Well now that the M.A.G beta is just about over; and having put a good 10 hours into it and reached lvl 20. I must say i am impressed by it. I was sceptic going into it thinking that with so many people in the one game it would be a lag fest, but to my surprise i didnt have a single experence of lag. The gameplay and controls feel solid and the sense of being in a squad while just wating for the other 2 squads to capture the other point while you defend for your life is an brillaint feeling. Now that it is offically over i was wondering if the stats will carry over into the real game? and what all your thoughts where on the beta?

I thought the beta was amazing. I really loved it.
 
Posters who post after me, name what Faction you played.
 
I was a SVER guy.

S.V.E.R.  
  
To be honest I thought it was kind of eh. 

I only got to 16 and Platoon leader... :(

Well I had so many other things to do that I did not really have time to play it much, So I only got to lav 7 and was forced to play the same 2 maps over and over again. But while I was playing that I chose Raven because I like to be tactical but guys who were on while I was playing it were not tactical at all , they just ran around running and gunning. I had one round were I landed in a squad were all the teammates had headsets, So we communicated and played tactically definitely the most fun I had while I was playing. It is a maybe for me.

raven guy here. i think it was great and worked out great. my main problem with it is this. its mp only and i dont know if i want to drop 60$ on online only game.

Leveling was way too slow, to be honest. I never got above level five. Of course, I kept deleting my character to try new things. The beta was kind of gimped.
 
I'm torn between Valor and Raven after trying Valor out just before the beta ended. My brother tried SVER; I was not impressed by them.

Good to hear good things about this game, it'll probably be my birthday game. Do the different factions have different playstyles? I know Valor is the traditional military, Raven a bit futuristic etc, but is there any real changes?

" Good to hear good things about this game, it'll probably be my birthday game. Do the different factions have different playstyles? I know Valor is the traditional military, Raven a bit futuristic etc, but is there any real changes? "

As much as i saw the game still isn't worth the 60 dollar asking price warhawks 29.99 asking price is a much better price.

" S.V.E.R.    To be honest I thought it was kind of eh.  "

got my Sver guy up to13, and i have to say i like this game,customizing your guy, your way . But it does have some technical issues to work out for example i was stuck in a glitched helicopter for like ten minutes, sometimes you just won't respawn  for some reason, dead bodies stuck in the air, and of course the connection issues. But i'm pretty sure they will be able to fix all that.

Entirely underwhelming and downright boring to me, never going to play the actual game.

Played as Valor and loved it. Got to level 26 and platoon leader in about 15 hours of gameplay. You could level up really quickly if you played smart (i found this out after about 10 hours of gameplay) I liked the frago bonus it was a nice touch, it basically makes people play in around the objectives to gain more xp thus keeping the action intense in said places.
 
The only time i had problems with the connection is when they were shutting down the servers at the end of the beta. My only problem with this game is that some players didnt know what was going on. In one occassion in our squad me and Jellyfish_Gsus were attacking a point while the rest of the squad either sniped from the base or headed off to the other objective. Needless to say we failed big time. In this game you need to work as a team and you need to have a mic.
 
The sabotage mode is fun. Once you capture A and B then start attacking C is when shit really goes down. More teamwork is needed here again. If your team runs in, in drips and draps then you will never take it. Personally i prefer defending, i like the excitement that you have to defend a shit storm for 20 mins, especially if you lose A and B early .
 
Now that the beta is over, the only people that will be on the game when it releases will be the ones who want to play it, which can only be good for the game( hopefully no more team killing). This is defnitley a game for a niche crowd and hopefully its a good one.
 
I personally cant wait for the game to come out and this is defnitley a day one buy for me. Roll on 29th January

Hows the sniping in this game? Can you down a guy with one hit to the upper body?

Another big fan of the beta here. I assume they're going to reset squads, but absolutely can't wait for the retail experience and how it unfolds with more modes unlocked etc.
 
Also looking forward to seeing how Zipper support the full product.
 
Raven for life here.
 
@Alexander said:

" Hows the sniping in this game? Can you down a guy with one hit to the upper body? "

"but i am hopeless at sniping so i stay away from it"

It was okay, but I don't think it justifies the price tag.  I'll just wait for the finished product to come out and check it out then.  Guessing from the BETA is always kind of hit or miss.
I did like how they made gameplay simple and kind of stripped it down to bare minimum. For some reason I can't get War Rock out of my head.

I was S.V.E.R
 
And I wasn't the biggest fan. Not that it was a bad game, but I feel there's an abundance of better games, with BC2 to come, I'd rather save.
 
*Insert picture of horrified dog with appropriate caption here*

I've been really looking forward to this, I still haven't found my Battlefield 2 experience on a console yet. My PC died a couple of years ago, and I just couldn't be bothered to build a new one.  
 
The matchmaking issues are a concern... I just bought MW2 on the Xbox, having owned the PS3 version sinch launch and I have to say, PSN is pretty shit at matchmaking by comparison, at least on this side of the Atlantic. 
 
Was it laggy? Timing out a lot? 
 
I'd be willing to live with it if the game's a blast when it's up and running.

" I've been really looking forward to this, I still haven't found my Battlefield 2 experience on a console yet. My PC died a couple of years ago, and I just couldn't be bothered to build a new one.   The matchmaking issues are a concern... I just bought MW2 on the Xbox, having owned the PS3 version sinch launch and I have to say, PSN is pretty shit at matchmaking by comparison, at least on this side of the Atlantic.  Was it laggy? Timing out a lot?  I'd be willing to live with it if the game's a blast when it's up and running. "

what was the directives mode?

Played Raven - got up to level 15. Played with an Assault Rifle, 4x Scope, Grenades, Med-Kit, Rescussitation-Kit.
 
 Sabotage is a joke. Zipper had to sacrifice so much fidelity to get the 256 player games running, I don't understand how they can force players to go through hoops to get there. It's even being further split up into 16 vs 16 skirmishes. Not much epic battle chaos left anymore.

Domination (the 256 player mode) is kinda chaotically fun and unpredictable. There is a lot going on. I kinda understand, what Zipper is going for with MAG. Although I am personally not enticed by their design.

The graphics, sound, ballistics simulation, various particle effects and map interactivity - generally all presentation and simulation has suffered way too much to get the 256 player games running. It's the very definition of 'Low Fidelity'. There is 0% environmental interaction - everything's static. It makes MAG feel so dead and fake.

The leveldesign is the biggest disappointment. For a game designed for 256 people, the maps feel very claustrophobic. It's more like a giant maze of corners and walls than a huge open map - thus MAG favors run 'n gun gameplay and corner camping, instead of the tactical stop 'n pop approach vast open maps promote.

So all in all, MAG isn't my kind of game. The maze-like leveldesign more or less completely mitigates the benefits of having 256 players at a time on the same map - which should be the whole point of the exercise.

Joint Operations : Typhoon Rising had 150 player matches back in 2004 and did a way better job at dealing with that many players. Instead of splitting the game up into several strings of objectives in a maze-like map designed to keep all players apart, it had vast open maps with tanks, boats and choppers. The maps were 'Push maps'. Only adjecent bases were conquerable. On top of that, Joint Operations managed to look way better than MAG back in 2004, while keeping the simulation aspect somewhat visceral, despite the high player count.
 
I'm definitly more of a 'Battlefield : Bad Company 2' guy. DICE went the opposite route of Zipper's 'More players - More fun' gamedesign. DICE went 'Quality over Quantity'. Instead of keeping their playercap at 64 players, which it was for a long time, they reduced playercount to 24 on consoles and 32 on PC - in order to offer a high fidelity presentation and simulation. Ballistics and vehicle simulation are top notch. The maps are nearly 100% interactive.  Almost all structures and vegetation are destructible, all surface is deformable. Endless viewing and drawing distance. Any 'man made' obstruction of line of  sight can be leveled. No place to hide from explosive ordonance. Dynamic maps for dynamic gameplay. The very definition of 'High Fidelity' presentation and simulation. DICE's 'high fidelity and quality simulation' approach makes BF:BC 2 feel a lot more natural than any other online multiplayer FPS out there.
 
All that said, I had some fun with MAG, I'm just not impressed by the playercount. Zipper just had to sacrifice way too much for it - so that everything except the playercount is just sub-standard and outdated. MAG's a no-purchase for me. Zipper gets an A for effort though.

I only found it on the PSN store yesterday after looking around for it it for a week. I thought it didn't come out in Europe but I missed it anyway.

I disagree with the corridor comments and graphical issues Seppli listed above entirely. The game is a far-cry away from something like Killzone 2, but the fidelity is solid and the maps look rich. I'll agree character animation and effects are lacking, but if you're coming into this expecting multiplayer with graphical "shi-bang" then you're absolutely looking for Killzone 2 and not MAG. Having said that, I think the maps look rather pretty - they're detailed, there's plenty of moving elements on the stage (they're absolutely not static like mentioned with giant sattellites spinning on top of buildings casting super-sexy shadows across the map); the maps vary grealy, with a lumber yard filled with browns and greens; a desert-like shanty-town stage depicting an abandoned town; and the futuristic jungle setting of Raven. Let's not also forget the draw distance, allowing you to see parachuting soldiers from way on the horizon, and storming troops way out in the distance. Not to mention in 256 player battles there can be literally anything from 30-40 characters rendered on screen in front of you at times; each of which with their own personalised look thanks to the character customisation tools.
 
I suppose you could make the argument the colours feel a bit saturated at times, but there are elements to the presentation that are solid, particularly given its scale. Textures are good, framerate is on the whole quite good (although they need to decide where they're going to lock it because it runs at a varying 30FPS-45FPS I'd say).
 
As for the Battlefield: BC2 comparison; no, the game does not have destructible environments. Erm. So no it's not Battlefield. But that doesn't make it boring. Your right. Buildings won't collapse when you shoot at them, but in 256 player matches the matches are already rife with chaos that destructible environments wouldn't work.
 
At the end of the day, you could compare BC2 and MAG all night long, and while I haven't played BC2, I've played Battlefield as a franchise enough to know that the comparison isn't really there. MAG is SOCOM in first person, I've said it numerous times but the similarities are blatant. You can spot a mile off that the IP comes from the people that made SOCOM.
 
Seppli's input, while I value the opinion, doesn't really strike me as a fair evaluation of what MAG does, more a comparison of features between two similar, but also vastly different games - with different aims and ideas.
 
I also don't know where you're getting the corridor thing from. The maps are tight and populated absolutely, but there are also vast open spaces in MAG. Did you expect just an open field and nothing else? There are buildings, vantage points, look-out points, open areas, corners, and much more. I thought MAG's maps were incredibly well populated and detailed, and there's a difference in tactics depending on the objectives you're assigned to which will give lots of replay value.
 
I do however agree, that playing through Sabotage so much doesn't really get you quickly enough to where you want to be - but I also think Zipper have to prepare you for the 256 player battles because they are huge. I have cited accessibility as a problem in MAG, and there is absolutely no instant gratification here, but we can't assume to know exactly how and when the various modes will unlock in the retail version. For all we know, the 256 player maps might unlock at level 5 in the retail version.
 
@DanceDanceKennypants: It is utter chaos. I was literally flabbergasted the first time I saw what was going on. But stick to your unit, work as a team, get a headset and you'd be very surprised how well it works. When you're playing MAG properly you're not running around an environment, you're listening to your team, you're holding a position. Remember you play in platoons and squads, which means the maps are so big you might not ever see what the people in Squad Alpha (for example) are doing. They are on your team but you might never need work with them, because they'll be holding Objective C, for example while you deal with Objective H. That's not to say the 256 player is a sham (well it kinda is) but amazing draw distance means you'll see players parachute into that area of the map, and don't forget platoon leaders will need to communicate with other platoon leaders, and work for the overall good of the team.
 
As for the sniping comment; cover-fire. Cover-fire actually works in MAG. If, for example, you can't reach an ojective because there's sniper fire ahead, you can get two gunners in your squad to fire on their general position. Guns have quite long range, meaning those snipers will be forced to fall back. Also remember that there is no regenerating health in MAG, so while the sniper fumbles with his med-kit because of the cover fire, the rest of the squad will have time to move forward onto the objective sniper fire was covering.
 
Smoke grenades are another good way of avoiding snipers and storming bases, as they make it really difficult to see (unlike in other games).
 
I'm not saying Seppli's critiques are wrong. On the contrary, there are issues with MAG and he's totally entitled to his opinion and experience with the game, but I feel his critique is vastly different to my own experience -- particularly the comments on the graphics and maps. Each to his own though.
 
Like I said in my own thread on the game, MAG is almost certainly going to be a love it or hate it affair - which absolutely seems to be the case.

The squad selection and character customization was pretty poor I think.  Many many more people were in Valor so it would take a while to fill up the other teams.   I think doing that was pretty retarded, since one side will be skewed.  Took so long for the Raven team to get enough people.
 
The gameplay itself?  The graphics, while I cant expect amazing quality due to the player count, they looked ugly.
Controls sucked and while it doesn't have to be COD, some of the choices were odd, Triangle to crouch?, and the weapon to sight animation was stiff.  It reminded me of Quake Wars to be honest.
 
I thought the game had promise way back when, but when they decided to leave the name Massive Action Game, I thought, well these motherfuckers aren't trying anymore.  At least getting away from such a janky name would be something that shows they are thinking, but obviously, they weren't.
 
This beta really turned me off this game.  I haven't been so put off a game since that Hour of Victory demo.

I told you it was hate or love. This thread alone tells that tale.

day one buy 
 
 
 
Its worth noting that this game is BY FAR the BEST running FPS multiplayer on the market period, and thats not even taking into account the amount of players present in each match.  

Honestly, I had really high hopes for this game, then I play and it sucked arse.
 
The graphics were bordering on launch PS2 titles, the gameplay was dated and boring. It's a shoddy, poorly made BF2 clone.
 
And before you go "Bla bla bla, 256 players", BF2 had 256 players years ago.

Good game, bad community (i.e. microphone ratio)

Beta was atrocious. To me, most of it felt stuck in time.

I heard the game has no vehicles, is that correct?  If so, I don't see much fun in a game where it's 256 dudes running around on foot playing grab-ass.  And a 1 week "beta" with little to no features a few weeks from release is not a beta.
 
I had reservations before when it was announced, starting with the fact that people don't like being ordered around, that hasn't changed.  More players doesn't make it better. Resistance had 80 and it was horrible, there's more than technical reasons why games like this stick to a small-medium player count.  If you're in a clan or guild of some sort, then playing with a big group of the same people and coordinating will work and you'll get alot out of it.  I don't see that happening on a console with lackluster friend tracking and no standardized voice protocol.  This isn't Live vs PSN rant, but this is where Live excels, and until Sony can match that level of integration, games like this will suffer on PS3.
 
At best, this game will become Home with guns.

This is information from my perspective of the MAG Beta on the PS3. I have been 3 phases of the MAG beta (closed and open beta) and I have played all 3 factions at least up to level 20. I have been a Squad Leader but have never had a chance to be a Platoon Leader or OIC.

I'll try and do it as a question and answer format.

What is MAG?

MAG stands for Massive Action Game and is probably the worst named game ever The game facilitates FPS game modes that include 32 v 32 (suppression - think TDM We never had a chance to play this in any of the betas), 32 v 32 (Sabatoge - think attack and defend), 64 v 64 (Acquisition - break in behind enemy lines and steal vehicles) and the grand daddy of them all Domination (128 v 128 - an attack / defend version of typical domination (MW2) or conquest (BF). You choose a faction (clans and friends that you want to play with have to belong to the same faction) SVER (think Mad Max) Raven (High Tech Navy Seals type) and Valor (Straight Up Army / Military). Each faction has different weapons which cater to different types of gamers. For example Raven's weapons are a little weaker but have less recoil and are more accurate. SVER sacrifices accuracy for stopping power and Valor seems to be a good middle ground. I gravitated towards the SVER weapons. My hope is the Raven weapons get a little more power to them - they seem a little too weak to be effective even with the increased accuracy and reduced recoil.

Doesn't it get crazy with all those players?

Sure it does....it gets down right insane when you are pushed all the way back to your pumping stations in Domination and floods of enemies keep parachuting on your position, blowing up your doors and throwing grenades in windows etc. But it is also a somewhat controlled chaos. You get split up into Squads of 8. You have a squad leader who is giving the squad directives. He is in close contact with the Platoon Leader who is giving the squad leaders updates and information. Each Platoon Leader is responsible for 4 squads. All the Platoon Leaders are contact with the OIC (one player is basically the general). It works kind of like a multi-player RTS. Where the OIC is talking ot the Platoon Leaders and the Platoon Leaders are talking to the Squad Leaders and the Squad Leaders are talking to the foot soldiers.

Why would you listen to your Squad Leader?

Most people do because if you do what your squad leader has set out for you - you gain double XP which helps you rank up and unlock new skills - including the ability to be a squad leader yourself one day. Also the squad leader has "buffs" that when you are around your squad leader you get the effects of these buffs (i.e. move more quickly, better resistance to gas grenades, increased health etc.) You also get buffs from your Platoon Leader and the OIC. And ultimately this is team based tactical game - and working with your team will help to win your matches and thus ensure that your faction comes out on top in the Shadow War. The Shadow War is the only going battle between the 3 factions. Kind of like a long term (days, weeks, months?) tournament where each faction fights for territory.

Why would your squad leader not just do things for his/her personal gain?

It is true that a Squad Leader could use his powers to get XP maybe without regard for the outcome of the battle. However; a squad leader will only become a Platoon Leader by accumulating leadership points gained by victories and performance of his / her squad and similarly a Platoon Leader can only become an OIC by achieving similar leadership points. If you want to climb the ladder in this game you have to succeed in battle as a team. Also the various leaders get special abilities (i.e. calling bomb strikes, or gas bombs, UAVs etc.) and if they don't keep their leadership points up the game won't select them to be a leader as often.

Does it lag?

Nope. I've played probably 50+ hours in the closed and open betas. I think I may have seen lag about 10 times in all those hours and they were lag spikes and not persistant lag. The action can get a bit framey (frame rate drop) in Domination when you have 60 players in your immediate area and air strikes going off etc. but nothing deal breaking (probably sub 30 fps but I would guess it had never dipped below 25 fps).

Lobby System?

Yep. You have can invite friends in game into your lobby and travel around as a group in the same squad all night. It also has some built in clan support where you can invite people to join your clan and can join your clan mates in game quickly etc. In the private beta the lobby system worked really well. In the public beta the lobby voice chat didn't work until you got into a game (but right at the end of the public beta this was fixed).

Graphics and Sound?

Graphically it is serviceable. It isn't as good as Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2 (no games are) but for all the stuff going on screen it is very serviceable. Expect to get blown away by the depth of the game, the scale of the battles and the team oriented play - do not expect to get floored by the graphics. Rumor has it the graphics in the beta were compressed to reduce download sizes - this makes sense but even if that is the case I still think it will be an average to good looking game at best and nothing that will drop any jaws.

I really like the sound in the game. It isn't big arcadey explosions or loud rattley gun fire. If you ever watch war scenes on the news (i.e. in Afghanistan etc.) that is what you will hear in MAG. In addition to that you will alarms going off as assets become compromised along with jets, helicopters, bombing runs, mortar fire etc.

Give Us an Example of Gameplay

Here is something that I was proud of the other night in a Domination match. My faction of choice is SVER and we were playing defense.

The attackers in Domination are first tasked with securing burn off towers on the outskirts of the map. As a defender you spawn near these burn off towers and try to defend them. You spawn in a bunker with a turret mounted on top and as long as that bunker doesn't get blown up you can hold that frontline.

Our squad got spanked hard right away. We lost our bunker, followed quickly by the burn off tower, then our anti-air batteries got blown up which enabled the opposition to fly helicopters into our position (a forward spawn point for the opposition). They then took our cool down towers and forced us all the way back to our pumping stations. The pumping stations are really what your are trying to protect and or delay the opposition from getting. The longer they hold any of your 8 pumping stations the more damage your facility takes - if the damage bar maxes out before the end of the clock you lose.

It wasn't the start we wanted. With a little under 20 minutes left we were already pushed back as far as we could go and hemmed in our base just repair doors and playing a real back and fourth battle with our pumping stations.

Our squad leader tasked me with going to repair our mortar so that we could push the opposition back. I tossed smoke out into the enemy heavy streets and made my way to the mortar station. I started repairing it was soon joined by some other guy from another squad. After repairing the mortar my squad leader called in a mortar attack to push the Valor forces back and hopefully clear a little bit of a path. Our goal was to sneak through the enemy occupation to get behind them and repair our bunker. With a repaired bunker my squad could then spawn behind the enemy forces and work on repairing the anti-air batteries so we could chase the helo spawns out of our territory. Me and the guy from the other squad mad a long and slow trip through enemy territory where we had to pass within about 30 feet of an attack chopper that could kills us in heart beat....not to mention that helicopter had guys spawning out of it like crazy. It took a lot of control not to line up some head shots of enemy players that were running away from us - but we knew that getting our bunker back up was key and that not attracking any attention to ourselves was the best course of action. Needless to say we were successful - we got our bunkers online and repaired the AA batteries to push the helicopter spawns back. We had pushed our way through a layer of opposition forces and regained our front lines.

So it's Perfect?

Well no it's not. It has some definite bugs, the graphics might turn some people off and sometimes you'll get in a squad of random scrubs that just want to mess aorund and could careless about the teamwork and tactics you hold so close to your heart. But if you get in a good squad with good comms - even in a losing effort - it is an amazing thing.