Basically, this game is the shit.

It's a PS3 exclusive, and online only.. It's basically a FPS war-type of game, but the thing that sets this game apart from the rest, is one of the game modes..

A game mode called Domination. This game mode pits 256 players on ONE map, with all hell breaking loose. 128 vs 128. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Other game modes include 32 vs 32 and 64 vs 64... All objective based.

This isn't like COD, in that you can basically run and gun. This game does actually take strategy and teamwork if you want to win.

I got it Tuesday and have put in a couple of hours and I have had more fun in this game than I ever have had in COD MW2's online..

PS3 owners may want to give this game a try. I know it won't be everybody's cup of tea, but it's definitely worth a look.



^Gameplay vid of the 256 player mode

I'll be renting it in the next couple of days.....Have heard good things since i played in the beta.

Never will, unless Mr Excellent tells me too. Then I might.

imex99 wrote: I'll be renting it in the next couple of days.....Have heard good things since i played in the beta.

Let me know when you get it..

This game is set up a bit differently in that you just don't join random rooms..

There are 3 factions to choose from at character creation, and each are a little different. I play in the S.V.E.R. Faction...

Basically, members from two of the factions go at it in the game. Sometimes you'll be defending objectives against one faction, but attacking objectives against another faction..

It's addicting. I'll be honest, It'll take a few games to get the hang of everything. The maps are big, even on the smaller scale fights (which are still big at 32 vs 32) but they maps get bigger and bigger as you play some of the bigger match types.

Played the beta for a few hours, and just wasn't feeling it...

I'll keep playing MW2 and just hold out for Battlefield.

I'm interested in this. Looks sweet. How is the lag in the 256 games? I can see it being horrible.

I'll try it.

What's the sticker tag price for this game? And am I correct in assuming its a download and not an actual game you would purchase at, say, Target?

Scarlet_Buckeye wrote: What's the sticker tag price for this game? And am I correct in assuming its a download and not an actual game you would purchase at, say, Target?

$60, and no it's not a download, buy the software online/in stores.

Again, I recommend you try before you buy....Seems overpriced to me and I don't expect it to sell well/have a huge community as in my opinion it is a bit weak compared to Battlefield (based on the beta and expectations) and Modern Warfare 2..

I personally wouldn't buy it for $20, because I didn't like the gameplay and would always rather be playing MW2 or Battlefield.

Any new game that comes out is around 60 bucks, that's really nothing new.

I will be checking this out soon as it looks pretty good.

KnightXC1 wrote: Any new game that comes out is around 60 bucks, that's really nothing new.

I will be checking this out soon as it looks pretty good.

Correct, but there are times when online-only games that offer no single player come in at a reduced rate, like $40.

McFly, you're a little off base on what you're saying, but to each their own. It's definitely worth $60. The user base was already pretty damn big on Day 1. It's gotten a lot of hype and it'll do well. The developer is known for making good action games.

Also, it's lag FREE. I've not experienced ANY lag in this game...

I played it for a bit and it wasn't doing it for me.

It isn't bad, it's just that it doesn't do anything particularly well beside the whole 256 players thing. What I'm getting at is that I'll still be going to the Battlefield series for my massive FPS battle fix. Perhaps MAG2 or something will be better.

Synopsis: Decent game but nothing that screams "You must own this now". At least that's how I see it.

LTrain23 wrote: McFly, you're a little off base on what you're saying, but to each their own. It's definitely worth $60. The user base was already pretty damn big on Day 1. It's gotten a lot of hype and it'll do well. The developer is known for making good action games.

Also, it's lag FREE. I've not experienced ANY lag in this game...

Lag has very little to do with the game and more to do with who is playing and what their connection is.

No game is or will be lag free until we all have crazy fast (while being reliable) internet connections. Until then we'll still get paired up with some yahoo with a bargain basement DSL connection who refuses/can't get a better service.

The Beta and the final game are light years different... They put alot of work and changes before putting the game out.

THe developed is the same devs who made all the original socoms(not including the PS3 socom). THey are proven and this will have a huge following once word of mouth gets around...

I Wear Pants wrote:

LTrain23 wrote: McFly, you're a little off base on what you're saying, but to each their own. It's definitely worth $60. The user base was already pretty damn big on Day 1. It's gotten a lot of hype and it'll do well. The developer is known for making good action games.

Also, it's lag FREE. I've not experienced ANY lag in this game...

Lag has very little to do with the game and more to do with who is playing and what their connection is.

No game is or will be lag free until we all have crazy fast (while being reliable) internet connections. Until then we'll still get paired up with some yahoo with a bargain basement DSL connection who refuses/can't get a better service.

The game has dedicated servers. It's not like COD or Gears of War where the game is running off the hosts connection. Like I said, it's lag free from my experience so far.

LTrain23 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

LTrain23 wrote: McFly, you're a little off base on what you're saying, but to each their own. It's definitely worth $60. The user base was already pretty damn big on Day 1. It's gotten a lot of hype and it'll do well. The developer is known for making good action games.

Also, it's lag FREE. I've not experienced ANY lag in this game...

Lag has very little to do with the game and more to do with who is playing and what their connection is.

No game is or will be lag free until we all have crazy fast (while being reliable) internet connections. Until then we'll still get paired up with some yahoo with a bargain basement DSL connection who refuses/can't get a better service.

The game has dedicated servers. It's not like COD or Gears of War where the game is running off the hosts connection. Like I said, it's lag free from my experience so far.

Dedicated servers do not mean a lag free game.

There are plenty of games with dedicated servers that are lagtastic.

You're point remains though, they've managed to make a game with 256 players that isn't a slideshow. Which is impressive.

So how is this game guys? Thinking about getting it, or should I wait for BF BC 2?

Again, I haven't played MAG much (less than 10 minutes) but from what I've read in reviews MAG is a good game but Battlefield is still the best go to for large scale multiplayer fps gaming.

ohiotiger33 wrote: So how is this game guys? Thinking about getting it, or should I wait for BF BC 2?

I love it. I don't thnk Battlefield gives you this large of a scale of battle.

IGN said they "love" the game, but knocked some points off because it's not for casual gamers.. They said the lack of auto aim and lack of directions hurt the game overall..

I'm like, :huh:....

Since when should a game cradle to idiots? Auto aim is cheap. You should ALWAYS have to manually aim your gun to shoot. The one thing I hated about COD was the auto aim and how much it levels the playing field, but also screws you when you're facing multiple targets.. As far as the "directions" go, there is an icon in the top left that tells you your current objective. I don't know what more you need.. There is also a map in the bottom right so you know where you're at...

Gamespot gave MAG an 8/10 and said the game very good for the first installment of the series. They seemed to have spent more time with the review than IGN and gave it a fair shot.

It's very team oriented. For instance, one game mode, called acquisition, pits two teams of 64 players each against each other. Within that 64, you are split up into 8 groups of 8 players, 32 per platoon for a total of two platoons. Each group of 8 players has their own objective.

For instance, within the game mode, you have one team attacking and the other team defending two armored vehicles. The attacking teams overall goal is to capture and bring the two vehicles back to their base (think capture the flag)..

However, before you can retrieve these vehicles, obviously some other things need to be done. The enemy base is loaded with defense, not only with the other 64 players, but bunker turrets, AA missiles, and guard gates.

So, one of your groups may be directed to take down the gates, while another is directed to take down the AA missiles, allowing for helicopter drop downs and parachute drops deeper into the enemy base.

You're allowed to do whatever you want though, but the game really shines when you work as a team. I honestly haven't touched COD MW2 since buying this game.

Domination mode is a 128 vs 128 mode, that can get pretty hectic at times.

Best of all, I've experienced NO lag thanks to the dedicated servers.

First night, hated it...since then...my new favorite game.

Interesting, thanks guys!

I'm still interested. BF 2 is a little disappointing right now to me.

ohiotiger33 wrote: Interesting, thanks guys!

It doesn't hold a candle to MW2 graphics and there is a lack of direction as to what the hell do you do. But once you start ranking up(get your med kits first, much easier to rack up points) it starts to get fun. If you are luck enough to have a lot of guys that stick to a plan and don't run and gun it REAL FUN. It takes team work and discipline to get anywhere in the game.

Thats sweet, I used to love socom, and I know this is the same company that made it.