860°
7.6

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 >>
uk.ps3.ign.com
PlaystationSamurai5196d ago

I guess this review is fake two? lmao

ryuzu5196d ago (Edited 5196d 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.

r.

Lucreto5196d ago (Edited 5196d 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.

@TheHater
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.

TheHater5196d 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.

WildArmed5196d 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 :)

darx5196d ago

Or are there pre-set types?

callahan095196d 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_Master5196d ago (Edited 5196d 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 royale5196d ago

@callahan

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.

JokesOnYou5196d ago (Edited 5196d 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.

JOY

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

callahan095196d 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!

Montrealien5196d 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?

Disccordia5196d 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 royale5196d 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.

callahan095196d 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.

raztad5196d 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.

callahan095196d ago

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

mint royale5196d ago (Edited 5196d 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.

5196d ago
sack_boi5196d ago

I'll be getting the game very soon.

GreenRingOfLife5196d ago

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

sikbeta5196d 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...

pixelsword5196d ago (Edited 5196d 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.

FamilyGuy5196d ago (Edited 5196d 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.