MAG 2 Months Later writes : "At the time of our review and like so many others at the time, we said that because of the nature of MAG that it would need to be revisited in a number of weeks to see how it is fairing. So here we are 2 months later and we are going back to have that second look to see if the criticism's levelled at it at the time still hold up to be true or have the detractors been proven wrong.

First of we must look back at the reviews at that time and pick out the issues raised that they thought would influence the games success or failure and revisit them. Some of these issues included that MAG would struggle to find enough players, that it offered nothing new to the table, that the magic number 256 was just a marketing tool, that after a while all that would be left would be "clans or idiots", that it would suffer from the lack of mic's on PSN. Or that as soon as Battlefield came along it would kill it off.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Blaster_Master3188d ago

"At the time of our review and like so many others at the time, we said that because of the nature of MAG that it would need to be revisited in a number of weeks to see how it is fairing."

Sounds like a smart idea. Especially since the game is a new IP and issues that could have been fixed easily (better graphics, particle and special effects, gun/gameplay fixes and tweaks, dlc, ect, ect..). considering it was an exclusive online only fps. The support for this game is second to none in this biz.

Nobody even gave the game a chance, which is sad cause after those updates I have never been able to play any other shooter without undeniably wanting to just go back to MAG.

The game features 3 different factions alone, with totally different points of gameplay elements, points of interest, communication elements, and so much more. I really could go on, but i think im just gonna jump on now. Double XP Weekend all day baby!

-Alpha3188d ago (Edited 3188d ago )

MAG is good. But it's not fair to say nobody gave MAG a chance. The problem with nearly all multiplayer games is that reviews barely play them in-depth. They judge the game on the surface, for better or worse.

Look at MW2 for example. On the surface it's a good, accessible game but once you play it long enough you know how bad it is.

With MAG, it's a good game, but two months later I wouldn't say it holds up to games like BC2. I'm not sure if I'll go back to MAG personally, but if there is one thing people are starving for its more maps.

People make a ton of excuses for MAG, some of them fair, some of them completely fallacious. It doesn't change the fact the game has been getting good 7-9 scores, but so many people look at the number and then automatically assume the game sucks. Not every exclusive game deserves an instant 9+ score, nor does is the game bad for not getting AAA.

I've said it before: Every MP game, and especially a MP-only game like MAG deserves a more in-depth review. I don't think my opinion on MAG has changed-- it's a fun game with typical flaws.

alphakennybody3187d ago

@ alpha male

how many times do people have to repeat. The scores themselves aren't the problem, its the reasoning behind em where it lies. And manyfailed to review it properly and basically went " uh its no a MW2 so its bad" Bullshit.

"I wouldn't say it holds up to games like BC2" I think it hold pretty damn well even without a campaign, honestly the only thing going for battlefield is the destructive environment. Where esle on a console can you find a large scale yet well coordinated battles that even some small scale mp shooter have hard time doing?

PinkUni3187d ago

i totally agree with you

a multiplayer experience is not something for normal reviewer

its really does take time to understand what games are like, and playing it for 2 days and writing a 5 page review about it is total bullsh!t

i should even say that playing it for a month is still total bullsh!t because theres just that many variables you have to consider about multiplayer games.

one game that really surprised me was rainbow six vegas. i played it a couple of months, it was fun, but when i started getting good at it, and noticing how well the setup was and how much attention they payed to things like flanks and points where the 2 teams meet in the beginning of a match its incredibly balanced.

now dont think that i thought that game was good only because i was good at it

im good at mw2 too, but you start to notice how much BS is in the game.
and by BS that means they script multiplayer events. things that help you out more then they should or things that seem impossible, but they happen all the time.

if you really compare the attention to their maps, you'll notice that call of duty really just makes kill spots where if you go through a doorway or and open area, theres so many flanks that you'll most likely die(except for overgrown, thats their only good map), but other games like rainbow six or counterstrike or battlefield

its more of a, the decisions you make are really your fault.

kaveti66163187d ago

Better graphics? I doubt that MAG has been patched to have better graphics.

sikbeta3187d ago (Edited 3187d ago )

You know what's the main problems with the reviews, "reviewers" were complaining and taking points for:

2·Lack of Single Player
3·The independent "experience" with The Game, being an On-Line Multiplayer Tactical First Person Shooter in which you have to cooperate whit your team-mates in order to succeed don't let you "experience" the same thing cuz you rely on your team and if your team $ucks the game goes nowhere, the same goes if you want to play lone-wolf, read the 1UP review of MAG, one of the last paragraphs talk about this, not like I'm saying right now, but the reviewer complaint about some d-bags on his team when they had to clear an area but they rejected and went to kill guys from the enemy Faction, so he was

jjohan353187d ago

The problem I have with this article is that it initially sets itself to analyze the high and low points made by other initial reviews. While I agree that MAG can be fun, the entire article was about defending its original review and how everyone was wrong. It simply argued how other reviews have been wrong, but nowhere did it state at any point that the other reviews turned out right. In my opinion, this article is biased and was simply written to defend its original review without offering counterpoints AT ALL. This is regardless whether the game was MAG, Halo, or any other game.

FrankenLife3187d ago

In just about every review they talked about the steep learning curve. Some took that as a huge negative, while a few didn't. The little training thing didn't really teach the player anything at all. Sure they gradually let you play the more complicated modes after you have learned the simpler ones, but that isn't quite what a lot of people want. They don't explain equipping, reviving, giving orders, using command abilities, etc. This confusion has kept a lot of people from seeing just how great the game is. In a society that loves immediate gratification, this is a huge detraction.

Another thing keeping some people away is it's hardcore team focus. Those who are so used to watching their k/d, and just trying to get the highest kills in a match, won't get much out of this game. You're k/d doesn't mean anything if you can't keep your bunker up or capture an objective. You're 1337 sniping skills won't take down their AA, and that is fantastic. It is so wonderful to play a FPS where snipers are near obsolete.

While these things are generally considered negative by some people, I really like it. The steep learning curve, means that it is a deep game. People who wouldn't be into that, and won't want to play as a team are scared off. The way the game makes it so hard to play like CoD is beautiful. If you're not willing to work as a team, take orders, revive, and sometimes make a sacrifice, then you won't get anything out of the game.

I really appreciate it when games are made for a specific audience. Games that are designed to appeal to everyone come across generic, all be it popular. Not all games can be Demon's Souls, MAG, or even Bayonetta(to a certain degree), but I am really thankful for them.

-Alpha3187d ago (Edited 3187d ago )

Actually, that's my point friend: people will look at the score and then judge the game. Apparently a 7-8/10 is too low of a score for some people, and without reading the justifications for the review they will deem the review worthless. I don't understand why MAG has to get 9/10 scores like some people expect. Is it just because it's an exclusive?

I would LOVE people to judge games based on content, but it's much more easier to look at score.

I know that smarter people, like you, will look at the content and make a much better conclusion, and I have no problem with that. When I look at MAG I see that some reviewers really didn't give it enough time, but does ANY Multiplayer game get enough review time? No!

It's the same with MAG, but fans are complaining the other way around. Look at games like MW2 and multiplayer reviews don't consider balancing or how fair the game is. They see cool new perks, new maps, and think it's "great". With MAG, the reviews weren't as great, but that didn't make the game bad.

Anybody and everybody that scored it 6-8 were trashed on by at least one fanboy. The score for the game is fine. It's not a AAA in my books, and it has numerous flaws, but the excuses were rampant: "biased site, nooby player, go back to COD". It's ridiculous that people ask for fair reviews but are unwilling to cope with MAG getting decent (not great) scores.


I find MAG to be the Demon's Souls of FPS's. That is not a bad thing at all, I find a lot of satisfaction in winning, co-operating, and killing in MAG. Zipper did a great job structuring the game.

Tony P3187d ago

Great idea, but it'd be a lot more meaningful to get the word on this from a site that wasn't already in love with the game.

Am I really going to get a clear picture of the game from someone who has absolutely no criticisms of it? And belittles any other game like it?

We have a word for people who do that and it ain't "gamer".

FrankenLife3187d ago

@Alpha Male

The game isn't a 5/5(I won't use a 10 point system), it is a 4/5. In order for this game to get higher marks it needs, more weapon choices all around, LMG balancing(a really heavy inaccurate gun should feel really heavy and inaccurate.), a 3 faction king of the hill mode, at least 3 maps per mode per faction, and better animations.

What they made isn't an outstanding game, it is an outstanding framework and foundation for the future. I hope they keep building and adding to this for a long time before MAG 2 is even announced.

I totally agree about how it feels to win. Those times when your team gets steamrolled, but your team pulls it together, fixes everything, and works as a team to push them back is so incredibly satisfying. Or giving that balls out rush in the last moments of Domination to do that extra bit of damage to win in the knick of time. People congratulating others after a match is something that I have never heard in CoD.

BattleAxe3187d ago

I was in the Beta, but didn't think it would be as good as Battlefield or MW2, and I knew I wanted to devote alot of time to Battlefield, so I've skipped it and I'm now waiting on Socom4.

mastiffchild3187d ago

MAG was stupidly reveiwed by people who, you would argue, MUST have known what they were doing, no? WHY review a game that basically IS it's community and it's factions when they haven't had chance to form?

I'd love a situation to arise where we end up with a review presale for the offline game and another, a little later to review the MP/online stuff-where either/both are relevant.

Other thing people misunderstood from afar(not those of us who played the betas)is that it was always likely to be a pretty niche title but FOR the gamers who are drawn to it there's a big chance of it becoming among their favourites just because, to me, when a game goes great, with great leaders, great squad and decent enemies yet you pull off all your fragos and win the match with amazingly tight team play it's near untouchable for a sense of achievement.

So, I get why gamers might not find it their thing as it's a little more complex that your MW2 or BFBC2(if I'm frank) and just appeals to a different crowd nby and large. True aqua shooters always have done.

JL3187d ago

"It's so nice to play a FPS where snipers are obsolete."

Umm...what? Are we playing the same game? Either you suck at sniping or you're one of those sniper-haters or you just haven't been around any of the good ones (there are plenty).

A sniper in this game can be absolutely crucial (or at the very least a godsend). A GOOD sniper can pull some serious weight holding points down and many other things. I've been in games where one or two good snipers would completely half the map for our team because you're just too afraid (or too smart) to go that one side due to knowing that sniper is going to get you. In that sense he just restricts your movement and sort of funnels you where he wants you to go and that's where the sniper's team sets up and waits to dish out an ass whooping. Again..and again...and again.

On the other hand snipers can be very efficient for taking points as well. Snipers are amazing for covering an obstacle that you've just armed with a bomb. They sit there and ensure nobody comes around to diffuse it. That in itself can be vastly helpful. Especially when they can also set up to make sure nobody repairs it as well.

So there are many many uses for snipers. They are FAR from obsolete. You just suck at it or haven't met any that actually do their job.'re one of those many sniper-haters that typically hate snipers just cause you keep getting killed by them. Whatever the case though, you can NOT honestly say snipers are obsolete in this game.

BoneIdle3187d ago

@jjohan35 : the article doesnt set out to examine the high and low points it sets out to revisit the points reviews made when saying MAG would fail thats why it says "we are going back to have that second look to see if the criticism's levelled at it at the time still hold up to be true or have the detractors been proven wrong"

@tonyp : Are you saying you would get a clearer picture about MAG from someone that hated it and didnt play it anymore or someone who has played it non stop and has seen all its good and bad points??

jjohan353187d ago

"First of we must look back at the reviews at that time and pick out the issues raised that they thought would influence the games success or failure and revisit them."

They didn't discuss anything that would influence the games failure AT ALL. I'm not attacking the game. I'm attacking this article.

BoneIdle3187d ago

It never set out to address the games failures the article set out to address issued raised back in January by other reviewers that they said would lead to the game not being successfull.

It isnt a review its addressing the points made unfairly by others back in January as at that time it was impossible to say the points raised would come true or not.

jjohan353186d ago

I just quoted the line to you. I have no idea what you are arguing about anymore when the quoted line from the article just proved your assumption as being incorrect.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 3186d ago
Dellis3188d ago

this is garbage, drop this IP right away and act like it never existed

bring over the network to Socom 5 and it will be a win

Bathyj3187d ago

I cant understand why someone with such personality has only one bubble.

Drithe3188d ago

Yah ok. Do you actually get to fight against 3 factions at once? No you dont. So in that aspect it doesnt really mean anything, even if you have 10 different factions.

But the online support is good. I like the way you can train in different areas and make up your own type of soilder by mixing up stuff. Mag has more options than BF BC 2 in terms of what your character will use.

But Im not willing to pay 63 bucks for a game that has NO SINGLE PLAYER MODE. The graphics suck compared to BF BC2 as well. I mean the graphics are not bad at all, considering how many people play Mag though.

Mag should have been marketed better. MAG SHOULD HAVE HAD OPEN BETA INSTEAD OF PRIVATE BETA the first time. The ONLY REASON they had an OPEN BETA was because of the HUGE POPULARITY OF THE BATTLEFIELD BAD COMPANY 2 OPEN BETA and how everyone was talking about it.

Mag IS infact a good game. I got EVERYTHING in BFBC 2 now. The new BF BC 2 expansion coming out ONLY HAS 2 NEW LEVELS, CAMO FOR THE LAST WEAPONS OF EACH CLASS, and NO NEW WEAPONS OR STUFF TO USE in game. This tells me that they are DONE with BF BC 2.

I myself would buy MAG and play it in another month, BUT IM NOT PAYING 65 dollars for an ONLINE ONLY GAME! Most other people will not as well.

End of Line.

BoneIdle3188d ago

I wouldnt let the fact its only online put you off it. As its the online where you get your money's worth with FPS. Too many shooters just tack on a online feature that just rehashes maps from the single player mode. This is dedicated to the online experience so caters for it giving you that extra value and as long as you enjoy it its worth the money.

Blaster_Master3188d ago

Agreed. The fact that its a dedicated online experience gives the devs more room to work with. Like I said above, every updates adds more and more elements to the game that would end up making the single player obsolete regardless. And lets face it, your not gonna put in 100 plus hours in a fps single player mode. If anything Drieth. You sound more and more like a troll then anything, esepcially since your acting like your opinions are facts.

IMO Bad Company looks great, but the shooting mechanics aren't even half that of MAG. The guns in Bad company are boring for the most part. And like you said it, you only getting a few maps and camo's with the upcoming dlc. We have been getting free dlc for the past month. So ya, I think the game is worth full price. Matter of fact, I cant say that about 95% of the games that have come out this gen.

ThanatosDMC3187d ago (Edited 3187d ago )

For me, BC2 was a waste of $54.11. I bought for the PC. Looks great but was extremely lacking compared to MAG.

32 players for a war game isnt enough anymore they could have increased it to 64.

MAG is the FPS game to play. For those who havent played it, rent it first. You need to get to lv8 before you unlock domination mode or join a friend's group and launch together.

Btw, in MAG you can talk with other people other than your squad as long as they're close to you. I just realized this awesomeness not too long ago. Squad members can talk to each other no matter how far they are from each other but other teammates can communicate via closeness. I think that had this in Socom.

Remember to download the unlock keys of their so-called "dlc" in the PS store. Flashbangs and the Medium Improved armors.

kneon3187d ago (Edited 3187d ago )

I don't understand why people complain about paying full price for an online only game. The last 3 FPS games I've bought are MW2, MAG and BF:BC2. I finished the single player campaign on the normal and hardest setting in both MW2 and BF:BC2 and each took about a total of 11 hours for both play throughs combined, they were just far too easy. The online component in both games got old fast so I probably put in less than 30 hours between the two. The online was just so dull compared to MAG or KZ2.

With MAG I'm closing in on 70 hours. It would have probably been double that but Heavy Rain came along and then I spent the last week playing through GOW 1 and 2 before moving on to GOW 3.

So I've got more value out of MAG than MW2 and BF:BC2 combined. And I'll be back to playing MAG full time again really soon so I'm getting my moneys worth on the game.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3187d ago
Dylantalon13187d ago

MAG is the best online multiplayer shooter ever because of its ambitions, goals, and what online shooters try to accomplish full stop. a car can have all the technology in the world while being able to cook rice but if it doesn't do what it sets out to do then you have a sophisticated rice cooker. people have different tastes in things and my favourite shooter is killzone 2 but i acknowledge MAG for what it is and i also love playing it because it gives me a sense of what its like on a real battlefield where i'm immersed in the experience. a lot of other shooters feels like i'm running around in a big parking lot. to each his own, MAG is amazing.

MiloGarret3187d ago

Did you lose your talent?

Come on, your signature line always cracked me up, bring it back!

cmrbe3187d ago

are part of a team and in a great big war that is more important than yourself.

However my only complaint is that you are not allowed to change your faction only a set amount of time.

I really hoped that there would be at least 3 times you can switch so that you can test which fraction you might want to join in the long run.

Blaster_Master3187d ago

Its called Veteran Mode. Once you level up all the way you have a choice to stay with that faction, or change factions, all while keeping your stats, and you get a bonus 10% experience every time you do it.

BTW, MAG>BC2 plain and simple. I could go on why, but unlike most of you noobs, I dont need to justify my purchase. I really am genuinely in love with this game. Ill get BC2 when its in the bargain bin. Maybe.