IGN UK: MAG Review

If and when MAG finds a dedicated audience and the casual, blood-crazed floating audience drifts away, it should blossom into something tactical and smart, those 128-player teams creating a militarised war that nothing else on console can come close to. That's the game it wants to be, and the game it deserves to be. Alas, it may have shot itself in the foot with the epic headcount: even in the early, 64-player modes it's going to be daunting and punishing for newcomers. A fiddly HUD that makes getting a bead on squad- (as opposed to faction-) mates and objectives far less obvious than it should be doesn't help there – without a good, talkative commander, relative newcomers are going to flail around desperately.

Presentation - 6.0
Graphics - 8.0
Sound - 7.0
Gameplay - 7.5
Lasting Appeal - 7.5
Overall -

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
PlaystationSamurai2978d ago

I guess this review is fake two? lmao

ryuzu2978d ago (Edited 2978d ago )

Seems like a perfectly reasonable review to me... Overall, the first paragraph is the point of the whole thing

"It works. That's the thing. It's not some empty, broken OMG-next-generation promise, it's not a glorified tech demo and it isn't just 256 people standing in a ring and taking it in turns to fall over. MAG is a first-person war game, in the vein of Battlefield or Enemy Territory, but oh-so-much bigger: 256 players facing off in 128-man teams scattered over enormous maps, and without demolishing the frame-rate so much that it looks like 1950s Czech stop-motion animation (though that would admittedly be pretty awesome). "

IGN get the first review out that accurately sums up MAG - well done them.


Lucreto2978d ago (Edited 2978d ago )

If you can consider the servers are only up for a day so the reviewer must have been playing since midnight to get a feel for the game. Also did he review before or after the patch?

So I am surprised there was a review so quick.

Yes I just read that. But the review code would have just started to work today it seemed they reviewed the beta more that the final game. They should have spent at least 2 days before a review.

Like the article says once the people who are out for just blood lust are gone there will be a good crowd who will play properly.

TheHater2978d ago

Nope, they said with their time with the beta and limited time with the final game. I really think all the reviewers should wait a week to review this game. They can't just review it base on the beta and only a few hours with the final product.

WildArmed2978d ago

lol hopefully we won't get articles calling IGN a blog o_O

But I do agree that reviewers should atleast put 20-40 hours into the review code b4 they give us their impressions.
If the game's SP is 40 hours long, i'm sure reviewers would gladly put that in. Same goes for MAG, you need time to test all it's stuff.

But I think the score is what I expected it to be. 7-8s is basically it's avg score.
Ofc, exceptions like eurogamer can freely drop it to 2/10 :)

darx2978d ago

Or are there pre-set types?

callahan092978d ago

This is easily the worst review I've read from IGN. It does absolutely nothing to justify WHY it's not worth more than a mediocre score. It fails to justify how the game isn't fun or addictive, or give any reasoning as to why gamers won't get hooked on playing war with this game. It's just a bunch of superficial statements that don't give me a clear idea of what it's like to own this game. Not to mention that it's quite obvious from the text of the review that this isn't even based on the experience that gamers who go out and buy the game today will have. It's a review based on the pre-patched game, meaning that they haven't even played the game that's currently in owners' hands. They clearly haven't done much in the game, they haven't experienced all of the maps, this review, like all the others so far, is based on a single session at the "review event" and beta impressions, not the actual experience of the game that you can have TODAY if you buy the game. Getting really tired of seeing EARLY IMPRESSIONS being passed off as REVIEWS OF THE FINAL PRODUCT this week. Give us a break, IGN.

Blaster_Master2978d ago (Edited 2978d ago )

These people get freakin paid to review games, and they dont even spend 8 hours with the review code to properly give it a decent review. I bet he spent more time actually writing the review then actually playing the game. LOSER! Which is exactly why nobody should go by what these douches that work for gaming websites have to say. They obviously only like noob friendly titles that require no skill, or friends to play with.

mint royale2978d ago


7.6 is more than a mediocre score. Back when reviews were legitimate this was a very good score. Unfortunately upset fanboys seem to deem anything below a 9 a flop.

JokesOnYou2978d ago (Edited 2978d ago )

Listen basicly the main draw advertised by sony and zipper for MAG is 256 players online, and that's exactly what they put out, lol there's no surprise solo or co-op campaign included in the final version vs the beta, many in the press knew exactly what they were going to get since sony/zippers recent "MAG Event" where the press & devs played all the modes and 128 vs 128 matches...under a best case controlled environment too.(All in the same room, no server problems, all had mic's, adults, nobody quits= no yelling and screaming, err well who knows about that).

So what exactly are reviewers going to learn about MAG that they don't already know, what takes a week, if you mean leveling up, NO, reviewers don't need to "prestige" in MW2 to judge whether or not they like the game or how much they like the game(score they give). Reviewers just simply do not play every aspect of a game to completion, they simply playtest all its functionality and experience a sampling of all its modes, this is an online shooter so its not like a story driven game where you need to play from begining to end.


edit: Oh for the record 7.6 is not a bad score, its obviously not exceptional either, but every game can't be exceptional.

callahan092978d ago

That's besides the point. Doesn't really even matter what the score is, or whether 7.6 is mediocre, less than mediocre, or better than mediocre. It's about the fact that they don't justify their numbers, and that they shouldn't even be reviewing the game right now, given their limited experience with it (they haven't even experienced the version that gamers who buy it have, because it's been pretty drastically changed for the launch-day patch). They haven't experienced even a fraction of the maps in this game!

Montrealien2978d ago

I got one question for people that think early reviews of MaG are not fair.

What is difference between the final product and the open beta?

Disccordia2978d ago

Since when has 7.6 been a mediocre score? It's in the range that I was expecting for this.

All along, I've got the impression that this was a fairly generic shooter and the overall reviews we've been seeing are saying this. What it does do however, is prove that games on this scale CAN be done and considering it's one of the first of it's kind, Zipper have done a pretty good job. In a couple of years, I think we'll be looking back on MAG saying how influential it was and that can not be a bad thing.

mint royale2978d ago

Totally agree that they should have spent more time with MAG but that wasn't my point. 7.6 is a good score and used to be considered a score worthy of a must buy game if your a fan of the genre. This is a good score, but is it accurate? Given the nature of MAG which is online only, probably not.

callahan092978d ago

What is up with all the disagrees on my last comment? IGN didn't play the retail build of the game. They got to play it during one session at a restricted "review event." They haven't played every map, they haven't leveled up and customized their characters to their desires and skills. They shouldn't have reviewed it yet. That's my point, and I honestly don't understand how anybody can disagree with it. What use is a review that's essentially just a superficial early impression with a number thrown onto it? That doesn't help gamers decide whether it's worth their money.

raztad2978d ago

This review is MEH but I can live with it. By now my copy of MAG is flying right into my mailbox. I know that when everything is said and done, the MAG fanbase will be a lot stronger than others on the PS3.

What pisses me off is that Zipper did an awesome effort to put together a breathtaking tech, gameplay innovations and those guys didnt even take the time to level their character past the 3 first levels.

Need to choose: RAVEN or SVER. Decisions, Decisions.

callahan092978d ago

This is pathetic. If you're not here to bash MAG you're gonna get disagreed with.

mint royale2978d ago (Edited 2978d ago )

I don't see anyone above bashing MAG or anyone coming up with a whole new account just to bash the game (see Mass Defect or whatever he is). No need to be defensive about disagrees, its N4G.

Seems to me xbox fans have it worse for disagrees whilst wii fans get trolled more than anyone for no reason. PS3 fans are numerous here but that doesn't stop BS 'ps3 is failing articles.' Its N4G and it is what it is.

2978d ago
sack_boi2978d ago

I'll be getting the game very soon.

GreenRingOfLife2978d ago

Hmm, I thought this ps3 exclusive would for sure be AAA.. guess not....

sikbeta2978d ago

Guys, This is IGN UK, so this is more like an 8.5/10 from IGN America, IGN UK is more harsh than the the other 2

And this is NOT a bad score, This Game is in League of its Own and that's HUGE knowing that it's a FPS Game and the FPS Genre is The Most Generic of all Genres in Gaming...

pixelsword2978d ago (Edited 2978d ago )

Well, you asked...

-The first part of the Beta never had thousands upon thousands of people, which meant...

1. if you got in the first parts you were often waiting for a game, which doesn't happen now, and didn't when the game hit public status.

2. you had many games with whole squads missing sometimes because they were playing in other modes, which alters the gameplay.

3. The game ran smoothly but many mechanics were changed (names weren't above the characters at the beginning, for example)

* If you made your judgments based upon that part of the beta, then you missed out having quick games with full servers

-For the open Beta

1. More people played, but a lot of people didn't want to download the game because of the connection speed at the time they could download it would take them hours.

2. The public beta only ran for a week or so, hardly enough time for everyone to be cohesive in terms of working as a team.

3. How are you going to appreciate maps that rival the size of an actual city in a week? There are nuances in each map that requires time to learn in terms of defending them or attacking them. Spending just a week trying to learn SEVR's maps for attacking ain't hardly enough.

4. The servers were fuller, but you would run into a lot of people who played MAG for months, so you had three or four guys that basically could mop the floor with your brains versus the other four that was just a clueless as you, except the three or four guys on your team that were in the Beta for months are shooting them.

5. people on your team who know the back ways and tricks will often lose you because you only had a week to figure out what they had four months to learn through trial and error.

6. the open beta had a lot of server crashes, which were fixed as far as I know.

*if you made your judgment based upon the second part of the beta, then you're basing it upon laggy servers that crashed which was fixed.

-How does this compare to the actual game?

1. a lot more people are on the game which means:

a. if you're new, you're going to find a whole lot less people who aren't experienced, which means you are going to find it easier all the way around because your enemy are also newbs.

b. if you decide to get the game later, you're going to be surrounded by a greater percentage of people that are experienced, not the nearly 70/30 split of newbs and vets that made the game more chaotic than it had to be during the public beta. if you say you're new, there's almost always an a dude willing to help and will either stick close or tell you to follow him; I was one of them on both sides of the fence.

c. The servers will be full at almost all times around the world; not between 8am-12pm and then 5pm-11pm. Depending on when you play, and if you have an ear for it, you can learn how to say "medic" in six languages before a month is out.

2. The progression of rank is slower than the beta, so you're not going to hit level ten instantly, now will you be able to get weapons as fast, so you get time to know yourself and which weapons you can do well with without having to upgrade all the way, and which weapons you do need help on.

3. In the actual game, and down the line, a lot more people will be using mics. When I first played the beta, I didn't put on a mic for like three weeks straight; when you are in it, you'll realize that teams that communicate win.

4. Cohesiveness isn't going to happen in the week-long beta, which most of the so-called "reviews" are coming from. It took weeks to get people who knew how to bomb an area and not kill their own teammates, to know where to set-up an ambush to stop the vehicle an enemy might be taking (which was not in the public Beta, by the way) to know where to go to snipe nearly across some boards and still be effective to your squad.

5. Cohesiveness isn't going to happen in the first weeks of the game, which the rest of the so-called "reviews" are coming from. See above.

FamilyGuy2978d ago (Edited 2978d ago )

I agree, is that what happened to them (being the "newcomer") while they were reviewing this game? This line indicates that the current community caused their score to take a hit. That isn't exactly fair considering the game and its actual community JUST started playing. (since it just came out.

This is one of those reviews that should be discredited because of not playing the game long enough to write an acceptable review. This review IS decent (well thought out and written) for what it is.

SignOfZodiac2978d ago

I informed gamers that this title was no where near ready and it would FAIL!

skagrerrrr2978d ago

Disappointing...tsk, tsk

3sexty rulzzz2978d ago

xbox fanboys: confirmed flop, expected; LOL

Pos3 fanboys: I smell bs, the games still doesn't have dedicated servers. LOL! the game was released today, LOL. IGN was generous with their score, it should've gotten a 6.5.

vhero2978d ago

Give it up people the game isn't that great not every PS3 exclusive is gonna be great get over it. I also think this game has been massively overshadowed by Mass Effect 2 (I am aware they are different genres I am not comparing them). If it released last week scores probably would have been higher but that's life.

ShadowCK2977d ago

Another failure exclusively on the PS3.

raztad2977d ago


When such "FAILURE" is the most tactical/team oriented, massive, lag free, huge, anti-campers, competitive and definitely fun multiplayer game out there. I'm glad its exclusive on the PS3. I wouldnt like to spend 300$ on a xbox just for something like this.

Thanks Zipper and Sony for pushing multiplayer gaming with this gem.

Still I dont know what faction: SVER (I'm feeling its overpowered) or RAVEN (seems like the underdog). I like the underdogs.

y0haN2977d ago

As expected ever since playing the betas.. generic game.. crap/10.

The Lazy One2977d ago

did you read it? They give plenty of reasons for their numbers. Even just their summary has plenty of good reasons.

You may not agree with their reasons, but the reasons are definitely there.

It would be more accurate if they had more time, but game reviews are there to help people decide if they want a game or not before they play it. If they wait a week or two after release then their review doesn't fulfill its primary function.

+ Show (30) more repliesLast reply 2977d ago
Chicken Chaser2978d ago

Sooo.. can i scratch this one from the PS3s "AAA" list?

Bnet3432978d ago

You have to go by Metacritic, not just one website.

-Alpha2978d ago (Edited 2978d ago )

Maybe by a few rabid fanboys, but this game was never really hyped the same way Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2 was.

It's getting what I thought it would and it's an A-AA game.

That's not a bad score, but it isn't outstanding either, especially considering the fact that MAG ends up being another average shooter with a weak selling point.

Regardless, it's not the best FPS, but it's decent.

I think the problem was that Zipper worked so hard on just making it work that they lost the time and resources to polish the rest of the game up.

I personally think the animations look horrible, the graphics are average, the scope may be big, but it's not NECESSARY. I enjoy a game of Killzone 2 or Bad Company with just 24-32 players-- 256 is such a big jump and it feels like Zipper just wanted to do it just for the sake of doing it first.

WildArmed2978d ago

Zipper shoulda done SOCOM: Confrntation and let Slant Six screw up MAG lol xD

Chicken Chaser2978d ago


" It was never hyped AAA "

Really? I think it was

" Sony has just confirmed its Q1 line-up, which will contain three AAA exclusives. God of War, Heavy Rain, and MAG "

DirtyLary2978d ago

Zipper is already doing Socom:4. The official squeal to S:3. Confrontation was never the legit successor, just a place holder.

It's been stated by Zipper it's already 2 years in development.

Hopefully we will see some teaser info after the MAG release hype is over.

Kakihara2978d ago

Chicken chaser. One of the popular pretty girls from your highschool just called me. She says she heard how a game coming out on the system you don't own got an average score. She also heard about the good scores for Mass effect 2. Because of this she thinks you're super cool wicked awesome and she wants you bad. I just thought I'd pass on the message.

-Alpha2978d ago

It still didn't have AAA hype. I can equally pull sources showing A-AA hype.

Obviously some people hyped it AAA but the general attitude was very doubtful, especially here on N4G. I, along with others were very skeptical of MAG.

I'm saying that a significant majority of skeptics were against MAG. It was rarely hyped LIKE Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 was.

Now, the game is decent, but nothing special and I do agree that there are many people who are butthurt over this because, like any PS3 game, they hype it to the death.

Shang-Long2978d ago

i Agree with Am22

i still want this game tho. i enjoy it enough

sikbeta2978d ago

@Chicken Chaser

"Sooo.. can i scratch this one from the PS3s "AAA" list?"

Well, if you HAVE a PS3 you can do it, but not being an AAA Game doesn't mean is a bad Game so you can enjoy it as I'll do

If you don't have a PS3 but you have a List of PS3 Games and you search on teh interwebz for Bad that's Pathetic


bjornbear2978d ago

hyped as AAA by the media. remember Haze?

Let the fans define the game.

This is a solid online MP game, ala warhawk. if it was ever in your AAA list, then you were tricked and "over hyped" something that was meant to be a solid unique experience, not a GoTY contender =)

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2978d ago
Mr Lahey2978d ago (Edited 2978d ago )

funny that they gave the graphics the highest score. one aspect people seem to complain about the most.

And it seems like it's a game built on tactics rather than running around building up kill streaks, which can be a bit hard to adjust to for many people. Now thats a problem if you don't want 256 player chaos.

ryuzu2978d ago

As the review pointed out - there is no 256 player chaos. If you play as a lone-wolf and ignore the team objectives, you die and have no fun.

Play towards the objectives and it's fun.

That's where MAG has succeeded where the other 2 FPSs that managed >=256 players failed.

Still doesn't mean everyone enjoys that kind of game though and MAG has other problems so reasonable score.


ryuzu2978d ago

Planetside + WW2Online/BE.

Both v. old now, not really played, and due to major issues, never really became that popular either.

MAG is it for large scale FPSs right now - that's why Zipper have done such a good job.

The fact that it works where others haven't even tried, or tried and failed is good enough.

Not only that, but it's fun too.


TheHater2978d ago

The game is no fun to them because they spend more time dieing that actually killing people because they don't know how to work as a team. So they run and gun, thinking this is COD, without the support of their team mates, get kill by a squad and B1tch about it?

SmokeyMcBear2978d ago

thats what I dont get... that comment about them spending more time in spawn then playing.. seriously? you spawn every 15 seconds... you cant go 15 seconds without dieing?

smittyjerkins2978d ago

Totally agree. *Sigh* even gaming journalists are casual players nowadays, sucking the c*ck of Modern Warfare. It's sad really, very few people ever play a game for a satisfying experience anymore, but instead want an easy experience with win handed on a platter to them.

NYC_Gamer2978d ago

those who played the beta and enjoyed it should go out and support this what if the reviews arent perfect....

Dev8 ing2978d ago

The reviews are bullsh1t. IGN gives it a 7 for sound. The game is THX certified with DTS HD. You can hear the armor crunching when the characters run, the panting is really well done. Clearly they are basing this review on the beta because the beta didn't have THX quality sound or maybe they are playing the game off of a crt screen with 10 W Tv speakers.