Silkroad Online Forums

Didn't the game get released?

I don't hear much about it,though it would have way more excitement. The whole 256 players thing looks really fun. I sometime wish I had a PS3 just so I could play this game.

My friend played the demo and didn't really like it. He said it takes forever to reach the fighting scene,and once you reach it you get sniped to oblivion I som

Any opinions on the game?

It's an alright game if you have a full squad of 8 friends to play with.

Game is fun, but the game hasn't really got itself out there. Since the game is based on multiplayer only, but I only see 20k on most of the time. People ragequit and went back to MW2 from what I've seen.

I see,

I also figured that pubbing with 255 players must be chaotic.

I bought MAG myself, I personally expected more. And about the sniping part is true, I died like 4 times by the time I got the the actual fighting area.

I prefer MW2.

Counter Strike with 200 whatever players in one game.

CrimsonNuker wrote:Counter Strike with 200 whatever players in one game.

Completely wrong. I don't know how to really explain it just because you're planting a bomb at A and B then C(Well that's a game mode out of 4) doesn't mean they're the same <_<

Well with 256 player fights it can insane. Yeah it's fun, but when all 4 platoons pushes the defender back into their home base it becomes insane. It isn't easy to rush in a building with 20 people staring at the door. Throwing smoke all the time inside helps to move around. lol

As for the sniper part.. lol? That doesn't really happen to me. Grabbing an assult rifle+x4scope = godly. Plus hiding in some random spot that he can't see = win. Perfect example is S.V.E.R's home base of 64 players of B. Theres a metal wall up top from the site you can actually see the entire area of where the other side will jump off, but it is VERY VERY hard to be shot from the other side since you are looking through a crack, but being able to see everyone. Easily rack up to 30 kills because of that.

I never run ahead of anyone except the start of the match. That's just silly, because you'll be the target from a sniper. You kill him after he kills that guy. rofl

Regardless

Quality > Quantity

The game was good in terms of both imo, but of course like every other game it could have been better. Sounds like you haven't even tried the game out.

CrimsonNuker wrote:Regardless

Quality > Quantity

I agree. Didn't Like it at all watching my Brother play it. Graphics are "ok" at best. But for a PS3 FPS, it'll take a lot to follow CODMW2

Blackdragon6 wrote:

CrimsonNuker wrote:Regardless

Quality > Quantity

I agree. Didn't Like it at all watching my Brother play it. Graphics are "ok" at best. But for a PS3 FPS, it'll take a lot to follow CODMW2

Graphics are on a large scale. Of course they won't be godly in any terms. For handling 256 players and maintaining such graphics is amazing. And the fact that every gunshot you hear was from another player, seeing all players move around, and a bunch of other stuff.

Take a lot to follow MW2? LOL? There isn't much to follow a typical FPS game. IMO MAG was a huge step up from MW(Well from FPS series really), but again no noticed the 256 player game. If MAG had enough advertising as MW, I'm sure it'd have a huge player base. Not saying MW2 was bad or anything, but it's the same engine as the MW1. Not much improvement there.

MW2 had no quality whatsoever. CoD4 it did, because they were actually somewhat original. Moving away from the typical WW2 games. Just too bad nowadays you make stuff with graphics or namebrand over gameplay(With any original as well) it sells.

Well we all have our own opinion. That's mine.