Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 11:32 AM
Mon Nov 9
36 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us: tips@kotaku.com
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
Email | AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
Email | AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
Email | AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/30/09
10/29/09
When they announced vehicles, I wasn't interested. I've got Battlefield for that.
When they showed breaking the teams up into small squads for "squad vs. squad" battles, I wasn't interested. I've got Call of Duty if I want to take on just a handful of enemies at a time.
When they announced 256 player battles, that's when I got interested. I don't have anywhere else to turn for huge battles.
The only reason I'm interested in this game is the number of players per match. But more specifically, the number of players per gunfight. I can get 16 vs. 16 player gunfights from a bevy of other sources. What I can't get is a 126 vs. 126 player gunfight.
That's what a I want. I want the chaos of 126 vs. 126 player team deathmatch. Offer the chaos. I want the chaos!
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
SOCOM was played on a much smaller scale and being anti-social would kick your ass in that game too. I think it has more to do with the game's design than it has to do with the scale at which you play it on.
Communication is key, and while you can play the lone wolf (like you could in SOCOM) it's usually met with poor results. #mag
10/29/09
Seriously, those types of menial tasks like opening gates and stuff is the role of infantry, not elite tank pilots. #mag
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/12/09
It's too bad, I would have played the hell out if it in the last couple months.
10/12/09
10/12/09
I actually got the update that was over 2 gigs, only to find the servers were down for the tgs test, then when the private beta started, asked me to REDL the 2+gigs because they changed something and after about 10 failures over 10 days, gave up.
Good luck to all downloading the beta.
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
Playing games is fine, i get a great connection and downloading things in HOME seem instant. My guess is some of their servers are the problem.
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
Guys, he was referring to having to preorder the game as being a "pay-to-play program". Put $5 down on the game, play the beta.
10/13/09
09/06/09
09/05/09
I'm going to have to start doing this when I play games.
09/05/09
09/05/09
09/06/09
Which means that you have to consider your actions as part of a whole army, rather than just a small, localised group. There are exp bonuses for completing objectives assigned from higher up the chain of command, which encourages team participation and effective leadership, even amongst relatively novice players.
So the idea is as if you're an individual soldier fighting in the kind of battle you get in an RTS. Because there is a distinct hierarchical system, you might have to make sacrifices for the overall good, or labour to achieve something that's only going to reap dividends on a part of the map you might never get to see. But because it's all for the team, there's still a sense of satisfaction there, you know?