Latest MAG Reviews Lack Credibility

NextGN writes: "We are starting to see MAG (Massive Action Game) reviews surface around the web. It may not seem so strange considering the game is due out for release tomorrow (26th of January) in the U.S.A and three days later in Europe, but the truth is that all of this so-called "reviews" cannot be based on anything other than the BETA since the officials servers don´t go live until the eve of the release day."

The story is too old to be commented.
WildArmed3191d ago

wait.. your calling sites like Destructoid bloggers?

I guess I havn't been here long enough after all o_o

I honestly thought they were legit sources like IGN m8

deadreckoning6663191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

"I honestly thought they were legit sources like IGN m8"

IGN is a credible source? Aren't these the guys that gave GT4 a 10/10 and Gears 2 a 9.4?

"MAG will be just the same way. and probably be a bigger fanbase than KZ2"

Whatever ur smoking, I want some!

@Odion- IMO, you can't go wrong with Destructoid. Honest reviews from honest gamers. Of course, everyone is human and they have their preferences but the people at Destructoid give 100% non-biased reviews and if they do have a bias they will let the reader know at the beginning of the review. Also, their articles are long and detailed.

"destructoid gave AC2 4.5, is that fine?"
Yep, its perfectly fine actually. There were enough legitimate flaws in that review that justified the score. Same with Infamous. COLD-HARD-TRUTH

nycredude3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )


So now all we have to do is watch videos and we know all about a game right? Then what is the point of picking up the controls and playing? Maybe they should just start developing prerendered scenes from now on instead of games for people like you 360 owners who obviously rather watch than play.

Seriously there is no way you can scratch the surface of this game in a few hours. I have to admit in the beginning it could be daunting as you get your feet wet and figure out the controls, objectives and just what your supposed to do. However once you get the hang of it the brilliance of it shines through. I recommend this to any one interested in tacticle military shooters, not that noob friendly garbage activision craps out every year!


None of these sites are legitimate sources. They are all run by humans, and everyone is susceptible to a bit of fab0yism and hype.

GT4 didn't deserve 10 and Gear is not a 9.4.

I bought both Gears game on hype when I picked up my 360 and even though I tried countless times to play them I still can't get past 30 minutes into both games. They just downright boring! I don't know what the fuss is all about. And GTA4 I still haven't finish cause it's just downright sucks and boring too!

WildArmed3191d ago

well you can't exactly call IGN a blogger site.. thats all i meant.
Credible in the sense that they are recognized in the gaming media or w/e.

90% of the gaming sites are biased in some way or another.

Btw i thought Gears 2 was good, but GTA 4 sucked imo

Odion3191d ago

first up Dead kuddos on the cool name from a great zombie film.

What is a credible site in your opinion?

UnSelf3191d ago

the only credible review source is.....

Your own

3191d ago
Montrealien3191d ago

shhh Bubbles!

They must not know our secret...

raztad3191d ago


Thats why Zipper set up an open beta, for a full week. Still limited to a few maps, but it was enough to have a solid taste of what the final product would be. Now if you are a reviewer it's advised to have the final product, and play it thoroughly, in order to pass a good judgement, otherwise you will be reviewing the game off a "demo".

MAg is proving to be quite a singular game, even hard to review. As this article says "it's like reviewing WoW". I do agree MAG has a MMO like structure, Massive, Multiplayer only and Online.

3191d ago
Elven63191d ago

I checked a few press areas and it seems there was a review event in London (I think) for M.A.G. recently.

I personally don't use reviews to judge multiplayer only games, hell, I still play Shadowrun on a almost daily basis and that game still has a great online community. According to most reviews, that game should have been dead ages ago.

WildArmed3191d ago

but but but the metacritic scoooreezzzz o_o
They are the gospel of gaming..
Does not compute.
*shuts down*
Please upgrade to firmware 4.0

bioshock12213191d ago

Destructoid is legitimately source they have had some exclusive news if I can recall. Plus I don't see why the MAG reviews aren't credible since most of the websites that have released them are pretty credible if you look at their history. It's not like some unknown website posted the review. Plus most of those reviewers said that Sony held an event for the press to review the game. So if it wasn't ready apparently then why did Sony make that event.

PoSTedUP3191d ago

the reviews lack credibility, not the site.

because they are reviewing a beta.

and i thought GT1 GT2 GT3 GT4 all dererved a 10/10 because thoes are my fav games, GT4 being the best imo.

kewlkat0073191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

Quite!t, solid reviews will be out in like 2 days. really, no need for this article.

I mean really...Geeez

You die hard PS3 fans go nuts when PS3 exclusives score lower than expected. When in fact, the most credible review should be your own. You just don't see this extreme with other platforms.

JokesOnYou3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

So some n4g ps3 extremists wrote a blogg about reviews for MAG not being creditable. I guess if its not at 10 it doesn't count, if you guys were paying attention there was a media event held where many sites/journalists played the game in full 256 player matches, all the modes. Just becaus sony said there wasn't alot of reviews yet since the servers are not up doesn't mean some site haven't already played enough at the media event to make a judgement. Plus its a multiplayer only game so its not like they have to play 8-9hrs to finish the story before judging the game accurately, NO, you play the game as it was intended to be played= 256 player+different modes and thats pretty much it, you like it, love it, or hated. lol you guys always over-react to score's that aren't 10's. Sour grapes.


edit: vvvvv, Genesis5 yes for most of the general public that is true, however once again many of the early reviews are from game journalists/reviewers who attended Sony's Mag Event:

"After explaining the intricacies of the game’s XP and ranking systems, 128 of Europe’s finest were let loose onto the floor, for a
ten minute, feet-finding training session. The day then consisted of one blistering game after another"

-I mean sure its understandable if some want to wait to play with everyday people, and under a "less controlled" environment, but I would say the early reviews had the best possible situation, so if anything their reviews might be more positive. What exactly going to make a reviewer like it more, after the first few days of playing online on "real" servers, vs in a all day event?

DMason3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )


Thats where youre wrong. Reviewing Halo:Reach from the multiplayer beta and MAG from the beta is two completely different situations. Halo Reach has a full single player campaign to go along with it. MAG is solely online. The only thing that has changed since the Beta is most likely maps/weapons etc.

On top of all this, Ive heard that Zipper held an event for journos to review the game in full. IGN even had its own tournament. Its amazing what biased sites come up with to trash the credibility of other sites to gain hits.

Genesis53191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

Jokes on you. The game isn't out yet. It doesn't go live until tomorrow. How have these people already written their reviews? Last time I checked sites with credibilty don't write their final reviews based on beta game play.

At the Maxx. No they haven't played it in all modes yet. Because the biggest one is releasing it to the public and it hasn't happened yet.

The Maxx3191d ago

He just told you.

" if you guys were paying attention there was a media event held where many sites/journalists played the game in full 256 player matches, all the modes. Just becaus sony said there wasn't alot of reviews yet since the servers are not up doesn't mean some site haven't already played enough at the media event to make a judgement."

Bigpappy3191d ago

You can't just run out there and buy games based on what fanboys say. The media is there to help inform. People will go with the reviewers they trust. If the beta is all they had to base the review on, then that is what they must review. Hopefully the developer put enough of the game up there that much would not have changed when the servers go live. The reviews are not bogus if the reviewer played the beta. Those of you who are saying how great Mag is are basing your conclusions on the same beta.

blahgasm3191d ago

I was trying to illustrate a point about reviewing a game off of a beta. And there are plenty of people who will never play the SP part of Reach.

I agree that this article is ridiculous, but even with Zipper holding an event, there are an awful lot of negative reviews coming out. I'm not saying MAG is the best game ever, but I find it a bit difficult that all of these blogs got invited to a press event when they aren't that big.

Marceles3191d ago

Eh...don't know why everyone is complaining. You know even if they did wait until the game is out they would keep the same review.

TheDeadMetalhead3191d ago

"Latest MAG Reviews Lack Credibility"

Thank you Captain Obvious.

JokesOnYou3191d ago

What are you talking about Zipper set this event up, specifically because they knew MAG is a online multiplayer only game so this would be many journo's only way to experience the game in full and they played all the modes, it was just a closed environment. And again, do you think journo's are going to have a better experience on launch day? At least with them being all in the same room the online experience(lag) could be optimized.


3191d ago
Christopher3191d ago

Destructoid has on numerous times called themselves a gaming blog site and don't call themselves journalists.

SilentNegotiator3191d ago

Try READING the article.

They couldn't have reviewed the whole game because THE SERVERS AREN'T FREAKING UP AND RUNNING YET.

Genesis53191d ago

No I don't see them changing their review from playing online on launch day. Actually most launch days don't run to smooth. All I'm saying is the most sites have held back on their reviews until the game is actually live.

I believe the author of this article to be correct in saying that this game will take more than one days play to accurately assess all it's game play elements.

Chubear3191d ago

Like I've said, give it 2s all day long, come tomorrow I'm slaughtering SVER & RAVEN along with tonnes of other gamers while naysayers will be enjoying laughing at "iz teh 2/10" on N4G lol


randomwiz3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

in my opinion, reviewers should atleast wait a week. I mean think about playing MAG with no Squad leaders... horrible!

the destructoid review just basically sums up MAG.
"Most importantly, however, is the fact that MAG's concept works. It works very well, in fact. What more could you want?"

goflyakite3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

lol the moderating on this site is a joke. please dont delete some comments that include one word (bots) if you're not going to delete some comments that are reported and have such blatant fanboy undertones (and some that actually make it clear).

"please leave your fanboyism at the door" taken from the gamer zone rules. yea right, they forgot to say that it only applies to some.

anyways i agree with the article. the reviewers haven't gotten the full experience, or even enough time with the game (the "event") to properly review it.

darthv723191d ago

I honestly don't think there will be much difference between the current beta and the final servers. The amount of players are what is really differentiates the finished product from the beta in my opinion.

The game is fun and pretty basic. Why can't someone review their experience from what they have played? After all, a review is nothing more than an opinion. You don't have to agree with it to decide on if you get the game or not.

My experience I give it a solid 8. Playing with 256 players at once wont change that score because it doesnt really change the game. Just more players. It isnt like magically the servers go up and bam, we get crysis gfx and total 3d immersive gameplay. What you are playing now will be the same as what you play next week or next month or next year. Player capacity is the games selling point.

A good game none the less.

DaTruth3191d ago

Ya, some sites went to the special event; But are you telling me Destructoid Bloggers flew to London to play the game! Even if there was an event in US, it will probably still be necessary for them to jump on a plane for it!

travelguy2k3190d ago (Edited 3190d ago )

got to play the final build with a character at level 60.

What these reviews fail to consider is than none of them did any of the work to get to that point.

What most reviews say is that no one knows what they are doing and there is no teamwork. NO KIDDING.

If you have never played (insert game name here), and you buddy hands you the controlled for the last level, how much "fun" will it be? you have no clue what to do, and barley know the controls.

This game is much more complicated than most shooters, and there is going to be a longer learning curve. If the reviewers were actually given the proper amount of time to get to level 60 for themselves (20 probably would be high enough) and were not under the pressure of a deadline, i think the reviews would be better the longer they played.

I am getting this regardless....

Edit: Closed servers just for the press event. I think they have the technology.

Red Panda3190d ago (Edited 3190d ago )

is a piece of poop that just won't fall. ANNOYING and DISGUSTING. They play the popularity game like everyone else. That is not legit. We need a site that is run by people for fun and not to make a living off of it. They kiss ass to pay their bills. That is not believable or credible journalism. Panda vanish................

+ Show (32) more repliesLast reply 3190d ago
yoghurt3191d ago

But what is being said is true, the servers haven't been up - you simply cannot review a game that's main strength is online only and 256 player battles. Sony should ban all these sites that have posted a review, simple.

-Alpha3191d ago

Yes, the embargo still isn't up and it lacks credibility, but articles like this are delaying the inevitable.

I strongly doubt that even after the embargo is lifted that this game will garner AA+

Unless these websites missed something REALLY big then I don't see the big deal.

At the end of the day, these sites are small and will be forgotten, but it's not the numerical value they give but the content of the review that matters. And, regardless if it is a beta or not, it seems that people are finding the game to be average.

Still, I agree with the article, but I still don't think it makes a big difference.

IndigoProductions3191d ago

Alpha, I think the point is that these sites threw the review out as a chance to get traffic to their site. A rather dirty thing to do, and very unprofessional, if you ask me.

-Alpha3191d ago

Your right, and I do agree with you-- but at the same time, I don't think it will make a difference in relevance to the outlook on MAG. And right now, that's the concern and I feel that these articles are trying to delay the inevitable. I am wondering if this article would even exist if only the first two reviews for MAG (Which gave it 80) were the only ones available.

But regardless of my accusation, yes, once the embargo is out nobody will care for these reviews, but I don't think that they are far off from the finished product. Betas usually don't change drastically and considering MAG is multiplayer only I do not think that there is a drastic difference in the end when the reviews are all said and done.

3191d ago
-MoOkS-3191d ago

Shouldnt have given it all the hype, then you wouldnt have to defend it when it flops. You honestly thought it would be good because it had 256 players? the game looked like a mess from the first time i saw it.

Anorexorcist3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

"You honestly thought it would be good because it had 256 players?"

Well we all know for sure you wouldn't have seen this game in anything other than a negative light. After all, Gears of War 2 and it's astoundingly ambitious 5-on-5 multiplayer was enough to make idiots like you swoon.

If MAG was on the Xbox 360 I'm sure you would be nothing but optimistic concerning the scope of this game's multiplayer offerings.

-MoOkS-3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

all the best multiplayer games are played 4vs4+ , halo 1, 2, 3, Counterstrike, cod 1, 2, 4, even bf is played 4vs4 competitively. See the trend? anyone who plays online games competitively knew this game would flop hard. 256 is just bad, simple as that. More players doesnt = good, infact, less is usually better

gtamike1233191d ago

Save that crap in the Open Zone.
I beat you have not even played the game or even have the money to buy a PS3.

ZombieNinjaPanda3191d ago

@ Mooks

I'm pretty sure that BF2 is played in 64 player matches. At least that's what I remember the most.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3191d ago
tdrules3191d ago

1) Site doesn't give a first party game 9 or 10/10

Rock Bottom3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

1) Said game is an online only game which servers aren't up yet.
2) Their review is based on an hour or so press event, which was the only place they had a chance to play the RETAIL version of the game.
3) Even there, they only played the 128 player mode, when the game's main selling point is its 256 multiplayer mode.

Surly those reviews are 100% credible...

I know how people here cry about bad reviews for first party games, it's sad, but linking that to every criticism directed at any review without looking at the facts is just as bad.

goflyakite3191d ago

Just another small mind that doesn't understand what the article is saying, forget about it Rock.