By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - MAG screenshots - So ugly my eyes burn, oh they burn!

Akvod on 29 April 2009
Ajescent said:
"my eyes burn, oh they burn"

wow...gamers today are spoiled elitists.

Yeah, but at the same time you can't complain when we get graphical eye candy like KZ2, GeoW, and many more to come this summer =D



Around the Network
Akvod on 29 April 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
theRepublic said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Euphoria14 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
waron said:
personally
gameplay>graphics
i'm more worried that this game will be unplayable thanks to maps were you will be killed 2 seconds after respawn by stray bullet or campers(this game can end up as a "run to the nearest safe spot and kill everything that respawns/move wit sniper rifle" campers game).
i don't care about the graphics as long as it have stellar framerate, won't have glitches and will be "clean"(no bad textures, models etc. and everything at the same level).
for me even first gen 360 games like Perfect Dark Zero looks good.

 

EXACTLY! A shooter that requires 256 players also requires little skill to have many kills!

What would require more skill to consistently come out on top? A 1 vs 1, 10 player DM, 32 player DM or a 8 vs 8 x 16 TDM?

I wouldn't know, but I am hoping someone else does. All I know is that I won't touch a game like this with a 10-foot pole. Killzone 2 was way too intense for me and it was 32 players. This game would make me rip my hair out.

 

A one vs one is too obvious that one person will win. 32 player DM sounds about right. It's the truth man, i've been playing FPS for years and with 256 players on the map its going to be a spawn kill fest. I'm not saying don't buy it, i'm just giving my opinion from experience. KZ2 had the right amount of players, which is why everything turned out well. You can have players who are valued on your team by true skill. The battlefields are wide enough and that is a plus for KZ2. MAG is going to be a gigantic clusterfuck. Question though....how was KZ2 too intense? Man if that was intense you would've hated the old Call of Duty games lol.

 

As long as the map is big enough, 256 players would theoretically play just fine.  The question is how big are the maps going to be.

 


Well from what i've seen the maps should be huge, but I noticed in the video that the players tend to flood certain areas. I saw like 30 guys on one side rushing another group of guys on the opposite team. It looks like a BF2 rip off.

I don't think the trailer gave an realistic depiction of the gameplay... Honestly, would you line up neatly with a dozzen people in one cramped spot?



Xbot on 29 April 2009

counter strike has better graphics.



S.T.A.G.E. on 29 April 2009
Akvod said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Euphoria14 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
waron said:
personally
gameplay>graphics
i'm more worried that this game will be unplayable thanks to maps were you will be killed 2 seconds after respawn by stray bullet or campers(this game can end up as a "run to the nearest safe spot and kill everything that respawns/move wit sniper rifle" campers game).
i don't care about the graphics as long as it have stellar framerate, won't have glitches and will be "clean"(no bad textures, models etc. and everything at the same level).
for me even first gen 360 games like Perfect Dark Zero looks good.

 

EXACTLY! A shooter that requires 256 players also requires little skill to have many kills!

What would require more skill to consistently come out on top? A 1 vs 1, 10 player DM, 32 player DM or a 8 vs 8 x 16 TDM?

I wouldn't know, but I am hoping someone else does. All I know is that I won't touch a game like this with a 10-foot pole. Killzone 2 was way too intense for me and it was 32 players. This game would make me rip my hair out.

 

A one vs one is too obvious that one person will win. 32 player DM sounds about right. It's the truth man, i've been playing FPS for years and with 256 players on the map its going to be a spawn kill fest. I'm not saying don't buy it, i'm just giving my opinion from experience. KZ2 had the right amount of players, which is why everything turned out well. You can have players who are valued on your team by true skill. The battlefields are wide enough and that is a plus for KZ2. MAG is going to be a gigantic clusterfuck. Question though....how was KZ2 too intense? Man if that was intense you would've hated the old Call of Duty games lol.

 

I disagree, because from what the game title sudgest and what Zipper promises us, the maps are going to be HUGE. As long as the map size:player size ratio is right, then the final factor that should matter is the spawn system.

 

From what I read, the players are going to broken up into squads. It doesn't mean those squads wont eventually meet up on equal ground. Certain spawnpoints are going to get gang raped.



EaglesEye379 on 29 April 2009
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
EaglesEye379 said:

forevercloud3000 said:

 

Why are other console owners(the fanboy type) so irritated by PS3 owner's "Holier then thou" attitude?  Its not like it effects anything you own. Because you are jealous of what we have thats why. We feel we made a better consious decision then the rest of you lot, and people like you feel we did as well but refuse to admit it so you spend your time trying to bring down our happiness.

 



 

forevercloud3000 said:

 

What is wrong with these idiots these days. This was once the same company that put out a AAAA game every year with VII,VIII,IX, etc. The company that was known as the KING of JRPGs for years.

At the start of this gen they were on a set path for glory. They boasted FFXIII as PS3 exclusive, as well as Versus and Agito(for PSP and cellphone). Now a few years have passed. SE has released not 1, not 2, but 3 games(Last Remnant, Infinite Undiscovery, Star Ocean The Last Hope) exclusively for a system that their main fanbase will not imbrace.

Their sales are through the floor, with only remakes keeping them afloat. They keep treading the same road that has proven un successful to them (X360 only) when it comes to JRPG sales.

Constant promises made and broken:FFXIII's exclusivity to PS3 crushed to dust and made MP. Last Remnant promised to be SIMILTANEOUS MULTIPLATFORM RELEASE for PS3 and X360. The game has YET to grace the PS3 platform after several months, it even has reached PC first.

They seem to be down right disrespecting their fanbase by not releasing a SINGLE PS3 game yet. You know, the system that revitalized Square's fame in the first place when VII came out, THe system made by the company that has bailed them out of some seriously risky deals such as leaving Nintendo for the better or keeping them afloat during the Spirits Within Fiasco(at least till they merged with Enix).

They also just dodge the questions when someone asks them about what the hell they are doing...

http://blog.wired.com/games/2009/03/gdc-the-last-re.html

Square Enix has trully lost all respect from gamers.

 

 

 

 

Whos bringing down whos happiness and who seems more jealous? There are millions of 360 owners who are very happy with what SE has put out so far and are extremely happy that they will get to enjoy FFXIII. 

 

Sorry I know unrelated to thread but just had to.

 

His point was that it sucked that SE hadn't put out a PS3 game, not that he hated that any games came out for 360.  Nice try though.

I think you need to read again. 

 



Around the Network
Akvod on 29 April 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Akvod said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Euphoria14 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
waron said:
personally
gameplay>graphics
i'm more worried that this game will be unplayable thanks to maps were you will be killed 2 seconds after respawn by stray bullet or campers(this game can end up as a "run to the nearest safe spot and kill everything that respawns/move wit sniper rifle" campers game).
i don't care about the graphics as long as it have stellar framerate, won't have glitches and will be "clean"(no bad textures, models etc. and everything at the same level).
for me even first gen 360 games like Perfect Dark Zero looks good.

 

EXACTLY! A shooter that requires 256 players also requires little skill to have many kills!

What would require more skill to consistently come out on top? A 1 vs 1, 10 player DM, 32 player DM or a 8 vs 8 x 16 TDM?

I wouldn't know, but I am hoping someone else does. All I know is that I won't touch a game like this with a 10-foot pole. Killzone 2 was way too intense for me and it was 32 players. This game would make me rip my hair out.

 

A one vs one is too obvious that one person will win. 32 player DM sounds about right. It's the truth man, i've been playing FPS for years and with 256 players on the map its going to be a spawn kill fest. I'm not saying don't buy it, i'm just giving my opinion from experience. KZ2 had the right amount of players, which is why everything turned out well. You can have players who are valued on your team by true skill. The battlefields are wide enough and that is a plus for KZ2. MAG is going to be a gigantic clusterfuck. Question though....how was KZ2 too intense? Man if that was intense you would've hated the old Call of Duty games lol.

 

I disagree, because from what the game title sudgest and what Zipper promises us, the maps are going to be HUGE. As long as the map size:player size ratio is right, then the final factor that should matter is the spawn system.

 

From what I read, the players are going to broken up into squads. It doesn't mean those squads wont eventually meet up on equal ground. Certain spawnpoints are going to get gang raped.

For the sake of assumption, lets assume that the spawn points were spread out like BF Conquest mode. Then all I'll do is avoid the front line spawns and go to the back of the front line. If the spawn points are spread out to make on foot travels tedious, then Zipper promised vehicles (which should be expected as the maps are huge).

The spawn system is weird too... I haven't looked into it yet, but it's something about being dead for quite a while, until your squad finally works together to finish an objective to allow you to parachute down. That sounds cool in the sense that it gives squads an incentive to work together, but at the same time I don't want to be sniped when I'm coming down.

I'll be waiting until E3 though (other games I want is BF: BC 2 and maybe MW2 if it's going to be THAT good) but I'm giving my attention to MAG as of now.

 



forevercloud3000 on 29 April 2009
Xbot said:
@cloud, lair and haze has a 50 average on metacritc. banjo viva pinata and perfect dark have 80s. ps3 has bigger flops.

 

metacritic is not the end all be all of whats hot and whats not.

Wii Titles get really low averages on there yet they are really popular and loved by many(Wii Sports,an actually good Wii game) didn't get the best reviews, 76 on meta. Then there are games like Madworld which got great reviews, but not liked very much. Heavenly Sword which has a 79meta average, and is a fucking awesome game which is definitely not flop material.

And "bigger" flops? A flops a flop. There is no difference between a 50 ranged game and a 20 ranged game, you wouldn't have bought it either way so it really doesn't matter.



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)

hatmoza 2.0 on 29 April 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Akvod said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Euphoria14 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
waron said:
personally
gameplay>graphics
i'm more worried that this game will be unplayable thanks to maps were you will be killed 2 seconds after respawn by stray bullet or campers(this game can end up as a "run to the nearest safe spot and kill everything that respawns/move wit sniper rifle" campers game).
i don't care about the graphics as long as it have stellar framerate, won't have glitches and will be "clean"(no bad textures, models etc. and everything at the same level).
for me even first gen 360 games like Perfect Dark Zero looks good.

 

EXACTLY! A shooter that requires 256 players also requires little skill to have many kills!

What would require more skill to consistently come out on top? A 1 vs 1, 10 player DM, 32 player DM or a 8 vs 8 x 16 TDM?

I wouldn't know, but I am hoping someone else does. All I know is that I won't touch a game like this with a 10-foot pole. Killzone 2 was way too intense for me and it was 32 players. This game would make me rip my hair out.

 

A one vs one is too obvious that one person will win. 32 player DM sounds about right. It's the truth man, i've been playing FPS for years and with 256 players on the map its going to be a spawn kill fest. I'm not saying don't buy it, i'm just giving my opinion from experience. KZ2 had the right amount of players, which is why everything turned out well. You can have players who are valued on your team by true skill. The battlefields are wide enough and that is a plus for KZ2. MAG is going to be a gigantic clusterfuck. Question though....how was KZ2 too intense? Man if that was intense you would've hated the old Call of Duty games lol.

 

I disagree, because from what the game title sudgest and what Zipper promises us, the maps are going to be HUGE. As long as the map size:player size ratio is right, then the final factor that should matter is the spawn system.

 

From what I read, the players are going to broken up into squads. It doesn't mean those squads wont eventually meet up on equal ground. Certain spawnpoints are going to get gang raped.

You may have also noticed that people spawn from sky/planes and jeeps . If that doesnt do the trick , a little tweek in spawn points will fix it!

STAGE loses respect points

 



Derek on 29 April 2009
CGI-Quality said:
Mirson said:
forevercloud3000 said:
Xbot said:
genji, mobile suit gundam, super rub a dub, eye of judement, lair, haze, time crisis 4, socom, singstar. ps3 is full of flops.

 

ppl like those games, just that not many people played them. And I wasn't going to get into downloadables for the most part. In that case I could list off the entire Xbox Arcade, full of mediocre rubbish.

 No matter how you spin it, 360 has more "flops" then PS3 does.

The same can be applied to the 360 games you listed.

Of course 360 has more flops: it's been out longer and has more support, but the thing is many, if not all, of the 360 "flops" weren't hyped as a killer app unlike Lair and Haze

You seem to be an individual less concerned with game quality and more concerned with sales. IMO, that's what wrong with gamers today.

You're on VGChartz, a video games sales website.  If this was metacritic, you might have a point.

 



Stop getting so excited about a Kid Icarus remake... the original NES Icarus sucked.

 

S.T.A.G.E. on 29 April 2009
Akvod said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
theRepublic said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Euphoria14 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
waron said:
personally
gameplay>graphics
i'm more worried that this game will be unplayable thanks to maps were you will be killed 2 seconds after respawn by stray bullet or campers(this game can end up as a "run to the nearest safe spot and kill everything that respawns/move wit sniper rifle" campers game).
i don't care about the graphics as long as it have stellar framerate, won't have glitches and will be "clean"(no bad textures, models etc. and everything at the same level).
for me even first gen 360 games like Perfect Dark Zero looks good.

 

EXACTLY! A shooter that requires 256 players also requires little skill to have many kills!

What would require more skill to consistently come out on top? A 1 vs 1, 10 player DM, 32 player DM or a 8 vs 8 x 16 TDM?

I wouldn't know, but I am hoping someone else does. All I know is that I won't touch a game like this with a 10-foot pole. Killzone 2 was way too intense for me and it was 32 players. This game would make me rip my hair out.

 

A one vs one is too obvious that one person will win. 32 player DM sounds about right. It's the truth man, i've been playing FPS for years and with 256 players on the map its going to be a spawn kill fest. I'm not saying don't buy it, i'm just giving my opinion from experience. KZ2 had the right amount of players, which is why everything turned out well. You can have players who are valued on your team by true skill. The battlefields are wide enough and that is a plus for KZ2. MAG is going to be a gigantic clusterfuck. Question though....how was KZ2 too intense? Man if that was intense you would've hated the old Call of Duty games lol.

 

As long as the map is big enough, 256 players would theoretically play just fine.  The question is how big are the maps going to be.

 


Well from what i've seen the maps should be huge, but I noticed in the video that the players tend to flood certain areas. I saw like 30 guys on one side rushing another group of guys on the opposite team. It looks like a BF2 rip off.

I don't think the trailer gave an realistic depiction of the gameplay... Honestly, would you line up neatly with a dozzen people in one cramped spot?

 

 

In BF 1942 and 2 I had sweet spots, which included vehicles (Planes, tanks). My friends were assigned to certain vehicles, but I was good at all of them, so I couldn't be trusted when I was against them. A lot of my friends were on Battlefield teams. The only time you caught me out in the open was when my vehicle was out of commission. I was proficient in using rifles and sniper rifles though, so I was quite sneaky. In Battlefield if you were outside of a vehicle, your chances of death were extremely high....especially in a game with vast maps like Battlefield. The maps were freaking huge and sometimes you would only find 16 people playing per map. One skilled person flying a plane in these types of games is enough to take out multiple squads without breaking a sweat. If my friend Rico ends up playing this game and flies planes....god help you all. He is a cheap mother fucker and will bomb you until you cry for the game to end. He was crazy with 16 to 30 people on a map facing him. Imagine him going up against 256 people. It's like crushing ants in a clusterfuck. The thing about the MAG video that I saw was that I could even see the sniper amongst all the other classes.