
GaggleGames talks about the double standard of most gamers and why it affects MAG. The "that game is on another console so I have to hate it" rule doesn't apply anymore as the author expressed his opinion of how people react to good exclusives on the other console.

Zipper Interactive were once one of Sony's most important studios and became a household name due to their work on the SOCOM U.S. Navy SEALs series during the PlayStation 2's heyday. Their most ambitious title was MAG. Could it make a comeback?
Best game ever. I had put over 1700hrs into that game before it deteriorated too far with cheaters getting out of the map and sadly decided it was time to let it die (Zipper had already been closed down by that time).
This is a game that was ahead of its time. Had it came out on PS4 it would've done much better. I put hundreds of hours into this despite the problems it had on PS3.
Yes, yes, and yes. Way ahead of it's time. Would love to see a PS5 variant of this game.

Erina Rose, Sausage Roll writes, "Call of Duty: Modern War introduced a new, improved, Ground War game mode this weekend that reminds us of the old PlayStation 3 classic, MAG."
Seriously though. Nowadays this and next gen are practically begging for a new MAG.
How did we go from having games like resistance 1, 2, warhawk with 30 vs 30 player battles, and M.A.G. with 128 vs 128 players, ON LAST GEN to now having 20 vs 20...such a step back.

Almost 10 years ago the greatest first person shooter came out and most of you probably never heard of it, never got to play it and never will.
Was such an underrated game. One of my most favorite fps of last gen. So unfortunate zipper was closed down. Imagine if it was a success and thered be a 2nd game by now.....
I can think of many better games that I've yet to play...
"Almost 10 years ago the greatest first person shooter came out"
HAH. So is Planetside 2 now the best FPS ever? Because it does everything MAG can and does it far better. I'm afraid that MAG is basically your standard FPS but uses scale as it's selling point. The vast majority of shooters that focus on smaller scale matches have gameplay leaps and bounds better than MAG so it is definitely not the greatest FPS.
I know many people are going to try and refute this by telling me to look at the three factions but MAG has literally no character. The game is call 'Massive. Action. Game' for gods sake which is a contender for 'The Worst Title a Game Could Have' award. I've never been a fan of Zipper but I hear great things about them from their PS2 days. However, with MP gaining popularity in the generation that followed I think it says a lot that they couldn't keep up with the competition.
Loved mag had over 1700hrs into it across many accounts, remember my first 100 kill sabotage game, was insane
Game was simply ahead of its time. If mag came out now with improved graphics people would be blown away. Back then people whined about the graphics even though it had players literally everywhere. It was several great games in one. Battlefield, Ghost Recon, and Call of duty.
The fact of the matter is that the more games= the more options= the more variety= the more satisfied gamers.
People who play off games like Halo or MGS4 or MAG are just insecure about the game's greatness and the fact that they are successful games so they have to make the claim that nobody wants it.
Also, regarding the "360 owners dont want MAG" article: he doesn't necessarily argue that point. He just talks about the whole aspect of 256 against playing a more personal game of a few players.
I think his article was a response to the equally fanboyish arrogance PS3 fanboys had about MAG being the "new standard".
Some fanboys act as if the more players meant the better the game and tried to assert that Halo or COD was puny with it's 12-18 players.
It's completely laughable that people tried to assert this simply because the number of players signifies design choice, not evidence that one game is better than the other.
For example, I personally prefer the smaller games because I like having significance in a game and knowing a specific group of enemies. I can adapt to patterns and spend my match reacting to certain players, and it's a constant struggle of wits. I don't get that in bigger games like K2 or BC2 where the experience is more dynamic. Not saying it's random, but you wont expect to go after the same player who just killed you because you likely wont get to him before another player gets you.
It's all a matter of tastes. I like both concepts of big-player games vs. little-player games but I prefer the smaller player games, anywhere between 10-32.
Now, the article was trying to argue that 360 gamers are used to the 5 on 5 Gears or Halo, L4D, etc. Introducing 256 players would definitely not be within the comfort zone of average 360 shooter fans. Does that mean 360 fans don't want it? No. If you read his article you will see the title really doesn't state what the points do, and in the end I'm lead to believe that his specific article was simply titled to gain attention. This leads to the problem of readers judging the article by the title, which leads to even more confusion and ignorance.
Now, this article tries to ask a general question of "why do fanboys say they don't want game X". Well, they are fanboys, what do you expect them to say?
The 360/MAG article writer says he doesn't like games where there are more players. That's his right to say that and it's his opinion, but in no way should he have titled it "360 owners dont want MAG". He doesnt speak for all 360 owners. He could have easily titled it "I dont want MAG"