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
I guess this review is fake two? lmao
Sooo.. can i scratch this one from the PS3s "AAA" list?
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.
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?
those who played the beta and enjoyed it should go out and support this game....so what if the reviews arent perfect....