All Channels
Popular
460°

MAG 2 Months Later

Bone-idle.ie writes : "At the time of our review and like so many others at the time, we said that because of the nature of MAG that it would need to be revisited in a number of weeks to see how it is fairing. So here we are 2 months later and we are going back to have that second look to see if the criticism's levelled at it at the time still hold up to be true or have the detractors been proven wrong.

First of we must look back at the reviews at that time and pick out the issues raised that they thought would influence the games success or failure and revisit them. Some of these issues included that MAG would struggle to find enough players, that it offered nothing new to the table, that the magic number 256 was just a marketing tool, that after a while all that would be left would be "clans or idiots", that it would suffer from the lack of mic's on PSN. Or that as soon as Battlefield came along it would kill it off.
"

Read Full Story >>
bone-idle.ie
Blaster_Master5888d ago

"At the time of our review and like so many others at the time, we said that because of the nature of MAG that it would need to be revisited in a number of weeks to see how it is fairing."

Sounds like a smart idea. Especially since the game is a new IP and issues that could have been fixed easily (better graphics, particle and special effects, gun/gameplay fixes and tweaks, dlc, ect, ect..). considering it was an exclusive online only fps. The support for this game is second to none in this biz.

Nobody even gave the game a chance, which is sad cause after those updates I have never been able to play any other shooter without undeniably wanting to just go back to MAG.

The game features 3 different factions alone, with totally different points of gameplay elements, points of interest, communication elements, and so much more. I really could go on, but i think im just gonna jump on now. Double XP Weekend all day baby!

-Alpha5888d ago (Edited 5888d ago )

MAG is good. But it's not fair to say nobody gave MAG a chance. The problem with nearly all multiplayer games is that reviews barely play them in-depth. They judge the game on the surface, for better or worse.

Look at MW2 for example. On the surface it's a good, accessible game but once you play it long enough you know how bad it is.

With MAG, it's a good game, but two months later I wouldn't say it holds up to games like BC2. I'm not sure if I'll go back to MAG personally, but if there is one thing people are starving for its more maps.

People make a ton of excuses for MAG, some of them fair, some of them completely fallacious. It doesn't change the fact the game has been getting good 7-9 scores, but so many people look at the number and then automatically assume the game sucks. Not every exclusive game deserves an instant 9+ score, nor does is the game bad for not getting AAA.

I've said it before: Every MP game, and especially a MP-only game like MAG deserves a more in-depth review. I don't think my opinion on MAG has changed-- it's a fun game with typical flaws.

alphakennybody5888d ago

@ alpha male

how many times do people have to repeat. The scores themselves aren't the problem, its the reasoning behind em where it lies. And manyfailed to review it properly and basically went " uh its no a MW2 so its bad" Bullshit.

"I wouldn't say it holds up to games like BC2" I think it hold pretty damn well even without a campaign, honestly the only thing going for battlefield is the destructive environment. Where esle on a console can you find a large scale yet well coordinated battles that even some small scale mp shooter have hard time doing?

PinkUni5888d ago

i totally agree with you

a multiplayer experience is not something for normal reviewer

its really does take time to understand what games are like, and playing it for 2 days and writing a 5 page review about it is total bullsh!t

i should even say that playing it for a month is still total bullsh!t because theres just that many variables you have to consider about multiplayer games.

one game that really surprised me was rainbow six vegas. i played it a couple of months, it was fun, but when i started getting good at it, and noticing how well the setup was and how much attention they payed to things like flanks and points where the 2 teams meet in the beginning of a match its incredibly balanced.

now dont think that i thought that game was good only because i was good at it

im good at mw2 too, but you start to notice how much BS is in the game.
and by BS that means they script multiplayer events. things that help you out more then they should or things that seem impossible, but they happen all the time.

if you really compare the attention to their maps, you'll notice that call of duty really just makes kill spots where if you go through a doorway or and open area, theres so many flanks that you'll most likely die(except for overgrown, thats their only good map), but other games like rainbow six or counterstrike or battlefield

its more of a, the decisions you make are really your fault.

kaveti66165888d ago

Better graphics? I doubt that MAG has been patched to have better graphics.

sikbeta5888d ago (Edited 5888d ago )

You know what's the main problems with the reviews, "reviewers" were complaining and taking points for:

1·Graphics
2·Lack of Single Player
3·The independent "experience" with The Game, being an On-Line Multiplayer Tactical First Person Shooter in which you have to cooperate whit your team-mates in order to succeed don't let you "experience" the same thing cuz you rely on your team and if your team $ucks the game goes nowhere, the same goes if you want to play lone-wolf, read the 1UP review of MAG, one of the last paragraphs talk about this, not like I'm saying right now, but the reviewer complaint about some d-bags on his team when they had to clear an area but they rejected and went to kill guys from the enemy Faction, so he was alone...lol

jjohan355888d ago

The problem I have with this article is that it initially sets itself to analyze the high and low points made by other initial reviews. While I agree that MAG can be fun, the entire article was about defending its original review and how everyone was wrong. It simply argued how other reviews have been wrong, but nowhere did it state at any point that the other reviews turned out right. In my opinion, this article is biased and was simply written to defend its original review without offering counterpoints AT ALL. This is regardless whether the game was MAG, Halo, or any other game.

FrankenLife5888d ago

In just about every review they talked about the steep learning curve. Some took that as a huge negative, while a few didn't. The little training thing didn't really teach the player anything at all. Sure they gradually let you play the more complicated modes after you have learned the simpler ones, but that isn't quite what a lot of people want. They don't explain equipping, reviving, giving orders, using command abilities, etc. This confusion has kept a lot of people from seeing just how great the game is. In a society that loves immediate gratification, this is a huge detraction.

Another thing keeping some people away is it's hardcore team focus. Those who are so used to watching their k/d, and just trying to get the highest kills in a match, won't get much out of this game. You're k/d doesn't mean anything if you can't keep your bunker up or capture an objective. You're 1337 sniping skills won't take down their AA, and that is fantastic. It is so wonderful to play a FPS where snipers are near obsolete.

While these things are generally considered negative by some people, I really like it. The steep learning curve, means that it is a deep game. People who wouldn't be into that, and won't want to play as a team are scared off. The way the game makes it so hard to play like CoD is beautiful. If you're not willing to work as a team, take orders, revive, and sometimes make a sacrifice, then you won't get anything out of the game.

I really appreciate it when games are made for a specific audience. Games that are designed to appeal to everyone come across generic, all be it popular. Not all games can be Demon's Souls, MAG, or even Bayonetta(to a certain degree), but I am really thankful for them.

-Alpha5888d ago (Edited 5888d ago )

Actually, that's my point friend: people will look at the score and then judge the game. Apparently a 7-8/10 is too low of a score for some people, and without reading the justifications for the review they will deem the review worthless. I don't understand why MAG has to get 9/10 scores like some people expect. Is it just because it's an exclusive?

I would LOVE people to judge games based on content, but it's much more easier to look at score.

I know that smarter people, like you, will look at the content and make a much better conclusion, and I have no problem with that. When I look at MAG I see that some reviewers really didn't give it enough time, but does ANY Multiplayer game get enough review time? No!

It's the same with MAG, but fans are complaining the other way around. Look at games like MW2 and multiplayer reviews don't consider balancing or how fair the game is. They see cool new perks, new maps, and think it's "great". With MAG, the reviews weren't as great, but that didn't make the game bad.

Anybody and everybody that scored it 6-8 were trashed on by at least one fanboy. The score for the game is fine. It's not a AAA in my books, and it has numerous flaws, but the excuses were rampant: "biased site, nooby player, go back to COD". It's ridiculous that people ask for fair reviews but are unwilling to cope with MAG getting decent (not great) scores.

@FrankenLife

I find MAG to be the Demon's Souls of FPS's. That is not a bad thing at all, I find a lot of satisfaction in winning, co-operating, and killing in MAG. Zipper did a great job structuring the game.

Tony P5888d ago

Great idea, but it'd be a lot more meaningful to get the word on this from a site that wasn't already in love with the game.

Am I really going to get a clear picture of the game from someone who has absolutely no criticisms of it? And belittles any other game like it?

We have a word for people who do that and it ain't "gamer".

FrankenLife5888d ago

@Alpha Male

The game isn't a 5/5(I won't use a 10 point system), it is a 4/5. In order for this game to get higher marks it needs, more weapon choices all around, LMG balancing(a really heavy inaccurate gun should feel really heavy and inaccurate.), a 3 faction king of the hill mode, at least 3 maps per mode per faction, and better animations.

What they made isn't an outstanding game, it is an outstanding framework and foundation for the future. I hope they keep building and adding to this for a long time before MAG 2 is even announced.

I totally agree about how it feels to win. Those times when your team gets steamrolled, but your team pulls it together, fixes everything, and works as a team to push them back is so incredibly satisfying. Or giving that balls out rush in the last moments of Domination to do that extra bit of damage to win in the knick of time. People congratulating others after a match is something that I have never heard in CoD.

BattleAxe5888d ago

I was in the Beta, but didn't think it would be as good as Battlefield or MW2, and I knew I wanted to devote alot of time to Battlefield, so I've skipped it and I'm now waiting on Socom4.

mastiffchild5888d ago

MAG was stupidly reveiwed by people who, you would argue, MUST have known what they were doing, no? WHY review a game that basically IS it's community and it's factions when they haven't had chance to form?

I'd love a situation to arise where we end up with a review presale for the offline game and another, a little later to review the MP/online stuff-where either/both are relevant.

Other thing people misunderstood from afar(not those of us who played the betas)is that it was always likely to be a pretty niche title but FOR the gamers who are drawn to it there's a big chance of it becoming among their favourites just because, to me, when a game goes great, with great leaders, great squad and decent enemies yet you pull off all your fragos and win the match with amazingly tight team play it's near untouchable for a sense of achievement.

So, I get why gamers might not find it their thing as it's a little more complex that your MW2 or BFBC2(if I'm frank) and just appeals to a different crowd nby and large. True aqua shooters always have done.

JL5888d ago

"It's so nice to play a FPS where snipers are obsolete."

Umm...what? Are we playing the same game? Either you suck at sniping or you're one of those sniper-haters or you just haven't been around any of the good ones (there are plenty).

A sniper in this game can be absolutely crucial (or at the very least a godsend). A GOOD sniper can pull some serious weight holding points down and many other things. I've been in games where one or two good snipers would completely half the map for our team because you're just too afraid (or too smart) to go that one side due to knowing that sniper is going to get you. In that sense he just restricts your movement and sort of funnels you where he wants you to go and that's where the sniper's team sets up and waits to dish out an ass whooping. Again..and again...and again.

On the other hand snipers can be very efficient for taking points as well. Snipers are amazing for covering an obstacle that you've just armed with a bomb. They sit there and ensure nobody comes around to diffuse it. That in itself can be vastly helpful. Especially when they can also set up to make sure nobody repairs it as well.

So there are many many uses for snipers. They are FAR from obsolete. You just suck at it or haven't met any that actually do their job. Or....you're one of those many sniper-haters that typically hate snipers just cause you keep getting killed by them. Whatever the case though, you can NOT honestly say snipers are obsolete in this game.

BoneIdle5888d ago

@jjohan35 : the article doesnt set out to examine the high and low points it sets out to revisit the points reviews made when saying MAG would fail thats why it says "we are going back to have that second look to see if the criticism's levelled at it at the time still hold up to be true or have the detractors been proven wrong"

@tonyp : Are you saying you would get a clearer picture about MAG from someone that hated it and didnt play it anymore or someone who has played it non stop and has seen all its good and bad points??

jjohan355887d ago

"First of we must look back at the reviews at that time and pick out the issues raised that they thought would influence the games success or failure and revisit them."

They didn't discuss anything that would influence the games failure AT ALL. I'm not attacking the game. I'm attacking this article.

BoneIdle5887d ago

It never set out to address the games failures the article set out to address issued raised back in January by other reviewers that they said would lead to the game not being successfull.

It isnt a review its addressing the points made unfairly by others back in January as at that time it was impossible to say the points raised would come true or not.

jjohan355887d ago

I just quoted the line to you. I have no idea what you are arguing about anymore when the quoted line from the article just proved your assumption as being incorrect.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 5887d ago
Dellis5888d ago

this is garbage, drop this IP right away and act like it never existed

bring over the network to Socom 5 and it will be a win

Bathyj5888d ago

I cant understand why someone with such personality has only one bubble.

Drithe5888d ago

Yah ok. Do you actually get to fight against 3 factions at once? No you dont. So in that aspect it doesnt really mean anything, even if you have 10 different factions.

But the online support is good. I like the way you can train in different areas and make up your own type of soilder by mixing up stuff. Mag has more options than BF BC 2 in terms of what your character will use.

But Im not willing to pay 63 bucks for a game that has NO SINGLE PLAYER MODE. The graphics suck compared to BF BC2 as well. I mean the graphics are not bad at all, considering how many people play Mag though.

Mag should have been marketed better. MAG SHOULD HAVE HAD OPEN BETA INSTEAD OF PRIVATE BETA the first time. The ONLY REASON they had an OPEN BETA was because of the HUGE POPULARITY OF THE BATTLEFIELD BAD COMPANY 2 OPEN BETA and how everyone was talking about it.

Mag IS infact a good game. I got EVERYTHING in BFBC 2 now. The new BF BC 2 expansion coming out ONLY HAS 2 NEW LEVELS, CAMO FOR THE LAST WEAPONS OF EACH CLASS, and NO NEW WEAPONS OR STUFF TO USE in game. This tells me that they are DONE with BF BC 2.

I myself would buy MAG and play it in another month, BUT IM NOT PAYING 65 dollars for an ONLINE ONLY GAME! Most other people will not as well.

End of Line.

BoneIdle5888d ago

I wouldnt let the fact its only online put you off it. As its the online where you get your money's worth with FPS. Too many shooters just tack on a online feature that just rehashes maps from the single player mode. This is dedicated to the online experience so caters for it giving you that extra value and as long as you enjoy it its worth the money.

Blaster_Master5888d ago

Agreed. The fact that its a dedicated online experience gives the devs more room to work with. Like I said above, every updates adds more and more elements to the game that would end up making the single player obsolete regardless. And lets face it, your not gonna put in 100 plus hours in a fps single player mode. If anything Drieth. You sound more and more like a troll then anything, esepcially since your acting like your opinions are facts.

IMO Bad Company looks great, but the shooting mechanics aren't even half that of MAG. The guns in Bad company are boring for the most part. And like you said it, you only getting a few maps and camo's with the upcoming dlc. We have been getting free dlc for the past month. So ya, I think the game is worth full price. Matter of fact, I cant say that about 95% of the games that have come out this gen.

ThanatosDMC5888d ago (Edited 5888d ago )

For me, BC2 was a waste of $54.11. I bought for the PC. Looks great but was extremely lacking compared to MAG.

32 players for a war game isnt enough anymore they could have increased it to 64.

MAG is the FPS game to play. For those who havent played it, rent it first. You need to get to lv8 before you unlock domination mode or join a friend's group and launch together.

Btw, in MAG you can talk with other people other than your squad as long as they're close to you. I just realized this awesomeness not too long ago. Squad members can talk to each other no matter how far they are from each other but other teammates can communicate via closeness. I think that had this in Socom.

Remember to download the unlock keys of their so-called "dlc" in the PS store. Flashbangs and the Medium Improved armors.

kneon5888d ago (Edited 5888d ago )

I don't understand why people complain about paying full price for an online only game. The last 3 FPS games I've bought are MW2, MAG and BF:BC2. I finished the single player campaign on the normal and hardest setting in both MW2 and BF:BC2 and each took about a total of 11 hours for both play throughs combined, they were just far too easy. The online component in both games got old fast so I probably put in less than 30 hours between the two. The online was just so dull compared to MAG or KZ2.

With MAG I'm closing in on 70 hours. It would have probably been double that but Heavy Rain came along and then I spent the last week playing through GOW 1 and 2 before moving on to GOW 3.

So I've got more value out of MAG than MW2 and BF:BC2 combined. And I'll be back to playing MAG full time again really soon so I'm getting my moneys worth on the game.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5888d ago
Dylantalon15888d ago

MAG is the best online multiplayer shooter ever because of its ambitions, goals, and what online shooters try to accomplish full stop. a car can have all the technology in the world while being able to cook rice but if it doesn't do what it sets out to do then you have a sophisticated rice cooker. people have different tastes in things and my favourite shooter is killzone 2 but i acknowledge MAG for what it is and i also love playing it because it gives me a sense of what its like on a real battlefield where i'm immersed in the experience. a lot of other shooters feels like i'm running around in a big parking lot. to each his own, MAG is amazing.

MiloGarret5888d ago

Did you lose your talent?

Come on, your signature line always cracked me up, bring it back!

cmrbe5888d ago

are part of a team and in a great big war that is more important than yourself.

However my only complaint is that you are not allowed to change your faction only a set amount of time.

I really hoped that there would be at least 3 times you can switch so that you can test which fraction you might want to join in the long run.

Blaster_Master5888d ago

Its called Veteran Mode. Once you level up all the way you have a choice to stay with that faction, or change factions, all while keeping your stats, and you get a bonus 10% experience every time you do it.

BTW, MAG>BC2 plain and simple. I could go on why, but unlike most of you noobs, I dont need to justify my purchase. I really am genuinely in love with this game. Ill get BC2 when its in the bargain bin. Maybe.

Show all comments (86)
470°

MAG was one of the most ambitious shooters ever and deserves a PS5 sequel

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?

Read Full Story >>
gamerevolution.com
yellowgerbil2296d ago

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).

_SilverHawk_2296d ago

Amazing game. Hopefully sony makes a sequel

XisThatKid2296d ago

This is the game in modern gaming that even got me into shooters i spent literally days with this game Raven All the way. War against the the mighty D ride oh so edgy S.V.E.R.

NecrumOddBoy2296d ago

Original Battle Royale. No microtransactions. Definitely ahead of time.

XBox4eva692296d ago

It's almost as far from battle royale as you can get. o_O

frostypants2296d ago

It didn't have a BR mode.

Da12RespectA2295d ago

That wasn't a battle royale game at all.

rdgneoz32295d ago

3 teams of 32 fighting it out would be considered Battle Royaleish. If you're gonna saying teams are OK when you start doing teams of 2 or 3 or 4, then 32v32v32 should work. And on besides that, it had 128 v 128 which was insanely fun.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2295d ago
Muzikguy2296d ago (Edited 2296d ago )

I personally hadn't played much of it. I did spend a lot of time in PlanetSide 2 though (somewhat like MAG). Games like these tend to get overrun by cheaters and then ruined too often.

Teflon022296d ago

MAG didn't have that issue as far as I remember. I use to love the 256 matches. That game had an amazing community. Everyone actually communicated and played together. No one B****ed at the team. Everyone understood there was so much going on that if things are going wrong. Everyone had to think of new strategies.
Fav moment was when all 3 other squads 32 took their objectives but we were struggling with ours and had one more to blow up. The other leaders were communicating asking if the 2 nearest squads should send ppl. Our leader was like Naw I got a idea. So he told us all to die and set ourselves at the nearest hills prone without being seen. So we all did and surrounded the areas.
He said everyone on his count throw your grenades. Then snipers go all out and everyone else run in. They won't be able to get everyone and if needed the snipers go in about 10 seconds after.

Everyone did that and I got to the objective and set it off. 9 of us survived and got it. felt amazing to say I got the objective, cover me in that moment. Wish it was PS4 so I could have saved that moment
It was literally the coolest moment I had in a online shooter, closest since was BF4.

Muzikguy2296d ago

@Teflon

That does indeed sound like an awesome moment. One that makes games like these memorable for sure. It does seem like MAG had a lot more cooperation than most any online shooter

Teflon022296d ago

It did because you absolutely can't get no where in it without teamwork. It also didn't have an extremely big base of players. Everyone who played really wanted to play. I really hope they bring it back and do the same thing to only have serious players get into the big matches again

UltraNova2296d ago

Wow, what a run! This game looks better than PUBG!

Muzikguy2296d ago

Watching that video you wouldn't think the game was on PS3.

Spenok2296d ago

I adored this game too. Some of my best FPS online memories on it. So freaking good.

I'd love to see another game like this come out at some point. And NOT like Planetside... M.A.G. was something special.

yellowgerbil2296d ago

Yeah problem is if it existed now adays, it would likely be riddled with xp boosts and dance moves and all that other pay garbage...
MAG and Warhawk are the only 2 online games I ever got into, and both need a PROPER sequel on PS5.
Remember the first time I got 100 kills in a match, was in a turret with a repair kit and just mowed down wave after wave on Valors map.

2295d ago Replies(1)
2294d ago
+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2294d ago
PrinceOfAnger2296d ago

I had so much fun with this game

TGGJustin2296d ago

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.

UnholyLight2296d ago

Really interesting as an Xbox owner at the time. This game had captured my interest as a kid but I never got a chance to play it. Being on PS4 and soon possibly PS5, I would love to see this franchise brought back to life. I imagine with the power of next gen it would be really quite fun.

From what I hear and what I remember, this game was FAR ahead of it's time. A real shame it never truly took off from my understanding.

grifter0242296d ago

I'm an xbox boy since mech warrior but got a ps3 slim for mag. If you liked halo or cod you'd have had a blast in mag. Was one of the first games you could actually do something other than shooting and still make a difference in game.

spicelicka2295d ago

PS4 needs something like it. In the multiplayer space it's far behind the Xbox, there are no quality multiplayer games on it that aren't on other consoles.

Dirtnapstor2296d ago

Yes, yes, and yes. Way ahead of it's time. Would love to see a PS5 variant of this game.

Show all comments (100)
120°

Modern Warfare Ground War mode has MAG vibes

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."

Read Full Story >>
sausageroll.com.au
ilikestuff2421d ago (Edited 2421d ago )

I never played mag, I did play this beta however, and if mag was like this beta then (fart noises) for mag.

2421d ago
TheGamez1002421d ago

Man do I miss mag and zipper.

TheSinsibleOne2421d ago

Seriously though. Nowadays this and next gen are practically begging for a new MAG.

zodiac9092421d ago

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.

JEECE2421d ago

Because Sony hadn't figured out how to market their exclusives yet. Plus at that time COD craze was at its peak. So "generic high school bro #7," who was the primary purchaser of FPSs at that time (or at least represented a crowd necessary to sustain a playerbase), if he even had a PS3, would have just seen a game like MAG as a "copycat of Black Ops, man."

Not to mention MAG was pretty terribly uninviting for new people after awhile, because it was more skill-based. This was great for veterans, but if you weren't willing to put in the time getting destroyed for awhile, you would never appreciate the game. The Battlefield: Bad Company and BF:3 games out during that gen were far more accessible to lower level players.

Vegamyster2421d ago

Battlefield 4 was at the start of the generation and had 64 players, to me it depends more on how the map/gameplay is utilized, i enjoyed the 20vs20 modes more in the MW Beta than the 64 player ground war mode.

2421d ago
moomoo3192421d ago

It feels absolutely nothing like MAG lol. Way more battlefield vibes

xX-oldboy-Xx2421d ago

And even those are very small vibes, it still feels like COD at the end of the day.

390°

MAG: The Greatest Game You Never Played

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.

Read Full Story >>
sausageroll.com.au
FiLTHY ESKiMO2540d ago

Who would the next gen version nor that Zippers gone?

_SilverHawk_2540d ago

I remember this game and it was amazing. I would like it if Sony would make another one because this game was ahead of it's time.

RememberThe3572539d ago

It was an amazing concept and it was a cool game, it was just ahead of it's time. I played the sh!t outta MAG, but the game itself played just okay. I'd love to have seen a sequel, even just a spiritual successor, especially with the next gen coming and the way cloud computing has advanced a game like that nowadays would be awesome.

Elwenil2539d ago

It may have been amazing if you played for SVER, but if you played for Raven or Valor, it was an unbalanced mess. I had some fun with it, but the player count was an illusion at best and false advertising at it's worst. The map and faction balance was so ridiculously skewed you knew who was going to win as soon as you saw what team you were against. It definitely had some interesting ideas, but was far from an amazing experience in my opinion. I would have much rather Zipper have made another SOCOM game rather than MAG.

darthv722539d ago

that game would make for a great battle royale release. So many players all at once... it was ahead of its time for a console shooter.

TheGamez1002540d ago

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.....

TekoIie2540d ago (Edited 2540d ago )

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.

Knushwood Butt2540d ago

'HAH. So is Planetside 2 now the best FPS ever? Because it does everything MAG can and does it far better.'.

It was released years later.

Was there anything offering what MAG did when MAG was released?

TekoIie2540d ago

"Was there anything offering what MAG did when MAG was released?"

Yes, Planetside 1.

Knushwood Butt2540d ago

Fair enough.

Can't say I've played it, but I enjoyed MAG for a while.

FantasticBoss2539d ago

MAG was one of the very few games trying to do scale like it did, but I think it missed the mark. Wish it could have had a sequel though as they may have been able to iterate on it to create something pretty neat.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2539d ago
Profchaos2538d ago

Sony had a awesome approach to online in the PS2 days with SOCOM co op that had games working together to achieve a tactical goal they pioneered voice chat on the PS2 for SOCOM but as they steamrolled ahead it was clear team Deathmatch would take over in popularity which shifted zippers approach so all their experience amounted for not much when designing online in the PS3 era.
It still was a decent game but couldn't stand out compared to cod which had millions of players consistently

yellowgerbil2540d ago

Loved mag had over 1700hrs into it across many accounts, remember my first 100 kill sabotage game, was insane

BLow2539d ago

Yes, so do I and not that game they released on PS3. I'm talking the one Zipper did and not Slant Six. At least Slant Six tried to do the series justice once they fixed the issues.

The one Zipper did didn't feel like Socom to me. It felt more like Ghost Recon to be honest. I absolutely loved the voice commands and I figured they would be even better on next gen hardware. They didn't even bother doing anything.

Maybe, I just wanted it more grounded and not so techy if that makes sense. I just wanted to go into jungles or missions just using my wits and patience and not have to use a bunch of gadgets. I wanted to be able to give orders with my voice to squad members. Yeah, they can at least have earpieces lol.

It's hard to explain but I know the old school Socom players know what I'm saying. Socom just had a certain feeling and the new game didn't feel that way. Slant Six yes. Zipper no...

We can only hope but if they bring it back they have to do it right. If not don't bother and just make something new. I rather have the memories I had with Socom be mostly positive than negative. Unless you pull a God of War, don't bother lol.

I've already said too much but that goes to show how much I loved Socom. Especially 1 and 2.....

Deathdeliverer2539d ago (Edited 2539d ago )

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.

Hungryalpaca2539d ago

What exactly was it ahead of its time in? Player count? Planetside released in 2003 and and played count per match was over 300.

xkvcq2538d ago (Edited 2538d ago )

The BETA for MAG was one of my fondest gaming moments. I was highly anticipating the start of the beta servers but I had school that day. I had started downloading it that morning as soon as it was available and just when it finished downloading I found out school was cancelled, last minute, because of weather. BEST. SNOW DAY. EVER. I played the beta all day, continuing to put off my homework :P

TekoIie2538d ago (Edited 2538d ago )

Well have I got news for you pal! Planetside 2 has been available for nearly 4 years on the PS4 and longer on PC and people still aren't blown away. Maybe the novelty of scale is actually overrated and people don't care as much about it which is why MAG failed when multiplayer shooters were at peak popularity during it's lifetime?

If you were blown away by 256 players in 2010 why would you not have been blown away by 1000 roughly 2-3 years later?

Show all comments (84)