINK for a second. I am actually genuinely annoyed that Heavy Rain, God of War 3 and Uncharted 2 are not coming out on the Xbox 360.
I have even made threads about how good some of those games are going to be.
I have nothing against fanboys in particular, but you're taking it to the next level by abusing me constantly for giving my opinions on a laggy game I played. I'm a completely un-biased guy, therefore I should not be made to feel like a twat by the likes of you.
And yes i am basing my facts on a Beta, well done. Because when I started writing this, the Beta was all that was out. I know that games in Beta stages are not exactly like they will be from the release, but you cannot say the main aspects will change. the graphics will stay the same, the online connection will stay almost exactly the same, the gameplay will stay the same.
If you would actually just read my original post in a calm way, not thinking that I am abusing PS3 in any way, you would actually see how harmless I was trying to be. I was being negative on a SINGLE aspect of a SINGLE game. Don't you think starting all this flaming over it was a little pathetic?
Dude im not trying to flame you im on about everyone who judges games on beta representations. Witch is not right. Graphics,Gameplay and online connecgtion do change as i have seen in over betas like socom,killzone 2. Also this isn't really news its one persons opinion. to make a thread like this post some reviews from IGN and other sites not just you opinion. Also get some other people who state the game is not very good and why other people on xbox prefer smaller games. Just take this into account and please post some usefull information about MAG and give evidence
02-13-2010, 01:50 PM
#23
dajaha
Save Point
i play both consoles, my honest oppinion is that i think xbox plays better online but hats off to playstation its an awesome machine!
The following user thanked dajaha for this useful post:
02-15-2010, 08:46 PM
#24
Darksun
Little One
Shep, maybe you have labelled this thread as "Why "Arcade-Style" FPS game enthusiasts do not want MAG" because honestly, that is what seemingly this is all about.
1.) You make judgements on a BETA version of a game, but this has been gone over many times, so I won't touch it except this. You barely, if at all, know the full game. So any judgements you have on the actual gameplay and experience, is pretty much invalid, because what your experience and gameplay is of a version that no longer exists.
2.) Why is it just XBOX gamers? I know lots of XBOX gamers that are, I wouldn't say jealous, too strong a word, but are definitely impressed by what I've shown them of MAG, and wish it could come out on XBOX. That's why your thread title is misleading.
3.) You like smaller teams, this and that, that's fine. The experiece is much different though in MAG then MW2. The only game that comes close may be the large Halo3 maps that could hold...correct me if I'm wrong, 24 people? Or that one game's 30 on 30 is the closest. MAG is meant to be massive, because it takes a TRUE team coordination to complete the game. 1 person can not dominate. Heck, 4-8 people could not dominate a match...well, it might be possible, but very very improbable. The point is, unlike these other "tactical games", MAG is about the big effect. You need strong leadership and guidance to guide the lower ranks to complete objectives. That's a very new concept in these games to actually give a ranking to the players in a match, which creates a command structure. When I first started playing, I played one match trying to do things on my own. Now I try to follow what my squad, the squad leader, and the higher rank people say, because they have a plan. They've seen tactics before, not just individual tactics, or small group tactics, but TEAM tactics on a scale never seen before. On top of that, the game really emphasizes on specializing in ONE thing early in your progress, so that you can become good in something and be effective in combat situation, and not just cannon fodder (though you will be to an extent for the first matchs until you gain more experience, and therefore, class upgrades).
It's a very unique game, and truely something groundbreaking. In a few years, it might not be the best in it's class, but right now it's the ONLY game in it's class and when comparing to other games, a lot of people find it more fun because one person can not dominate a match, and neither can one person frick it up.
When it comes to battlefield simulation, MAG owns right now. MW2 is just like other games with similar setups. It's an "arcade" FPS. MAG is the closest thing to a "war-simulation" FPS.
1.) You make judgements on a BETA version of a game, but this has been gone over many times, so I won't touch it except this. You barely, if at all, know the full game. So any judgements you have on the actual gameplay and experience, is pretty much invalid, because what your experience and gameplay is of a version that no longer exists.
2.) Why is it just XBOX gamers? I know lots of XBOX gamers that are, I wouldn't say jealous, too strong a word, but are definitely impressed by what I've shown them of MAG, and wish it could come out on XBOX. That's why your thread title is misleading.
3.) You like smaller teams, this and that, that's fine. The experiece is much different though in MAG then MW2. The only game that comes close may be the large Halo3 maps that could hold...correct me if I'm wrong, 24 people? Or that one game's 30 on 30 is the closest. MAG is meant to be massive, because it takes a TRUE team coordination to complete the game. 1 person can not dominate. Heck, 4-8 people could not dominate a match...well, it might be possible, but very very improbable. The point is, unlike these other "tactical games", MAG is about the big effect. You need strong leadership and guidance to guide the lower ranks to complete objectives. That's a very new concept in these games to actually give a ranking to the players in a match, which creates a command structure. When I first started playing, I played one match trying to do things on my own. Now I try to follow what my squad, the squad leader, and the higher rank people say, because they have a plan. They've seen tactics before, not just individual tactics, or small group tactics, but TEAM tactics on a scale never seen before. On top of that, the game really emphasizes on specializing in ONE thing early in your progress, so that you can become good in something and be effective in combat situation, and not just cannon fodder (though you will be to an extent for the first matchs until you gain more experience, and therefore, class upgrades).
It's a very unique game, and truely something groundbreaking. In a few years, it might not be the best in it's class, but right now it's the ONLY game in it's class and when comparing to other games, a lot of people find it more fun because one person can not dominate a match, and neither can one person frick it up.
When it comes to battlefield simulation, MAG owns right now. MW2 is just like other games with similar setups. It's an "arcade" FPS. MAG is the closest thing to a "war-simulation" FPS.
02-15-2010, 08:59 PM
#25
Jackdaddy
Grunt
So MAG is sorta like Bad Company in a way? But from the posts i see it is a much stronger version of it.
EDIT: Nevermind, will not purchase. Graphics are not very good as i can see from some reviews. If i am going to spend $60 now, I will spend it on a good game, like Bioshock 2.
EDIT: Nevermind, will not purchase. Graphics are not very good as i can see from some reviews. If i am going to spend $60 now, I will spend it on a good game, like Bioshock 2.
Last edited by
Jackdaddy ; 02-15-2010 at 09:18 PM.
02-15-2010, 09:22 PM
#27
Jackdaddy
Grunt
Originally posted by spudz358
I have got mag and think it is a great game but if you dont wont it and think it looks shit then thats ur opinion and thats up to you i respect that btw S.V.E.R FTW
I don't know why your being so hostile. It does not have very good graphics. Videos do not lie. Bioshock 2 looks much better, compare yourself.
02-16-2010, 12:25 AM
#28
Darksun
Little One
That was part of the sacrifice. Sacrifice great graphics for smoother gameplay. Graphics belong to games that allow them to be used in smooth operation with the multiplayer, and those games usually have some sort of single player or co-op missions. The point is, yes, it doesn't have *great* graphics, but it still has good graphics. For a game in which a match has the potential to have up to 256 players, I think it has pretty good graphics.
It's not like it looks like GoldenEye: 007 for Nintendo 64. Again, this is an epic game in it's concept and if you're whining about graphics, fine. Go play a game that does have great graphics.
Still, I don't hear a single reason, as to why the actual game is not good. Graphics are icing on the cake. You know what was a great game? Fat Princess. Does that have amazing graphics? No.
Videos doesn't do it justice. The Beta doesn't do it justice.
It's not like it looks like GoldenEye: 007 for Nintendo 64. Again, this is an epic game in it's concept and if you're whining about graphics, fine. Go play a game that does have great graphics.
Still, I don't hear a single reason, as to why the actual game is not good. Graphics are icing on the cake. You know what was a great game? Fat Princess. Does that have amazing graphics? No.
Videos doesn't do it justice. The Beta doesn't do it justice.
Copyright © 2024, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
