http://blog.mag.com/blog/2009/11/mag-beta-key-giveaway/
The beta is ending on the 5th (at midnight, so friday night's the last for the beta). It's a lot of downloading to do though (258 mb for initial download, then 1800+ mb from updates).
Thanks, man. I can't believe I didn't knew about this 'till now, it was there since the 24th.
128 players going around like crazy not doing teamwork? *Sigh*
128 players going around like crazy not doing teamwork? *Sigh*
Ya that is going to be one of the tougher challenges for MAG, is having all those people working together, or even atleast some of them.
Wait, the registration is over (i did download the beta) or the beta it self is over? ..
im so pissed right now my online doesnt work again, and i really want to play this and bad company 2
Ya that is going to be one of the tougher challenges for MAG, is having all those people working together, or even atleast some of them.
I think back at E3 the mechanics were explained. Each team would be split into smaller, more managable squads, each with its own leader. The squad leaders could then converse about tactics and relay this to their squads. It sounded nice enough but I'm sure there will be more than a few gunslingers who have no intention of following orders.
I wanted to try it but since I haven't been playing MP lately I found it not worth it to dl it.
Ya the command is set up like Battlefield 2. There is a commander that oversees everything and he issues orders to the group/squad leaders and the leaders then relay that to their team. But given previous experiences in teamwork games, some people would rather get 10 points for a kill than 100 for an objective.
I don't know what's up with people who the only thing they want to do is kill. If that's what they want to do then go get in the Team Deathmatch lobby in MW 2. BF: BC 2 and MAG are not that type of games, neither is MW 2. The thing is that MW 2 has its different type of lobbies for different types of missions. In my opinion only Team Deathmatch is boring, because the only thing you do is kill... there is no other objective.
And that is not real, for a war is not based on killing. The reason why deaths occur in a war is to weaken the enemy. Victory is decided by doing certain crucial objectives like a capturing a place, and to be able to do that you have to weaken the enemy. Now that's where the killing comes. But if it weren't that way, then wars would not have any killing.
I had it for a few days already and I must say its too much going on to really focus. like it was posted earlier its basically over an hundred players at the same time playing for themselves. But I guess its expected since games like these are now so stat driven for individual players to boost. I just think its too ambitious and will only appeal to gamers who want to brag about a shitload of kills. I'm skipping this game
I had it for a few days already and I must say its too much going on to really focus. like it was posted earlier its basically over an hundred players at the same time playing for themselves. But I guess its expected since games like these are now so stat driven for individual players to boost. I just think its too ambitious and will only appeal to gamers who want to brag about a shitload of kills. I'm skipping this game












Thanks, man. I can't believe I didn't knew about this 'till now, it was there since the 24th.
Same here, de nada.
And wow, first MAG match was...
n I'll be back to playing it shortly after I finish this even more confusing statistics homework
Check out The Fresh Kings sports blog