[Gaming Evolution] MAG Review

The online multiplayer experience has become a critical part to whether you game can be a global success or simply a title that movies a solid amount of units. Games like Modern Warfare 2, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, Left 4 Dead 2 and even Resistance 2 are just a few examples of titles that provide an immersive online experience, which has brought success to Activision, Valve, Naughty Dog and Insomniac Games. The last title to take the online gaming experience to the next level is MAG (Massive Action Gaming), which is Zipper Interactive's latest release in a long line of First-Person Shooters for the PlayStation Brand. While being know for their amazing work with the SOCOM franchise, Zipper utilizes their talents and the power of the PS3 to create an immersive online experience comprised of up to 256 players. While many were skeptical about whether Zipper Interactive could pull off such a feet, it's safe to say that they have created one of the best online team-based shooters of this generation.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Butt Shingles3212d ago

I've never heard of this site but that is certainly a good review score. It's weird to see all of these extremely high or extremely low scores on this game. It seems as though people either love it or hate it.

pixelsword3212d ago (Edited 3212d ago )

Journalists scream for "new" stuff to do, and complain about "nothing new", but when something new is introduced, they don't take the time to understand it, and rate it low. I almost did the same thing to Lair, until it clicked on how the controls worked; now Lair is one of my favorite games of all time; up there with Gears, Halo, and Killzone. A new concept takes time to understand. Just like the jump between hand-written mail and e-mail. Some will understand quickly, others, not so quickly. It's not that their dumb, it's just that they may not have the capacity to adapt to the newest thing for a while, if ever. A lot of these journalists are smart in their "world" of a game that doesn't challenge them in terms of learning, but reached their capacity when it comes to games that have an overwhelming number of people, for example, or using the sixaxis to control a dragon... ;)

I'm thinking about writing the why's on the scoring of this and some other games, maybe.

randomwiz3212d ago (Edited 3212d ago )

hence the success of mw2.

easy for noobs(casual gamers/reviewers), losers(one man army noob tubers), glitchers(care packages), while also being easy for skilled players(me).

I wanted to say while also being fun for skilled players, because you could get good at MW2 and win in every game, but there's still those noob tubers, cheap campers, killed by lag, frustrations with the game switching hosts and failing half of the time, or that game where the enemy team is getting emergency airdrops every 3 seconds.

ThanatosDMC3212d ago

I loved Liar after the patch. I hated the six axis motion control. After the patch it was easy to fly except ramming other dragons which required slamming your controller left or right direction. The last few levels were epic in scale and combat especially the one in which there were floating islands or rocks all over the place.

MAG is awesome! SVER ftw! Ravens are still not putting up a good enough fight against SVER in Domination unlike Valors who've become quite aggressive at defending and attacking.

Deeloc3212d ago


FragGen3211d ago (Edited 3211d ago )

I LOVE MAG, but am not shocked by the extreme ups and downs the scores have shown from reviewers. In fact, I thought it would lean much more toward the negative in general because it is a genre buster.

@pixelsword: excellent analysis. Your comments apply to not only reviewers but players. You can tell a lot of people who don't "get" it are really frustrated by those that do, too. I think this game feels almost threatening to some people who don't get it, in fact.

Ironically, these are the same people calling out for evolutionary steps in franchises like BC2 and MW2 that would eventually lead to a product more similar to MAG.

I hope Zipper continues to aggressively support MAG. Much of it's full potential has yet to be tapped.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3211d ago
mprunty3212d ago

I took my time with the review before putting it together. i wanted to make sure I experienced everything within the game before I pass judgment. It's a solid online gaming experience that Zipper Interactive has created. I believe some of those who hate the game, either never gave it a chance or don't like FPS titles, which would make perfect since and how people will try to nit pick at the game.

RememberThe3573212d ago

Thanks for that. A reviewer taking time to understand a game... Such a rarity these days.

nix3212d ago

but do correct this line - "As if right this article, I have invested more than..."

nitpicking, that's me. q:

Conventional3212d ago

they made it clear that initial impressions would be off- for good or bad, and decided to postpone their review until things settle down, a full community comes in, and minor bugs are patched.

Butt Shingles3212d ago

But shouldnt a game be based off the original content that it came with? Any publisher can continually patch bugs or fix things as time goes on or as errors are exploited, but it seems unfair to allow time for patching. The finished product should be reviewed, otherwise any game that has flaws should be reviewed twice, initially and after patched.

Bathyj3212d ago

Whats the harm in waiting a little while?

You know very well a bad review can sink a game. So many idiots take the first impression and will cling to it to the grave.

A review is suppossed to give an accurate impression of the quality of the product you're getting. If it has a couple bugs out of the box but there are patches available with in a couple days, wouldnt you want to know those fixes are available?

They're not about to re-review a game later and give it extra points, so in the case of a multiplayer only game which is a living, growing thing, why not give it chance to get on its feet. Its a more accurate description of what you are going to get if you buy the game a month or two after launch.

Other wise to be a jerk, why not get the game on launch day and then complain that there were no players and the game is a dud, something which would only be a temporary situation.

Look at the people posting last night they couldnt find a game for AvP. They were the very first to get the demo. Should that be their lasting impression of the game? Is that an ancurate representation of what I will get when I buy it?

RAAAAAGE3212d ago

It's online only. There's no way that you can play the retail version after it's been patched. If they wait to review it, it should be reviewed at the current state.

FragGen3211d ago

This review approach makes much more sense with an online only game to me too. An online only game with dedicated servers maintained by the manufacturer is as much a service as it is a retail product and as such merits a different review methodology from a traditional stand alone product.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3211d ago
40cal3212d ago (Edited 3212d ago )

Level 25 and still loving every second.

Dead_Cell3212d ago

The original scores were bad.
The newer scores are good.

Deeloc3212d ago


Show all comments (39)
The story is too old to be commented.