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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Will MAG be better than MW2 online?

gergroy on 17 November 2009
akuseru said:
gergroy said:
I'm in the beta right now for MAG and it is nowhere near as good as modern warfare. You can't even tell you are in a map with 256 people. It is too spread out, objectives are too simple. Gameplay doesn't really innovate anything.

It will be a good game, don't get me wrong, but it isn't in the same league as MW2.

I don't understand... Do you have to be able to tell that you are in a map with 256 people for it to have effect on the game? No, not really. Even though you can't see them, things still happen. Maybe objectives are a bit simple in MAG, but MW doesn't even have objectives besides the MP mode, so how can it be better than MAG in this department? MAG gameplay doesn't really innovate anything, ok maybe not. Still in your eyes, a rushed and milked FPS with run and gun gameplay for every noob to master, with almost no skill involved what so ever, showing NO INNOVATION AT ALL and actually taking several steps backwards compared to old FPSs in both gameplay and features (like dedi servers) is the better game.... I'm baffled

I am in the MAG beta as well, and I rarely do play. However, in my mind there is no question which is the better game. Popularity and sales does not necessarily make a good game or product. If it did, McDonalds would be considered the best food on the market, Backstreet Boys would be considered as great musicians or the newest Indiana Jones movie would be considered good. neither of these products can be considered as quality, yet they sell (sold) like crazy

Ok, so how exactly is mag better than MW2?  where exactly does it innovate?  The multiplayer is years behind modern warfare 1, let alone modern warfare 2.  There may not be that much innovation in MW2, but at least it doesn't take 5 steps back like MAG does.  It took out dedicated servers on the PC, but that doesn't affect the console versions which is what we are talking about in this thread.  They added new perks, different levels up perks, new kill spree actions and even death spree actions among other things.  Plenty of innovation in a sequel. 

Yes, there are tons of objectives in MW2, have you played the game?  have you even played the first 1?  If anybody has actually played both MAG and MW2, I can't understand how they could think MAG is better.  The only reason I can think of somebody liking MAG more is the fact that it is a ps3 exclusive and some people just really like their exclusives, no matter how much they suck.



Around the Network
Xelloss on 18 November 2009
gergroy said:
akuseru said:
gergroy said:
I'm in the beta right now for MAG and it is nowhere near as good as modern warfare. You can't even tell you are in a map with 256 people. It is too spread out, objectives are too simple. Gameplay doesn't really innovate anything.

It will be a good game, don't get me wrong, but it isn't in the same league as MW2.

I don't understand... Do you have to be able to tell that you are in a map with 256 people for it to have effect on the game? No, not really. Even though you can't see them, things still happen. Maybe objectives are a bit simple in MAG, but MW doesn't even have objectives besides the MP mode, so how can it be better than MAG in this department? MAG gameplay doesn't really innovate anything, ok maybe not. Still in your eyes, a rushed and milked FPS with run and gun gameplay for every noob to master, with almost no skill involved what so ever, showing NO INNOVATION AT ALL and actually taking several steps backwards compared to old FPSs in both gameplay and features (like dedi servers) is the better game.... I'm baffled

I am in the MAG beta as well, and I rarely do play. However, in my mind there is no question which is the better game. Popularity and sales does not necessarily make a good game or product. If it did, McDonalds would be considered the best food on the market, Backstreet Boys would be considered as great musicians or the newest Indiana Jones movie would be considered good. neither of these products can be considered as quality, yet they sell (sold) like crazy

Ok, so how exactly is mag better than MW2?  where exactly does it innovate?  The multiplayer is years behind modern warfare 1, let alone modern warfare 2.  There may not be that much innovation in MW2, but at least it doesn't take 5 steps back like MAG does.  It took out dedicated servers on the PC, but that doesn't affect the console versions which is what we are talking about in this thread.  They added new perks, different levels up perks, new kill spree actions and even death spree actions among other things.  Plenty of innovation in a sequel. 

Yes, there are tons of objectives in MW2, have you played the game?  have you even played the first 1?  If anybody has actually played both MAG and MW2, I can't understand how they could think MAG is better.  The only reason I can think of somebody liking MAG more is the fact that it is a ps3 exclusive and some people just really like their exclusives, no matter how much they suck.

MAG is what Planetside should have been.... its basically a hybrid between Planetside, and BF2, and it is awesome. Speaking of innovate, what does MW2 innovate? More unlocks and airstrike types, GG. I played plenty of MW1 and it was a fun arcadish type game in its vanilla incarnation, but not super awesome. I would have gotten MW2 myself if not for the DS fiasco, but I know ppl who got it on console and have taken a look. Its got some decent gameplay hooks but but overall is just a 60$ DLC for MW1.

 

 I just recently got the MAG beta.... MAG is great, best console FPS I have played since forever, I usually cant abide playing FPS on console. The maps so far are well designed, and flow well. The loadout and skill trees are interesting and varied. Game looks and plays well. MAG adds a lot of depth that CoD games just dont have, both in scope and execution. MAG multiplayer is so far ahead of CoD it is unreal, CoD being stuck on small maps even though the weapons and call-ins are often tools of large scale warfare.... talk about going back.

MW is a small skirmish, with arcade type flow and over the top toys. MAG is a gritty battle with multiple, varied elements helping determine the flow and outcome with better pacing and IMO superior persistant character development.

 

 

 



radiantshadow92 on 18 November 2009

i hope it will be



Fame_Mcswagg on 18 November 2009

I could care less which one is better as long as zipper finishes up mag and works on Socom 4. Im in the MAG beta not really my thing, MW was cool but nothing I didn't get bored of in a week.



I'm not martin luther king. I don't have a dream. I have a plan

Sell a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish you just ruined a perfect business opportunity.

We didn't emerge out of the stone age because we ran out of stones. Its time to be proactive not reactive.

Domicinator on 18 November 2009

I used to play in 64 player servers a lot in Battlefield 2, and I ended up hating it. It's just mass chaos. Rarely in those servers would you get everyone to squad up and actually listen to the commander. And that was just with 64 total players. I just don't see MAG being very much fun unless they've found a way to keep idiots from playing online shooters.

I think I will be leaning more toward BF Bad Company 2.




Around the Network
OurGunzNeverTire on 18 November 2009
Domicinator said:
I used to play in 64 player servers a lot in Battlefield 2, and I ended up hating it. It's just mass chaos. Rarely in those servers would you get everyone to squad up and actually listen to the commander. And that was just with 64 total players. I just don't see MAG being very much fun unless they've found a way to keep idiots from playing online shooters.

I think I will be leaning more toward BF Bad Company 2.

and MW2 says hello