IMO the 2 most important things in how multiplayer is played out is:

1. How many people are playing,
2. How big is the map

These 2 things mixes up the gameplay quite a bit when influenced. So I'd like the maps to be big, but vary the bigness. I'm sure these maps are going to be the biggest maps we've seen on a console game though. I dont mind that.

quote Tydog

The game looks brilliant, what about destructable environments, vehicles will these be substituted with more players because I would not want that. This game looks like it should have squads who are organised, well positioined defenders/attackers with strategies, I wonder how that will happen because it's near immpossible to communicate using headsets.

It would lagg TOO much with destructible environments AND 256 players.

Now I play BF 2 and BF:BC(on ps3/360)

They have maps which are HUGE but alot of the time its just combat focused on one area of combat where the rest of the map is sort of deserted, So I dont think the maps would have too be too much bigger.

I cant wait to see what happens with this.

This now casts doubt over whether or not i'll get Resistance2. I loved R1 but that was because it was my first online experience. I do love Somerset map, though. The only one. And i was looking forward to 60 players, but i was a bit put off by te fact that the graphics havent improved a whole lot compared to the other one, which was fairly basic in itself.

I was looking forward to 60 players but now this MAG thing just totally blows it away.

The only reason why i'll get R2 is if i decide to get it for old time's sake because i enjoyed R1, or if i find out of something cool thats involved online like amazing unmissable maps etc.

Resistance 2 is still a game to get i mean the graphics have gotten better but not a whole lot as you have said but if 40 players was great then 60 will be better, you have to remember MAG could be a 2009/10 title so skipping one game that could be out up to 2 years after another is just hurting your own enjoyment.

you should be buying resistance for the storyline.
amean thats the main factor i'm buying it.

I always enjoyed whoring the auger in 20 v 20 at this one map and it was always an epic fight. Probably the most fun i've had in an online. Plus my favorite memory of getting 12 kills in 2 seconds with the beastly arc charger

Either way Resistance did online right, and no other game has seem to get it as good as Resistance.

Hedgehog grenade made online for me, just play a game where you have to defend a base and just throw a few of those in an entrance in a 20 vs 20 and you will get so many kills it makes up for any team kills you may pick up from it.

Half the people in this thread are talking like they've never played a pc game or an MMO. Seriously guys, search for videos of BF2 and BF:2142 to get a fair idea of how a game this size works. Koloth is right in saying that there will be hardly any repetitiveness when playing a game of this caliber and with absolutely no AI. Obviously there is going to be well organised teams and squads, there has to be, otherwise you have 128 people running off in one general direction following the first person out on the field. With squads, the commander can position and instruct them on where to go, what base or 'point' to attack, defend there own base or a hillside or building for strategic advantages.

At no point should you have 100 people fighting on the same spot because that just leaves the rest of the map for the opposition to take. They pretty much guaranteed vehicles as players came down from a dropship and I think I seen an APC or two. If it's like BattleField then these will be key to victory as it's vital to maneuver around the map as fast as possible capturing flags. MAG will be no different.

My only gripe is whether it will be First or Third person. FPS is probably my favourite genre but I still like TPS, a la Gears but I just don't like the fact of being able to see the opposition around corners without exposing yourself. And who knows, they may implement a cover system.

Not to mention if it has vehicles it better have C4, because my absolute favourite is bomb trucks in BF2, loading up a truck with C4 and slamming it into a base, multi casualties guarenteed. Obviously the driver jumps out lol... I'm not an suicide bomber.

I'm actually craving for this game right now, it has so much potential to be good. They need to set an example with for other massive online games to compete with. There's talk of a new Battlefield hitting the PC in 2010. I hope DICE up their ante.

i think FPS/TPS's having duck and cover systems should really become more of a necessary nowadays, so this better have it.lol
and yeh i think having the option of swapping between FPS and TPS would be brilliant for the players.

Cover systems arent necessary. COD is doing just fine w/o one. But maybe a lean/peak system that GRAW2 had. I liked that alot.

i think the SOCCOM cover or army of two is the best

you just crouch behind it and fire or peek out using sixaxis

quote Lupin_the_third

Cover systems arent necessary. COD is doing just fine w/o one. But maybe a lean/peak system that GRAW2 had. I liked that alot.

tbh whenever i play call of duty i wish it did have the cover system.
maybe the only criticism that i have for the game,...and i wish they had a co-op system.

Cover systems arent necessary, it all depends on what type of gameplay you want. You dont want an elaborate cover system and you're talking about resistance.