Game Hub: MAG (PS3 Review)

Game Hub writes: "Once MAG gets a steady flow of consistent players that enjoy working as a team whether it be with existing friends or people dropping in, it could become a fun team-based shooter with a keen following. It's just a shame that the development-time of the game seems to have been geared towards getting it to work with such a large number of players. The downside being a worrying lack of maps, a restrictive faction system, repetitive game modes, and occasionally infuriating lag. Many of these problems could be fixed with a couple of patches and a few free DLC maps though. A work in progress then, for the developers and ourselves."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
callahan093205d ago

Let me tackle this point by point:

1. a worrying lack of maps: There's 15 maps in this game! Modern Warfare 2 shipped with 16, all of which combined don't equal the size of one Domination map in MAG. How is that a worrying lack of maps?

2. a restrictive faction system: I love the faction system. It gives people a real sense of unity and rivalry. The fact that every time I play a match, all of my team-mates are people that are ALWAYS going to be on my faction's side, that's something really unique and never before seen in an FPS. The unity/rivalry thing is a really cool aspect of the PMC faction system, and it adds an element to this game that can't be found anywhere else.

3. repetitive game modes: How are they repetitive? There's 4 different game modes that are all pretty different from one another, and the Acquisition and Domination types are so huge and have so many secondary objectives that can be accomplished to make the main objective possible that you'll never approach the mission the same way twice. It's very dynamic and there's lots of different things that you can do. Most games have 3 basic modes: Deathmatch, Capture & Defend Zones, and Capture The Flag. This game has its deathmatch mode (suppression), it has its zones mode (sabotage), it has its capture the flag mode (acquisition), and then it has domination, which is like all of it put together and then some. It offers more variety than most shooters in terms of its game modes. And the versions of those modes are more varied than most shooters, as well, because of the secondary objectives I mentioned up above that make going about the main task something that can be broken up and split apart to make for more dynamic gameplay.

4. occasionally infuriating lag: I've experienced a bug where the game's respawn countdown just resets and you have to wait an extra interval before respawning. I contacted Zipper about it and they say it's a very rare bug (I've talked to many other MAG players on the forums and in-game, too, and it does indeed seem rare, I'm one of the unlucky few who has ever been effected by it, it seems). But I have not once experienced any lag. The game is absolutely pristine in terms of smoothness and connectivity. You connect to matches quickly, which is astonishing because I've seen plenty of games that are only matching up 8 or 10 or 16 players and it takes significantly longer than it takes this game to match up 64, 128, or 256 players. And I don't know anybody that's experienced lag issues with this game. Unlike most online games that come out and have launch server issues, this game is actually damn near perfect, and given its massive scale, that's seriously impressive.

bggriffiths3205d ago

You don't get access to all 15 maps with the use of one faction.

Loads of people have been complaining during matches of lag, not always in a lame excuse for getting owned.

The way team elements are being ignored by many players makes it repetitive.

callahan093205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

Team elements don't seem to be ignored when I play the game. In my experience most players are constantly doing something to help the team, whether that's getting behind enemy lines to take the fight to them, or sniping them from a distance, or healing our teammates, or repairing our damaged resources, or giving orders over the mics and issuing Frago. The teamwork elements are there and they work and people are taking advantage. Don't know what everybody's talking about.

And about the maps, it's still a silly complaint. There are plenty of maps in this game, I've got 9 hours into this game and I still haven't become even remotely familiarized with most of them.

And why does it offend people so much when I defend this game from what I perceive as over-criticism? I always come in with detailed reasons for why I think they're being too harsh or what I think they're wrong about, I always explain why I love this game as much as I do. Why isn't my opinion as good as these critics? Why do I always get disagrees and arguments from people on N4G because I am a strong supportive of what Zipper has developed here and want to defend it and explain to people why it's better than some of these reviews claim? It's not like I'm the only person that likes this game, it's gotten plenty of 8's and 9's in the reviews, others have said it's their favorite online game, there's 1000's of players every day that are as addicted to it as I am.

davekaos3205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

I actually believe the reason its getting low scores is because the people giving the game them scores simply aint played the game enough.
For eg the game really starts to open up when you hit lvl 15.
Now if your a lone wolf or first time playing the game like these guys you dont have the slightest clue what your doing and you dont get any frago xp, which results in ranking up taking a very long time.
Any person who has actually put the hours in on this game will tell you the game deservers a good 8/9

Just so you know when i first got the game i didn have the slightest clue what i was doing and for the 1st couple of days i was all over the place killing people left right and centre but at the same time getting shouted at because i was not sticking to the objective

bggriffiths3205d ago

well I'm at Lvl 20 played for over 15 hours. It's a 6.5/10 for me. If people actually read the whole review rather than the blurb they might see some of the points explained in more depth.

Two-Face3205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

Everytime I see a negative MAG review, I see Callahan09 defending the game, and trying to make people believe that he is right and the reviewer is wrong.

Seriously dude, just stop it. MAG has received 7 or under from plenty of reviewers, and I mean PROFESSIONAL reviewers like IGN. And your so called opinion of the game does not matter to the majority.

So please do us a favor and stop writing a wall of text on every MAG review on how you like it, and how the reviews are wrong. We have heard it once, and it is enough.

sikbeta3205d ago

This sound more like an upset guy who played a couple of Hours thinking that is going to be the same way like in every FPS, then he realised that the game needs Teamwork and probably his Team $uck as much as him, so quit and go make a bad review and I'm sure that's happening with every Reviewer

hanzai3205d ago

so two-face, people who have played the game can't disagree with the review? he played the game. he has a right to disagree with it.

lowcarb3205d ago

"3 hours in
and never seen it lag once"

Wait until you have millions playing it and then make that statement. A couple thousand won't do anything.

Montrealien3205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

(Let me tackle this point by point)

Why even bother? Go play the games you like, on the consoles you have instead. Oh, and this is key, respect that other people don`t share the same opinion as you do. there is notihng to, tackle.

D4RkNIKON3205d ago

These reviews are really weak.. They range between 10/10, 9/10 all the way down to 6/10. I have really been enjoying this game, it is a lot of fun. Teamwork is key and Zipper made 256 work well by encouraging teamwork by rewarding extra points for anything that helps the team. I have never experienced any lag and I find it funny how MW2 had such high reviews and the game is a total train wreck online and the offline mode takes all of 4 hours to complete.

Unicron3205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

"and I mean PROFESSIONAL reviewers like IGN. And your so called opinion of the game does not matter to the majority. "

Thank you Two-Face for proving what a sheep you are.

A "pro" OPINION is more valid than a gamer's OPINION, or even more importantly your own opinion? Gotcha. Hell, I've been gaming since before many of these "pro" reviewers knew what a "Sony Xbox" was. Is my opinion thus more valid? Make up your own mind about a game instead of chanting stupid numbers like they mean something.

Arbitrary review numbers for the win. Good thing the media has NEVER been caught being paid off or being biased in any way. *cough*

Sessler was right.

Montrealien3205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

Although I also don`t agree with Two-Face Unicron, it works both ways.

You don`t like a review? Ignore it, move along and try the game out for yourself and form your own opinion. Your opinion is as valid as someone choses to make it. And thats their opinion.

Unicron3205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

I'll agree with you there. But let's face it, some reviews are crap. I can't judge MAG as I haven't played it, but it just disappoints me to see so many people cling to positive or negative reviews like they mean something, instead of playing what they want/enjoy.

Thank you Mont for actually following your OWN opinion instead of someone else's. Bubbles for you.

Rush3205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

Couldn't of said it better myself.

A review is an opinion generally of someone who knows a little something about games. There not always right on the money but its just a general guide for people.

Fans of this site will take the review seriously others won't. I won't for example because my favourite review site is IGN so I value there opinion higher.

Two-Face3205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )


''Make up your own mind about a game instead of chanting stupid numbers like they mean something''.

You know reviews are meant for something. TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT GAME IS GOOD OR BAD.

How the hell I am supposed to know if a game is good or bad? Playing the demo? Sure, but that does not cover the whole story, all the gameplay mechanics, the pace, and so on.

Reviews mention all those things, and make it easier to me if the game is worth buying.

bjornbear3205d ago

"how am i meant to know if a game is good or bad?"

although reviews HELP, they don't mean squat in the end because look at MW2

it got loads of perfect scores, and I HATE the game. Its easily one of the most boring FPS's i've played in a LONG time...

so, reviews can be deceiving.

A balance of reviews to get an IDEA of a game's quality is important, but thats it.

you seem to invest too much faith in reviews, and therefore, invest too much trust in someone you've never even mets opinion.

+ IGN has professional reviews, but they are human, and have preferences.

all you need is a reviewer that doesn't like the game, and you have yourself an unreliable review.

I use reviews as a general tendency measurement - but like I said even that's unreliable because MW2 let me down so bad I can't begin to understand HOW on EARTH that game got such a high score.

In my opinion MW2 is an 8 MAX - so reviews mean squat to me in that sense.

best reviewer - you.

how do you know if games are good? reviews will help, but will also deceive.

hanzai3205d ago

no offense but that's the dumbest thing i ever heard. reviews are there to form opinions on whether you should buy a game or not BUT it's best to try a game for yourself.

only *you* can judge a game for yourself.

darthv723205d ago

Anything above is being generous. Anything below is being vindictive.

As for the lag issue...much like the doesnt happen to ALL but it does happen. Just because you never experienced doesnt mean you can disprove the situation. Speed of net connections, how many hops your signal has to take to get to and from, quality of service protocols in place by provider, etc....

Unicron3205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

"You know reviews are meant for something. TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT GAME IS GOOD OR BAD. "

It is there to HELP you make an INFORMED decision. Instead you seem to be using the review SCORE, which is the most arbitrary part of the review and ENTIRELY made up, to JUDGE a title without playing it.

I'm all for READING the review, but braying like a barnyard animal about 'ZOMG 6.5!!!' is just stupid. In the end, my point is, YOUR OWN OPINION MATTERS MOST. Sorry if I had to be rude to get that point across, I just can't stand the mantra of "IGN/1up/etc is never wrong."

Unless you think Nintendogs = ODST, according to Meta. *cough*

CadDad3205d ago

I have a couple of comments on this game.

1. The guns are completely unrealistic with range. A 'turn and spray' mentality with assault rifles is enough to kill almost anyone at almost any range. A sniper that doesn't kill in the first couple shots will be terminated from multiple sides almost immediately.

2. With point #1 in mind, the radar they provide is completely unrealistic. Anytime anyone sprints, fires, or farts, they show up as red on anyone in the vicinity's radar, allowing for a quick turn and spray death from multiple angles.

I've played nearly 22 hours, I'm on my 2nd toon (deleted after 6 levels) and am currently level 27, nearly 28.

If they fixed the infinite range of assault rifles, and removed radar from the mini-map, the game would be a lot more tactical. As it stands now it's a lot more twitch than it is tactics.

A solid 7 from me in it's current state. The incentive to keep playing is only to pump stats. The longest map is 30 minutes, and there is a lot to do in that time, making it all about rushing in. I thought the MMO aspect would allow for some longer maps with harder and slower to achieve tactics. In that regard I'm dissappointed.


raztad3205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

Hey haters, still arguing about MAG? Come on, go and play something, ME2 perhaps?


Dont waste your breath bro. I know how you feel but people that wanted to give MAG a chance already did, and are having a blast with the game. Let the others miss out, it's their loss.

I'm eager to come back home for some Domination. I hope SVER is ready, tonight RAVEN is gonna kick their azzez.

EDIT: As I have told before. If MAG was a xbox exclusive I would get one just for it. There is NO excuse for a hardcore FPS player to miss this game. I'm drawing the conclusion most xbox players on this site are just casuals or extreme fanboys. Keep the hate going people.

we won3205d ago

Stop trying to defend this guys, it's too late. sheesh

callahan093205d ago

Forgive me if I believe that developers should be given credit for their hard work. I just don't like to see such nitpicking and blatantly ignoring the qualities of their work. It's just unfair not to give Zipper the accolades that they rightly deserve for building a new class of FPS and that it WORKS so well!

They complain that the game isn't fun when you are on a team that doesn't do their job, well, first of all, I actually disagree with that. I happen to have been on the losing team approximately three times more frequently than I've been on the winning team. I still have fun regardless of whether we're getting our butts kicked precisely because of the scale of it.

I feel like the scale of it allows me to do a good job even when the rest of my team isn't, and I feel accomplished because of it even if we're losing.

It's just applicable for any team-based multiplayer game to say that it's frustrating when you're on a team full of people not doing their job or playing well, this isn't something new with MAG, but apparently it's only a valid criticism with MAG. It's rare, in my experience, to be on a team that is totally devoid of leaders and players willing to do what has to be done. Every match I've played in has people playing the game the way it was meant to be played, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

But what really bothers me is that the critics just simply ignore how impressive this game is to have 256 players at once, to have it set up where teamwork and chain of command matter and anybody that takes that into consideration will be rewarded nicely, to have attractive graphics and create such an alive warzone where every air raid siren, explosion, yell, scream, gunshot, airplane, helicopter, vehicle, and other sound are created as a direct result of player action.

Reviewers complained about Killzone 2 that it doesn't do anything new, and then MAG comes along and does so much new and raises the bar on what an online game can be, and they don't give it credit, they just say it doesn't do it well enough.

I am a gamer who likes to see developers get credit for doing things well, for their successes, rather than tearing them down over nitpicky little things, so no, I will never stop defending games that I think get an unfairly low score. I don't see why that's a problem for anybody, I'm here to give credit where it's due and support talented developers who take risks and succeed

I'm especially fervent about MAG, because it's one of my favorite games in a long time, and to see it getting knocked down a peg by over-critical "professional reviewers" disappoints me. Whatever happened to rating a game based on what it's supposed to be, by the way? Half of the criticisms I'm seeing for MAG are complaining about things that they damn well knew the game was supposed to be before the game was even out, like that it's multiplayer only, that it is a strategic FPS that rewards teamwork, that it's going to be a massive war zone with 256 players, etc. Whatever happened to taking those things into consideration and reviewing the game based on whether it delivers what it promises? Because it absolutely delivers what it promised, and as such any gamer that was interested in the game should appreciate that it delivers on their expectations, but instead they review it based on some other kind of standards that honestly just don't make any sense to me.

That's all I've got for now.

Hopefully people won't take the bad reviews seriously and will try this game out. It's not like it's been getting universally bad/mediocre reviews, it's gotten lots of positive commentary from the critics as well, and I hope gamers can focus on the positive, because this game, Zipper, and the MAG community deserve for more gamers to take note of this game.

FamilyGuy3205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

So is this your article? 15 WHOLE hours huh? LMAO

Rockox3205d ago

I tell ya, I've played a ton of games that have received horrible reviews. And guess what? I've had a great time playing most of them. Reviews don't mean squat. Play what you like, regardless of what the "pros" tell you to play.

3205d ago
ThanatosDMC3205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

It's not a game for everyone. If you're a casual gamer or just loves MW2 or hates Battlefield games, then MAG is not a game for you.

There is no lag.

People who have the game defend the game since this so-called professionals whine about the game since it doesnt suit their casual taste. They seem to always complain about SVER being unbalanced which is actually false. Teamwork is key.

@ Callahan

I agree with you. They never will recognize the strength of individual PS3 games. Uncharted 2 was painful since it was extremely hard to find flaws in it and playing the game made them love it.

@ 3sexty rulzz

What's your problem?

ChozenWoan3205d ago

And only when spawning inside of Ravens Ship when the other team calls in a bombing run. With up to 16 people spawning, a massive wall of explosions, as well as all of the gunfire just outside the ship it's perfectly understandable and actually adds to the realism of the mayhem. In such a chaotic situation, even in real life it can seem as if events are effected by lag. Things happen rapidly, then suddenly slow down to almost a stall, then several second flash before your eyes.

In my opinion, since everyone has one today, MAG is a solid 8/10. The learning curve is a little steep, but that is mostly due to our past FPS experiences of lone wolf run and gunning. As for the maps, more are one the way, but before they get here, players need to learn how to play on the ones we have first. The next set of maps will likely be even more challenging for unorganized teams, so lets focus on the basics of teamwork on these maps for now.

+ Show (28) more repliesLast reply 3205d ago
kenpachi3205d ago

"infuriating lag, lack of maps"

sounds more like a review of Modern Warfail

mrv3213205d ago

Don't forget glitches and bad patches... I'd hazrd a guess that MAG's story is better than MW2... and MAG doesn't have a story.

-Alpha3205d ago

But they are all so, so, so poor.

An incredible amount of hiding spots, crap that just gets in your way. Ugh, and yes the lag is infuriating. And when I say infuriating I mean it:

Ground War is their biggest mode utilizing all 18 players. It's a lagfest.

Host migration is lame, sometimes it doesn't even work and the game just ends.

I've never been more pissed at a game.

Anyways, I don't like it when people make excuses for MAG reviews but I can understand that there is a double standard where people are more lenient for something like MW2 over MAG.

Understand though, that MAG is MP only so reviews are going to be stricter, but even with that said there is no reason why MW2 got off so easily. In fact, it's pretty much criminal.

BlackTar1873205d ago

I agree with you on almost everything. I have 6 days played (loser i know) on MW2 and although i agree the lag is terrible the host crap is awful the weapons are unbalanced the kill streak although fun are lame and ruin the skill of the game(IMHO) but i do love AC130'ing people. Mag has its faults of course it does its not perfect but it does alot of things right as well and i have no lag (Like stated above my connection is good) i have 22hrs or so and everything works great i get a lag spike every now and then. But its disgusting to think that MW2 party system was jacked for awhile ( i own both version) only to be fixed with more issues there are so many glitches and then when they do a patch its 2hrs before new game breaking glitches are found.

I like them both but the stuff i mentioned does bring down MW IMHO only and unfortunately just for the sake of level playing field they were not even mentioned in reviews a 4hr campaign on veteren give me a break. Again they both are good to me

but its just opinion sad thing is the people who are here just to laugh at the scores etc. SAD individual who can not honestly call themselves gamers IMHO

I belie if Video games is your hobby you cant hate games for stupid reasons the company make games for me to play i respect them for that and try and play there product. The gamers of the newer gen are ruining gaming its getting sad this goes for all consoles and handhelds.

4cough3205d ago

This score is to good for the biggest letdown of this decade.

Karooo3205d ago

Where were you, go and play your multiplatform game mass effect 2 instead of showing your insecurity in every ps3 news.

Akagi3205d ago

No, no, MW2 gets that title, sir.


FishCake9T43205d ago

So many fanboys cant accept that this game is no AAA game. This game is average. People writing essays to explain why the game is better than MW2. Heres some facts for you. MAG Metacritic: 77. Modern Warfare 2: 94.

unrealgamer583205d ago

that's called hype numb nuts, also mw2 is not hardcore (anymore). and at least try out the final build before spotting metacritic crap.

callahan093205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

Oh give it a rest. Doesn't make me a fanboy because I think this is a phenomenal game want to defend it from what I perceive as unfair criticism. This game is awesome, and it's really impressive what they've pulled off. Making games is difficult. Making a game with this scale that works so well is something that's never been done before. It pisses me off to see their work not getting the appreciation it deserves. It's got nothing to do with fanboyism, it's got to do with respect, appreciation, and my opinion that this game is better than the critics make it out to be. I don't enjoy games because someone tells me to. I enjoy them when I play it and have fun. This game gives me more entertainment and fun than I ever got from Modern Warfare 2, and that's my opinion, you can disagree with it if you want, that's not what bothers me, it's the blatant denial that what they've accomplished here is so remarkable that disappoints me. It's the over-criticism and under-appreciation. Can't stand that.

only on playstaychun3205d ago

The only people I have heard that say it is average are those that have actually not played it!! I dont know what game some reviewers are playing because this game does not deserve 6s and 7s.

bjornbear3205d ago

nintendogs: 83

halo odst: 83

"bu bu bu..."

METACRITIC = not reliable source to see an over all quality of a game, sorry.

best source: yourself.

testerg353205d ago

bjorn, but PS3 fans sure love to use it for PS3 exclusives. Weird how that works...

sikbeta3205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

Look you MW Lover, the "problem" with MAG is that it plays more "realistically" than every Average Rambo wannabe FPS Games, I suppose that in a Real War you don't go lone wolf and keep alive without any help the way every movie and game let you believe

Cooperation is an Important Key in this Game, is not like a nøøb-fest game like with majority of FPS Games, if your Team $ucks cuz they're SO MW-Players, you'll lose and the Game don't go anywhere, you never gain skill and your @$$-MW-ish Team never progress

Obviously you don't know about that, cuz you're only searching bad Reviews on the interwebz and cuz MW2 is probably all you know about


but the other fans sure love to use it for MULTIPLAT (aka a not Console Exclusive) Games. Pathetic how that works... lol

Unicron3205d ago

Can you tell me the difference between a game that gets an 83 and a game that gets an 84?

What's that, you can't? What's that Metacritic selectively chooses not only who they post, but what said score means as well? What's that, arbitrary?

No no, you're totally right, scores matter. *giggles*

Nintendogs FTW.

testerg353205d ago

unicron, I'm really not sure, but I'm sure PS3 fans will let 360 fans know if/when UC2 gets a higher meta score than ME2.

Unicron3205d ago

And I'm sure GAMERS would be smart to realize that UC2 is not an RPG, ME2 is not an action/adventure, and review scores are stupid. =)

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3205d ago
MetalGearRising3205d ago

If a game on xbox360 got low score like MAG is getting and it's a Flop i wouldn't even purchase the game. Because i don't like flop games but ps3 fans would still buy a flop game because they have no morals they are just hungry for any game because they have been starved of great games like xbox360. PS3 has no games.

Trebius3205d ago (Edited 3205d ago )

The last exclusive on 360 to score over 90 before ME2 was Gears 2...your 360 has no games, PS3 has them in abundance. Dont kid yourself :)

Before MW2 came out the 360 fangirls were STILL playing Gears2 and Halo 3 after all these years, now MW2 is the most played on the console...and it'll stay that way til Halo Reach comes out.

360 is STARVED for games...PS3 is not, take a look at the exclusives then come back again homo. ;)

hanzai3205d ago

you wouldn't even know a flop even if it came and b*tchslapped you.

what's really sad is that you 360 fanboys said for people to play too human for themselves and not pay attention to scores. now ps3 fans want to play mag for themselves and you talk sh*t about it being a flop?

get a damn life you troll.

taylork373205d ago

Here is an idea...stop over-hyping EVERY SINGLE PS3 exclusive before it is out. If you do that, you can stop seeing dumb bots make dumb comments about how the game YOU over-hyped, actually underperformed. When a game is good, and you still don't over-hype it, you have the pleasure of rubbing it in any 360 fanboy's face.

Sound good?