IGN MAG Review

IGN Says: MAG Does a lot of things right - it's a solid shooter, and has shown that having a large number of players doesn't have to choke up the gameplay. Unfortunately, it didn't show that more players means more fun. Bugs, imbalances, and a lack of content for the price make what could have been an excellent game just decent

LordMarius5051d ago (Edited 5051d ago )

"MAG Does a lot of things right - it's a solid shooter, and has shown that having a large number of players doesn't have to choke up the gameplay. Unfortunately, it didn't show that more players means more fun. Bugs, imbalances, and a lack of content for the price make what could have been an excellent game just decent."

Better luck next time Zipper

5051d ago
Jamegohanssj55051d ago (Edited 5051d ago )

Not sure if you all know this or not, but IGN actually changed the score from a 6.5 to a 7.0. Fishy.



-Alpha5051d ago (Edited 5051d ago )

Many fanboys kept insisting that more players= better game and kept trying to spit on lower-numbered games which was very stupid of them. I take pleasure in laughing at them now.

Anyways, whether that statement applies to MAG or not is a mixed bag since the opinion is so split.

I expected higher from IGN and considering that I did believe the game would open up with more time spent with it. Regardless, it's still a good score and in no way should this be looked down upon-- MAG was never hyped to be AAA and the A-AA scores it's receiving sits fine with me and the general attitude people had before MAG came out. If I'm not mistaken, the game did not receive K2 or UC2 hype. But I hear a stampede of angry PS3 fans so I'm going to go microwave my popcorn...

A PS3 exclusive receiving under AAA is bound to be turned into a bad thing... despite the fact that not every PS3 game needs to be hyped AAA and despite the fact that MAG wasn't hyped AAA itself except by a few fanboys who think that every PS3 game has to be AAA in order for it to be a good game. It's those guys that are going to be most upset with this score.


I think it's entirely subjective. I have just as much fun with a 5 on 5 game of Halo or Uncharted 2, a 6 on 6 game of COD, a 12 on 12 game of Bad Company, etc. But in no way should people arrogantly claim that more players= more fun than less player.

People were really bashing smaller player games despite the fact that large war games and smaller games are two entirely different designed games requiring different mechanics of play.

I'm not saying 128 players on one screen isn't fun, but I don't think it's fair to say that it's objectively better or more fun than playing a game of Free For All in a smaller-numbered game.

The thing people kept saying is that MAG was going to set new standards. I think it set a new standard but it's not something that every FPS needs to hit. Again, more players doesn't mean better game. It's not like BFBC2 coming out next month is going to be inferior because it has less players-- you simply have to understand that that's how the game is built.

I generally like smaller games because it's more personal and you develop a relationship with the enemy players, but I wouldn't say that larger games are therefore inferior because it doesn't do the same. Larger games simply have different standards and achieve different experiences.

Cyrax_875051d ago

After watching that video of the 128 SVERS's stampeding, it looks ALOT more fun.

only on playstaychun5051d ago

Zipper are trying to simulate a real battlefield. I doubt you can do that with MW2 6v6 running and gunning. I dont think size is the issue here. The issue seems to be that there is a lot of love or hate for this game.

deadreckoning6665051d ago (Edited 5051d ago )

Great Score...if ur a gamer. If ur a PS3 fanboy...not so good.

Edit: Only a PS3 fanboy would be offended by my comment so I take it u guys are here already =D

callahan095051d ago (Edited 5051d ago )

Completely disagree with this review. The game is brilliant. Phenomenal level/map design (and shipped with 15 maps, all of which are absolutely huge)... great upgrade system... unique, complex and fun tactical objectives in each different game mode... cool leadership and experience point system... interesting backstory and implications of the shadow war (requires going to MAG.com, but it still counts)... solid controls... good graphics and sound.

There's really nothing about this game that I would change.

I'm completely baffled at what game some of these critics were playing. How could you put time into this game and not being having a blast and find yourself utterly addicted to it? There are so many unique and impressive things that this game introduces to the online gaming arena that have never existed before. And these critics just don't seem to appreciate it. I'm totally lost. MAG is a solid 9 in my opinion, but these low-ball reviews aren't going to prevent me from continuing to be addicted to this awesome game.

Edit: I'd like to add a bit more. They gave it only a 6.5 for lasting appeal? They say that good players will reach level 60 in a week or two? Today marks a week, and every match that I've been in the highest ranked player was about level 35 or so. I checked their profiles and it says they have like 30 hours or more into the game.

This same site just gave Mass Effect 2 a 10 for Lasting Appeal! That's a great game, but a 10 for lasting appeal? It's about 30 hours long. Come on, a 10 for that, but only a 6.5 for MAG? They're obviously way off target with their estimate of how long it takes to get to level 60.

The best players, the squad-leaders, in all the matches I played this afternoon, they were in the high 20's to low 30's, and had around 30 hours of game time. Are you seeing where I'm going with this? They say that casual players will give up well before they ever get to level 60? Well, I'm a more casual player with this game, I mean the top-scorers always score about 500 points a round, but I'm not a hardcore player like them, I score about 100 points per round, and I have only put about 7 hours into the game in the week that it's been out versus the 25 to 30 hours put in by the more hardcore players. BUT, I'm still enjoying the hell out of the game.

That 6.5 for lasting appeal is an absolute joke of a score. It deserves MUCH higher.

And I'd also like to complain about the 6.5 for graphics. It's actually a really pretty game. There's so much detail in the maps! I even just noticed today that tropical birds fly around in the central American maps for Raven. The textures are sharp and the lighting is really impressive. I think it's a gorgeous game, and considering that it's an online game with 256 players makes it all the more impressive.

Seriously, what game are they playing? Not the same game I'm playing, that's for sure. Because they low-balled the hell out of this game's score from my perspective.

Digitaldude5051d ago

Maybe its not technically excellent, but its a fun game.

SniperJDC5051d ago

This game will most likely be a rental for me...what about you guys?

SOAD5051d ago

Actually, the game is a technical marvel.

128 players on screen with no lag was demonstrated in another thread, and thus, I must conclude that Zipper's netcoding is the most impressive I have seen.

I don't think there are many games that can handle that kind of player presence, even Battlefield 2 on PC has problems.

IGN must be judging this game from a different standpoint, probably just so they can find something negative about the game and lower the score.

I feel IGN has some biases, depending the on the particular reviewer.

While I'm sorry to say that I won't be getting MAG anytime soon (because I have to get GOW collection and Demon's Souls), I will say that this game deserves to be purchased by most FPS fans. This game shows Infinity Ward how it's done.

GreenRingOfLife5051d ago

Its good to see IGN waiting a few days to play the game since its online only and the true way to experience it is with 256 players. Now ppl can't argue that they didnt have enough time to review it. but it stinks it only got a 7/10 o well its a definite rent

Dragun6195051d ago (Edited 5051d ago )

SVER ftw!

Sver- 128 players stampede

Anyways MAG has great potential to be a good online franchise, and does well to deliver what it promises to do, and that is delivering a 256 online tactical FPS which involves with working with your team in order to win. So far I been enjoying it and I say its worth $60 but it would have fared way better especially in reviews if it was just $40.

goflyakite5051d ago

Oh how some websites make there double standards so obvious.

Let me ask everyone a question, which game that received a 9.5 from this very same website does this quote remind you of, "Bugs, imbalances, and a lack of content for the price"?


Saaking5051d ago

Good review imo. This game always seems to be overshadowed by other PS3 exclusives, but it's good to see it getting nice scores. From the way people talk about it, I'm really tempted to buy it. Hopefully soon.

CWMR5051d ago

-"Zipper are trying to simulate a real battlefield."

Emulating real life is not what games are necessarily about. There are lots of ways games could try to be more like real life that would only make for worse games. Oftentimes when developers try to make things more "realistic" they only hurt the gameplay and the overall experience.

My favorite online game on the PS3 by far is Uncharted 2 and that is only 5 vs 5. It's not about numbers of players, it is about how fun it is.-

Eamon5051d ago

It's good to see that people have ignored the troll named Bungie.

I think you will have to be a fan of the genre to be really into MAG. I haven't tried it so I don't know if having one person control a squad of real gamers will work out since there are immature gamers out there.

Anyway, plenty of other games worth getting this year. =/

ShadowRyuX5051d ago

It is $60 for a multiplayer only game which is pretty much a first on PS3 I believe and it also offered no bundle with a mic. On top of that the variety of weapons and skills and such seemed a little shallow, at least from the beta. I can kind of understand the lack of skills, but I was actually quite angered by the lack of guns and armor for each faction.

lokiroo4205051d ago (Edited 5051d ago )


lol, priceless! 'nuff said.

UnSelf5051d ago

u give Prince of Persia a 9+ but this a 7? IGN has truly lost its way.

im done wit reviews everywhere

Bnet3435051d ago

7/10 is a solid score for MAG. After watching that 128 player video, I'll be looking out for it when it goes cheap. One thing that worries me is how long will the servers be up?

callahan095051d ago

Why do I have so many disagrees on my above comment? I think my points are all well-reasoned. Not one of the subsequent comments is addressed at anything I said, so why all the disagrees if nobody has anything to say to refute my comments?

Bigpappy5051d ago

7 is not that bad for an online only FPS. You guys say that FPS are a 360 thing, yet an online only FPS gets a decent score, from a reputable site,and you think it is not high enough. It is becoming more clear that you guys care more about the review score than your own personal judgement of the game. They gave the open beta so everyone with a PS3 got a chance to try the game if they even had a hint of interest. What I am saying is: in the end, if people like it, they would buy it (Good review or not).

Aquanox5051d ago

I hope those guys always waiting for IGN's now just get over thefact that MAG just isn't triple A.

BaSeBaLlKiD7215051d ago (Edited 5051d ago )

Look at Resistance Fall of Man and Warhawk, the servers are still up and running strong.

5051d ago
callahan095051d ago (Edited 5051d ago )

Look, a 6.5 for lasting appeal is a joke.

They gave Darksiders a 7.5 for lasting appeal! That's a 15 hour game with no multiplayer and pretty much no reason for replay value!

Lasting appeal is a rating that's supposed to imply how long you'll be playing this game if you buy it. Are they seriously going to tell us that this game isn't even going to provide a week's worth of entertainment spread over 15 hours? Because that's what they said Darksiders provides, and they gave it a higher lasting appeal mark than this game.

For god's sakes they JUST gave the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics video game a 7.3! There is no way that's a better game than MAG. There's no way it deserved a higher score in graphics and lasting appeal, especially, except somehow it got higher scores in both categories. Seriously. Compare the graphics in the two games. MAG not only looks better, but it looks better while being a 256-player online FPS. You can't honestly think that IGN is being fair, here.

Let's see, they gave No More Heroes 2 a 9.0 for lasting appeal, while in the same breath calling it a 12 hour long game. A 6.5 for MAG's lasting appeal?

I could go on, but what's the point, really?

raztad5051d ago

hehehehee Awesome review. /s

I'm off for some Domination! RAVEN is finally getting on its own, almost blew SVER out of the water few minutes ago.

All MAG haters can have fun playing with reviews.