M.A.G.

Printable View

01-28-2010, 01:06 PM
NeoCracker

M.A.G.

So I, of course, picked this game up day 1. And let me tell you it is glorious.

I'm running at 1.5 megs for my connection, and I've not had any lag at all, and I've been playing it a lot over the course of today.

Basically, this is probably the funnest shooter I've ever played. ^_^

Anyway, thoughts on the game? Pre-conceived opinions that are wrong because they do not line up with my own?

I'm running in the Raven Faction as of now, been using aussault rifles for my main weapon as well.

PSN: jiggledaddy
01-28-2010, 01:33 PM
Slothy

I played a lot of the Beta and I have to say I very likely won't be buying the game. You can check out the post I made about it at omgmygame for my reasons why because this'd be a really long post if I restated them here (and none of the problems I had have been fixed from what I've read so far). Unless I hear that the other game modes aside from sabotage are better balanced I absolutely refuse to pay money for it.

There was a lot about the game that was well done, but it was just too unbalanced to be fun for me.
01-28-2010, 02:19 PM
NeoCracker

And since I remember none of my information from that site, I'll respond to you here. :p

First off, the block in question.

MAG Public Beta | omgmygame

The first thing you really talked about was the supposed 'dissadvantage' the attacking team has in Sabatoge. I'll just list off why I disagree. :p

1) Out of about 10 games in Sabatoge, my team won eight, and the other two were close. Regardless of how it seems, in practice I don't see the dissadvantage you speak of.

2) Health kits (Or whatever those guns are called) are only intended to be used when you are sure it is going to work. Mid battle, I've had multiple chances to use it without any disadvantage to myself. If you're constantly getting caught doing it and shot, you're doing it wrong. That's like saying the guy who keeps shooting you when you're hiding is unfair. If you get caught with your pants down, that's your bad entirely.

3) You don't have to take both at the same time. You have to 'have' both at the same time. Meaning you could take one and hold it while you're other team takes the other. You can also enforce that team by sending members of other teams over to assist. Even if the defender technically has an advantage, the position will switch immediately the moment one objective is overtaken. In that spot, the attacker now becomes the defender until both positions are held.

4) If the defender couldn't retake the objective, you would pass the advantage entirely to the attacker. Whats to stop them from swarming the objective with all there men while the defender can only guess and hope they know which one is attacking? It might as well turn into a battle over one objective, the defenders, as that is how every fight would turn out in that situation.

5) In regard to the communication, yes, you can only communicate with your squad, not the whole team. I think we both agree, however, it would be plain silly to try conversing with 128 some odd people on your side. While this normally could create a problem, you are constantly updated on whats going on. It's not like you're going to be in the dark about the rest of the team, and so long as you communicate with others on your own side, there's nothing stopping you from offering assistance to those outside your squad, as I mentioned in the earlier sabotage mode.

6) I don't have any issues at all with the weapon selection. You have your main and off had weapon you toggle between with RI, and you toggle between the Grenade, Health kit/repair kit, and support weapon with L1. Rather simple and smooth if you ask me.

7) Yes, the no joining mid fight is kind of annoying, and honestly is the only thing you mentioned in that blog post that I think had any merit. :p
01-28-2010, 03:10 PM
Slothy

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

2) Health kits (Or whatever those guns are called) are only intended to be used when you are sure it is going to work. Mid battle, I've had multiple chances to use it without any disadvantage to myself. If you're constantly getting caught doing it and shot, you're doing it wrong. That's like saying the guy who keeps shooting you when you're hiding is unfair. If you get caught with your pants down, that's your bad entirely.

I won't dispute that the med kits aren't supposed to be used mid battle. I am saying that you will take a lot of damage taking an objective. And odds are that when you do take it, there are still quite a few defenders left alive because they were more spread out waiting for the attack and had the benefit of hiding behind cover waiting for the attackers to show up (you're far more visible as an attacker than a defender for the record), whereas the attackers had to focus their effort in one area to break through. By the time you take the objective, there were usually only a handful of attackers left alive to hold it against the inevitable and immediate retaliation on the part of the defenders who are not injured. As a result, you don't have time to heal and you're going to have to defend for not only the 20 seconds until most of your team spawns, but at least another 10-20 while they run to the objective. That's a long damn time when you can't heal.

Quote:

3) You don't have to take both at the same time. You have to 'have' both at the same time. Meaning you could take one and hold it while you're other team takes the other. You can also enforce that team by sending members of other teams over to assist. Even if the defender technically has an advantage, the position will switch immediately the moment one objective is overtaken. In that spot, the attacker now becomes the defender until both positions are held.

Poor wording on my part doesn't negate my point. It's still nearly impossible in a game of equally skilled teams to hold an objective long enough for the other squads to take the second one. Attackers are typically going to lose more people taking an objective than the defenders do because the defenders have to spread out more. This means that when you do take it you're still at an immediate disadvantage in terms of the size of your living team when attacking more often than not. This means that while the attack and defend role immediately switches when you take it, you're still at a disadvantage. This disadvantage is made worse by the fact that the defenders know where a good chunk of your players are when you take an objective. A couple of well placed grenades will end your capture pretty quick.

Quote:

4) If the defender couldn't retake the objective, you would pass the advantage entirely to the attacker. Whats to stop them from swarming the objective with all there men while the defender can only guess and hope they know which one is attacking? It might as well turn into a battle over one objective, the defenders, as that is how every fight would turn out in that situation.

You might have a point were it not for the fact that this exact situation exists in some TF2 maps and has never been an issue. Even when the attacking team focuses on one while the defense splits up, the inherent advantage to the defense makes it workable. And even if the attackers do take one objective, that frees the defense to throw everything they have at the second point which makes taking it considerably harder for the attackers. I see your point, but you're wrong by virtue of the fact that locking down a point after capture has been done in other games and it works.

Quote:

5) In regard to the communication, yes, you can only communicate with your squad, not the whole team. I think we both agree, however, it would be plain silly to try conversing with 128 some odd people on your side. While this normally could create a problem, you are constantly updated on whats going on. It's not like you're going to be in the dark about the rest of the team, and so long as you communicate with others on your own side, there's nothing stopping you from offering assistance to those outside your squad, as I mentioned in the earlier sabotage mode.

Yes it would be absurd to have 128 people talking to each other at once, but there's a simple way around that. Things wouldn't get out of control at all if they simply added the ability for squad leaders to talk to eachother. This would let them help coordinate with the squads they're already working with or coordinate with squads working on another objective. And it would only require that they be able to talk to a handful of other people. Then they could relay the plan to their squad.

And you say there's nothing stopping you from offering assistance to people outside your squad, but it's not like you can just take your squad away from trying to take point A in Sabotage and help secure point B, since you'd leave half as many people to secure your objective. And though you might have some idea of what's going on with the other squads you're working with, the inability to coordinate with them really hurts the ability to strategize. I've played plenty of team based games over the years, and I've seen teams of well coordinated players of an average skill level roll teams of awesome players who didn't coordinate. This is a team game but the scale really works against being able to use teamwork.

Quote:

6) I don't have any issues at all with the weapon selection. You have your main and off had weapon you toggle between with RI, and you toggle between the Grenade, Health kit/repair kit, and support weapon with L1. Rather simple and smooth if you ask me.

I never said they weren't smooth. I said they were slow. The amount of time it takes to switch weapons is fairly absurd. It's certainly a matter of taste, but I don't think I've seen switching weapons take that long in any FPS I've ever played.

Quote:

7) Yes, the no joining mid fight is kind of annoying, and honestly is the only thing you mentioned in that blog post that I think had any merit. :p

At least we agree on something besides the fact that the other person is wrong. :D:p
01-28-2010, 06:47 PM
Bolivar

The only reason I haven't already made this thread is because I thought no one on EoFF would be interested.

Anyway, I've played multiple beta stages of this game and am already level 18 in the released version, I think I know a lot about the game, and I have to say, Vivi22, you're awfully wrong about a lot of things.

1st, a lot of your complaints seem to come from the balancing issues, particularly with the attackers. There are balancing issues, but that's another discussion that hasn't been brought up yet.

Simply put, it's not nearly as hard for attackers to succeed as you claim it is. I see it happen every time. In every Domination game I've played, I've defended, and we always get pushed back to the final pump stations. Bluntly, there aren't many players out there who have a hard time controlling simultaneous objectives while the other Squad holds another. It's day 3 of the official game and your point has been invalidated in nearly every game I've played.

The fact is, a Squad with 2 or 3 people on mics, calling out enemy positions, organizing attack routes, and a Squad leader who's setting objectives, directing combat, and finally, medics reviving and healing teammates as they shoot, will win. I've seen it many times in the BETA and in the official game, one decent Squad can make the entire difference in a game, leading 128 players to victory. And that's what makes MAG arguably the best FPS I've ever played.

2nd, I think NeoCracker is right, you gotta look at the Healing aspect in a different way. A group of 4-5 guys, with medics following behind healing Attackers while they're still alive and reviving the 1 or 2 who go down will probably complete an objective. I always have a revive kit equipped, and I make nearly 1000 XP in a domination battle, helping my teammates go along and win. This is where I disagree with both of you, you are supposed to heal mid-battle. In fact, it's crucial to victory.

3rd, and this is the big one, there are ways to communicate with units outside of your Squad. First and foremost, any players in your immediate vicinity will be able to talk to you. Second, and I can't believe you don't know this, there is a dedicated Chat channel for Squad leaders, Platoon Leaders can use this as well as broadcast to the entire Platoon (32 players), and the OIC can broadcast to the entire Company (128 players) as well as give orders in the Platoon channel. This is one of the most interesting things to see as MAG develops, how Platoon leaders will interact with Squad leaders in setting macro-objectives since PL's and OIC's can't set objectives themselves.

4th, and this is another big one, you CAN join any battle mid-game, I'm not sure where the hell you've gotten this from but I've joined plenty of games in the middle of them. You'll notice it because instead of a count-down timer, it says "PRESS START". This is something that simply isn't true.

Overall, it seems from your review that you've only played Sabotage, and from that I have to say you simply don't know very much about the game at all. Until you play the larger game modes, become a Squad Leaders yourself, or have a very good Squad leaders who shows you how the game is run, seeing all the mechanics at work, how this game is allowing players to coordinate large-scale conflicts themselves at an administrative level, you really don't know what this game is about.

I can't stress this enough, so I'll put it another way. MAG in essence is about Squad leaders constantly setting objectives for their squads to complete, giving them double points for every action, incentivizing them to accomplish smaller objectives that play into the larger meta-objectives. Until you've experienced this, you simply don't understand what MAG is about.
01-28-2010, 08:07 PM
Slothy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bolivar

1st, a lot of your complaints seem to come from the balancing issues, particularly with the attackers. There are balancing issues, but that's another discussion that hasn't been brought up yet.

How has a discussion on game balance not been brought up when I specifically brought up game balance?

Quote:

Simply put, it's not nearly as hard for attackers to succeed as you claim it is. I see it happen every time. In every Domination game I've played, I've defended, and we always get pushed back to the final pump stations. Bluntly, there aren't many players out there who have a hard time controlling simultaneous objectives while the other Squad holds another. It's day 3 of the official game and your point has been invalidated in nearly every game I've played.

Good of you to not actually read my original post about this on omgmygame before you start saying I'm wrong. I was never talking about Domination, I was talking about Sabotage because for some stupid reason it was the only game mode unlocked from the start in the Beta. I was late getting into it so I didn't have time to get the required level 10 to try anything else, but I did play a lot of Sabotage and every single thing I mentioned was a huge problem. I literally saw two games where the attacking team won during Beta and both were because the defending team was vastly beneath the attacking team in skill leading to a complete and utter rolling of the defending team. Don't tell me my opinion of Sabotage is wrong because you didn't have the same experience in a completely different game type.

Quote:

The fact is, a Squad with 2 or 3 people on mics, calling out enemy positions, organizing attack routes, and a Squad leader who's setting objectives, directing combat, and finally, medics reviving and healing teammates as they shoot, will win. I've seen it many times in the BETA and in the official game, one decent Squad can make the entire difference in a game, leading 128 players to victory. And that's what makes MAG arguably the best FPS I've ever played.

I never said good team organization couldn't lead to victory. But I honestly don't think I ever saw more than one or two squads during my time with the Beta that were well organized. Most people literally don't give a :bou::bou::bou::bou: which makes overcoming the inherent defense advantages nearly impossible.

Quote:

2nd, I think NeoCracker is right, you gotta look at the Healing aspect in a different way. A group of 4-5 guys, with medics following behind healing Attackers while they're still alive and reviving the 1 or 2 who go down will probably complete an objective. I always have a revive kit equipped, and I make nearly 1000 XP in a domination battle, helping my teammates go along and win. This is where I disagree with both of you, you are supposed to heal mid-battle. In fact, it's crucial to victory.

Our point was that you're not supposed to try and heal yourself mid battle. I won't disagree that dedicated medics during an attack would make a huge difference. But again, you can see my last point. If there was one thing that stood out to me in the Beta, and I'm sure would be true of most people in the final game, at least at first, it would be that they don't give a :bou::bou::bou::bou: about working as a team. This isn't a problem with MAG really as much as it is that most people playing online team based games simply don't care. My problem is that other games account for this by not leaving in inherent imbalances between the two teams.

Quote:

3rd, and this is the big one, there are ways to communicate with units outside of your Squad. First and foremost, any players in your immediate vicinity will be able to talk to you. Second, and I can't believe you don't know this, there is a dedicated Chat channel for Squad leaders, Platoon Leaders can use this as well as broadcast to the entire Platoon (32 players), and the OIC can broadcast to the entire Company (128 players) as well as give orders in the Platoon channel. This is one of the most interesting things to see as MAG develops, how Platoon leaders will interact with Squad leaders in setting macro-objectives since PL's and OIC's can't set objectives themselves.

So I was mistaken. Good for MAG. I honestly never saw any of this in the Beta though, so either it's new or we can chalk it up to almost no one using a mic.

Quote:

4th, and this is another big one, you CAN join any battle mid-game, I'm not sure where the hell you've gotten this from but I've joined plenty of games in the middle of them. You'll notice it because instead of a count-down timer, it says "PRESS START". This is something that simply isn't true.

Then this must be new because I never saw it in the Beta. The only option it ever gave me in the open Beta was to join a queue which stuck me in a game that was just starting. I had plenty of games as well where half my squad would leave and no one ever joined mid game to replace them. If that was simply bad luck then so be it. If it's something they fixed before release then even better.

Quote:

Overall, it seems from your review that you've only played Sabotage,

You'd know that if you actually read the damn review. It was the first thing I said in it. It doesn't change the fact that Sabotage, an entire game mode, was inherently unbalanced.

Quote:

Until you play the larger game modes, become a Squad Leaders yourself, or have a very good Squad leaders who shows you how the game is run, seeing all the mechanics at work, how this game is allowing players to coordinate large-scale conflicts themselves at an administrative level, you really don't know what this game is about.

Again, I outright said that I didn't get to play the whole game when I wrote that. But I'm not planning on buying a game that had an entire game mode that I found almost unplayable simply because it was so frustrating, and so easily fixed.

Quote:

I can't stress this enough, so I'll put it another way. MAG in essence is about Squad leaders constantly setting objectives for their squads to complete, giving them double points for every action, incentivizing them to accomplish smaller objectives that play into the larger meta-objectives. Until you've experienced this, you simply don't understand what MAG is about.

I understand the point of it just fine in theory. I also know that from my experience in the Beta that the theory behind the gameplay fell apart more often than not. I'm sure that would change as a more dedicated audience learns to play the game properly and sees that the point is to work as a team, much like TF2 is a ten times better game when your team works together, even when you lose, and a lot of people didn't coordinate well when it came out either. But like I said, I have no desire to buy the game. I won't deny that the whole game could be a lot better than Sabotage was, but since I didn't like some of the design choices that are simply a matter of taste and downright hated Sabotage I'm going to stay away.

In case I haven't been clear enough; I never said I had played every game mode. I outright said I only played Sabotage, and I only ever commented on that one game mode. I outright said the other game modes might be far better balanced in the final game because the issues I specifically had with it shouldn't affect the other game modes very much, if at all, in theory. Don't talk to me as though I was condemning the entire game without playing it. I simply stated some problems I had with Sabotage and the Beta and that I didn't like what I played enough to spend $60 on it.

Neocracker asked for thoughts on the game. I said what I thought of it from my experience, and only regarding what I got to play. Let's leave it at that.
01-28-2010, 09:28 PM
JKTrix

I played the beta and it was alright, but the same reasons I didn't keep Killzone and MW2 generally apply here. I'm not going to play the game enough to get competitively good at it, and the whole persistence of the world (gaining upgrades etc) makes that more of an issue for me (compared to something like Halo where it's the same every time, that fits my gaming style more in this instance). I think persistence is a fantastic feature, but that's just enough to generally rule me out of your game past the first couple of weeks.

Also, the DualShock's parallel sticks are not my first choice when it comes to FPSers. The layout doesn't feel as natural to me, and the tension on the sticks is too loose for my preference. That's usually enough really for me to not commit to a PlayStation shooter, unless I just can't live without the game.
01-28-2010, 10:00 PM
Bolivar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivi22

How has a discussion on game balance not been brought up when I specifically brought up game balance?

Because the real balance issues in the game that have been discussed extensively, even by the developers, are the SVER maps; they're much harder to take than the other factions', they essentially set up killzones in front of the bunkers where the attackers are climbing an upsloping hill. That being said, I've been a part of and know of well coordinated squads who were able to pull off quick and stunning victories due to team work.

Quote:

Don't tell me my opinion of Sabotage is wrong because you didn't have the same experience in a completely different game type.

I'm talking about Sabotage game types as well. In multiple BETA stages including the last one you probably played, as well as the released version, this is not a recurring problem to me. Maybe there's different servers for Europe and this is an isolated issue.

In Domination, Platoons have to capture and hold two simultaneous objectives, much like in Sabotage, and then another set before they unlock the final objectives. So not only have I seen it accomplished in multiple iterations of Sabotage, but I've seen it achieved twice in every Domination game I've played. If your opinion was more informed, you wouldn't recognize this as a "completely different game type".

Quote:

I never said good team organization couldn't lead to victory. But I honestly don't think I ever saw more than one or two squads during my time with the Beta that were well organized. Most people literally don't give a :bou::bou::bou::bou: which makes overcoming the inherent defense advantages nearly impossible.

I've played in 4 of the 5 beta stages and am currently playing the retail version and I think you're largely overstating the issue. Yes, there have been Sabotage games where Attackers never unlock the last objective. If you're going to play an online competitive game, you better be prepared for the prospect of losing. But I've never seen it at such a high ratio where it seems to be an inherent problem. I would say the Defenders have a slightly lower distance between the objectives (A and B) and their spawn points, but I've still been a part of many games with little to no communication where the attackers win the match.

Quote:

So I was mistaken. Good for MAG. I honestly never saw any of this in the Beta though, so either it's new or we can chalk it up to almost no one using a mic.

How would you even know if it was in the beta? You never made it to level 15, so you couldn't have been a Squad leader. If you ever saw white names instead of yellow on your screen, those were nearby allies talking. It's been in the beta since stage 4, i believe.

Quote:

Then this must be new because I never saw it in the Beta.

It's (joining mid-game) been in the beta since stage 2, when I started playing. If there was a game where your squad never filled up again, it may have just been bad luck, but the game usually tries to keep you with at least 6.

Quote:

In case I haven't been clear enough; I never said I had played every game mode. I outright said I only played Sabotage, and I only ever commented on that one game mode. I outright said the other game modes might be far better balanced in the final game because the issues I specifically had with it shouldn't affect the other game modes very much, if at all, in theory. Don't talk to me as though I was condemning the entire game without playing it. I simply stated some problems I had with Sabotage and the Beta and that I didn't like what I played enough to spend $60 on it.

It should be obvious by now that Sabotage isn't made for you to get an adequate feel of MAG so you can write your impressions in articles on the internet. Sabotage introduces you to the basic elements of fighting for dynamic objectives, getting double points for doing so, working with a team, and striving towards a larger goal. It makes sure that players become familiar with the basics before they move on to the main course: Acquisition and Domination.
01-28-2010, 11:22 PM
Dreddz

MAG looks like it suffers from the same flaw as the Battlefield games in that you spend most of the time respawning instead of actually playing. I don't find it fun to spend all my game time running aimlessly to then die out of nowhere.
01-28-2010, 11:40 PM
NeoCracker

M.A.G. is far from aimless wandering. Each map, outside of the Military Training excersize, have very precise objectives to move towards. If you are constantly dying out of nowhere, it means you aren't very good at the game. :p

Even I, who suck at first person shooters, always manage to accomplish things often enough by working as a unit though, so even unskilled players shouldn't have much trouble in the 'dying out of nowhere' issue.

And in regards to the medics, I should have re-worded what I said. I refered more to mid gunfire, where if you try to heal a guy in that situation, you're medics getting shot. No question. You need to do it when the gunfire isn't really directed at that spot is what I meant to say. :p

And as for mid game joining I"ve yet to do it, so that might be why I assumed you couldn't.
01-29-2010, 12:31 AM
Bolivar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreddz

MAG looks like it suffers from the same flaw as the Battlefield games in that you spend most of the time respawning instead of actually playing. I don't find it fun to spend all my game time running aimlessly to then die out of nowhere.

One way they compensate for that your bleedout time is kinda long, so the idea is for a medic to come revive you so you respawn where you died instead of your spawn point. If you're in the vicinity of your Squad Leader, your bleedout time will be increased even further. That's one of the multiple buffs you get for being near an officer, kinda like an RPG.

Also, you can see how long until the next wave of troops spawn, it's a bar over their names on the squad list part of the HUD, so you can time your respawns. If there's no medics around, you can rotate the camera around your body to call out enemy positions to your squadmates until you see the next wave is respawning, that is, if a medic isn't coming (which you can tell by a cross under their name).

edit: Mostly, though, the game works to minimize respawns by how much it incentivizes players to heal and revive. You get 10XP for a revive - twice as many than a kill. Plus you can usually get around 7XP for healing a teammate. If you do this near a FRAGO - objectives set on a location or vehicle by your Squad leader - you get double the points. When you get into the 256 player battles where people have gone up a few levels, upgraded their gear, and realized how important healing is, you'll have around 3-4 medics on your team, so as soon as you go down you're probably going to get back up shortly.

That's the thing about MAG - the shooters are assisting the repairers and medics, and not the other way around. That's why people like NeoCracker and me, who aren't all that spectacular at FPS, love this game.
01-29-2010, 02:10 PM
Depression Moon

Considering how long it took to download this game on PSN with the beta I expected something better. It just seemed pretty average to me.Weapon selection seemed limited and I also didn't like that we only got to just try out one match type in the beta. Didn't like the bleedout system either most of the time nobody would help you anyway. The game felt more like just an online version of an old FPS game. I don't like the fact that it doesn't have an offline mode either for a full $60 price tag.

I was thinking that it was suspicious that the hype for the game died down a lot after that one preview that GI had. I would still play the game if it was significantly cheaper or if it's a pSN downloaded game so I can use the "system?" hm hrm if you know what i'm talking about.
01-29-2010, 06:19 PM
Bolivar

^ I think most beta testers would agree that releasing it publicly was probably a mistake.

I guess I might as well post my own thoughts instead of putting down everybody else's, especially since I've played so much of the game up to the release and am completely enthralled in it now.

MAG is definitely an evolution. Lots of shooters have had a large player count in the past like Battlefield and Planetside, even on the Playstation 3 with Resistance games (60ppl) and Killzone 2 (32 ppl).

But what none of those games have is the tiered leadership structure that is present in this game. In some Battlefield games the Squad leader can point out objectives, but the comparison stops there. MAG espouses leadership in 3 ways. The most obvious is setting FRAGO's (Fragmentary Objectives), which are more than just "take that base!". You're constantly repairing structures and vehicles, gates, defending locations, and holding off choke points. The places you FRAGO are more than just locations, it could be the Mortar Battery that enables your airstrikes or the Sensor Array that allows Officers to broadcast enemy locations on the radar. Setting these objectives also coordinates and funnels battles in an unprecedented way because it allows for double points, players want to level up, and to do so they need to kill enemies, assist teammates, and complete objectives all in that vicinity. Second, the leaders broadcast buffs to all allies around them. For example, being near your Squad Leader allows for longer bleedout time, faster running, faster reloading, and decreased damage from poison gas. Platoon Leaders have a whole other set, like automatically repairing vehicles they're in, so you can ride around with a nearly impenetrable APC as a mobile spawn point and turret. There's tons of strategy possible with the buffs alone, but it all boils down to getting the officers out there to coordinate and cooperate with their squad leaders to enhance team gameplay. Finally, they have special abilities, usually air strikes and UAV's, but the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the company gets several game-changing abilities, like slowing the respawn time of the enemy team or jamming the enemy communication network so they can't talk on their headsets. There's just a massive potential on all fronts for the strategy, but the best part is that it encourages team play.

The level design also stands out to me as one of the strongest aspects of the game, and coming from SOCOM it really isn't surprising that Zipper arguably has the best level design out there for competitive FPS. When you stop to think about it, look around you, you'll notice each and every part of the map has been expertly tailored to facilitate an awesome firefight. For example, in the Valor Sabotage map (the smallest game mode), there's a small base with tents and sandbags for cover around each objective that makes it a self contained fight. But not far off from one is a trainyard. Next to the other is a small town where players could set up ambushes and fight it out to get down the road. Then there's the cemetary where the attackers will parachute in on which could provide great fights as well. Finally is a large log cabin where the final objective is, and it's there that the differnet pathways, hallways, staircases, and the control room itself hosts awesome battles where players are setting up bottlenecks, laying traps, reviving their teammates, and overall, improvising. The fact that all of these locations are on just ONE MAP, the smallest there is, is truly mindblowing.

The ultimate triumph of MAG - it's incredible scope and scale, is also it's ultimate failure. The game isn't as "visceral" as other shooters. The movement and shooting won't feel as good as it does in Killzone or Call of Duty. But they polished it up just enough I feel for the final release so those who've played the BETAs might want to rent it, hop into the training mode and play a couple rounds. Believe me, it'll at least be worth the rental fee.

But mostly this will initially turn off players who come to expect certain things from FPS's, like it seems some of you have been. What's really crucial for this game to succeed is its user base, and it will only be supplemented if players can get into the team-based gameplay early on, with Squad Leaders showing them how to go for constantly changing objectives, helping eachother out, and letting the teamwork aspect truly shine.

On the other hand, it may be beneficial because I know a lot of people are turned off by the FPS-domination today. It's like its own club of players who do nothing but play online all day and to get a high score against them is nearly impossible. If you're one of those people - MAG is for you. MAG is for anyone turned off by the camping culture of Kill:Death Ratio obsessed Professional Gamers. In this game, the medics come out with the highest scores in the Platoon, and they're the ones leading the team to battle. The repairmen (and women) are the ones treated as VIP's and get escorted around the map and protected as their getting important structures back up. This game rewards you for playing how you want to play with its use of objectives and FRAGO's, and I think a lot of people looking for something different will appreciate it. Of course, if you want to be an expert sniper, heavy gunner, or rifle commando, You have an equally important role to play as well, and you'll be rewarded for your actions as well.

I can't stop playing this game. In Call of Duty, all you do is kill people, kill people, kill people, with the objectives in other game modes serving as filler. It gets old way too fast. But in MAG every battle is dramatically different, every Squad you're in will have a different dynamic than the last one, and the story gets told on the massive battlefield you guys traverse will be new and exciting for it.

It may not be for everyone, but I know it's for me, it was built for players who want something different and who are interested in the core mechanics it has to offer.