Staude said:
This is how war is today. You don't send 1.000 people in one direction to face off 1.000 people coming from the other direction. That was world war one and prior to it.
By using squad based combat with squad leaders you can uitilize real time strategy much better.
I haven't played it though so I can't comment. Never got around to trying the beta :( |
lol he's just finding an excuse to not like it just because he can't get into it, if people really dewll on that "you don't see the 256" then you must hate ever eingle multiplayer shooter, in battlefield 2 never once do you see all 64 players at once, you barely see 12 if that, in ground war for MW2 never once do you ever see ALL 18 players, so ev ery fps is a gimmick then huh?
there's 1500 ai soldiers on that battlefield, count how many you see.
look MAG nails the 256, it's only proble is it doesn't look good enough, just like killzone 2 didn't play easy enough, but for a noob to admit he's a noob and generally can't handle the game is hard for these guys, so they pull some smart ass way to justify the bashing. to everyone that don't like MAG just don't buy it, don't play it, and STFU about it, I hate when people pull bullshit reasons for why they don't like some when it has abosolutly no reason why they don't like it.
MAG is more tactical than any multiplayer shooter ever made on a console, battlefield can only dream of being as strategic, Game isn't nothing but good graphics, tanks and, destructibilty 12v12 yeah come back when it at least 100v100, if you say "bigger isn't better it means one thing and one thing only YOU CAN'T HANDLE IT!!! don't come at with no bullshit "you cantz seez all teh playerz" just stay away if that's how you feel. but MAG is for those looking for a challenge, just like killzone 2 was, if you up for it then join up if not GTFO............................ noob.
