Table of contents

Page Previous 1 2 3 Next

Advertisement

MAG Review

PlayStation 3 Review by Simon Parkin

29 January, 2010

Page 1 of 3. Page 2 ->

In videogames, bigger has always equalled better. Marketing men spray ever-greater numbers at us like schoolboys competing to see who can pee furthest up a wall. 'Wonder at how many colours a Mega Drive can display!' they say. 'Marvel at how many minutes of cut-scene you can store on a PlayStation disc!' 'Quiver at the number of polygons that now comprise Lara Croft's cleavage!'

The inference is that quality always stays abreast of ambition; that the bigger, faster and more numerous the virtual things we have to play with, the happier we will be. As a result, it's numbers which fuel the fires of the console hardware cycles. And it's numbers which justify gaming's interminable sequels - explaining in neat accountant's rows why it is that we need another Gran Turismo, even when in the hands, the difference can be imperceptible.

More recently, however, there's been a move away from obsessing about figures. Nintendo's Wii and Microsoft's Natal are arguably technological sidesteps, focusing not on multiplying the underlying numbers but on changing the way we interact with them. And as gaming hardware has begun to languish, so developers have been forced to focus their ambitions elsewhere.

Why the shift? It's financial, for sure. As the boundaries of what's possible in a videogame have widened, so the costs of meeting this potential have become unaffordable. But also, there's the realisation that bigger doesn't always equal better; that, while the promise of battles featuring 256 players make for fantastic headlines and excitable playground whispers, today's players are more concerned with quality than bulk. Gamers, perhaps more than anyone, know that size matters only superficially. It's what you do with it that counts.

It's a distinction that Zipper Interactive, developer of the world's largest-scale first-person shooter, has clearly kept in mind. While most press attention has been focused on MAG's unprecedented scope, in play it fast becomes clear that the game's value is not in merely delivering a giant war-game that maintains a solid 30 frames per second, but in what the developer did next.

'MAG' Screenshot 1

Die, and there's a "bleedout" grace period before you respawn, during which you can be saved.

Not that you'll perceive the cleverness at first, however. As you enter your first 256-player battle, a tiny camouflaged cog in the fearsome machinery of war, there appears to be little rhyme or reason to the battlefield. Bodies scarper over hills, through bushes and in and out of buildings with no apparent tactical cohesion.

Dive into the throng and, to begin with, you too will act like a headless chicken, applying your default Modern Warfare lone wolf tactics to the sprawling battlefield and floundering in a wash of bullets, blood and confusion. Stand atop a hill looking down on the action and you'll observe little more than a sea of insects in a scramble for territory, one that's mostly devoid of logic or strategy.

This initial feeling is exacerbated by the fact that, played as a straight shooter, MAG is undeniably disappointing. Combat feels light and skittish in the hands, while weapons lack the kickback and weightiness of the genre's current leaders. In order to make a game of such technical ambition run smoothly and without lag, texture and detail have been reined in. The drab, muted environments, dull lighting and poor particle effects do little to make MAG's locations inviting, enjoyable places with which to familiarise oneself.

Advertisement
Comments

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-50 of 176 Next →

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
Benno
29/01/10 @ 10:38
#1
+3
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I will probably pick this up in a couple of months time when all the COD/Halo kids have left it due to it requiring a bit of thought and strategy. Hopefully it will be left with a hardcore following (like SOCOM) where people play it properly.
onezeonx
29/01/10 @ 10:40
#3
+35
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Been playing this since last night and its great imo!

Sick of MW2 "action" and running round and in MAG you can decide how to play
Sit back sniping or run in gunning.....both really fun

Oh and im in the UK and played a 128 player match with mostly yanks....with NO LAG!

Dont expect it to beat MW2/BF ofcourse but its another chioce...and plays well

Most peoples comments in here will be from not playing the game!
Edited 1 times, most recently on 29/01/10 @ 10:41
darren1976
29/01/10 @ 10:46
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Want to give this a try. Is there a demo available? Tried BF BC2 demo yesterday on 360 and didn't like it much, but still want a more strategic online fps as alternative to codmw2. Guess I'll have to wait for the next Ghost Recon!
Mkwone
29/01/10 @ 10:54
#9
+18
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
This is going to get messy.
MrMarc
29/01/10 @ 10:55
#10
+2
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I had a feeling this wouldn't get a spectacular review, I seemed to be one of the few people at Eurogamer Expo who wasn't impressed with it, the 256 player thing (Which isn't exactly a 'true' 256 player experience now is it) has been taunted so much it appears to be more of a gimmick than anything to take the focus away from what is quite a clunky feeling FPS.
TopKatt
29/01/10 @ 10:56
#11
+15
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Strange one this, I hpoe it does well but am not planning on picking it up myself. I do enjoy the odd bit of multiplayer but still prefer a good single player game to be honest. Oh well, kudos on trying something different anyway.
Superet
29/01/10 @ 11:05
#13
+32
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Yeah, forget Uncharted 2 or God of War 3.
StrayBezza
29/01/10 @ 11:05
#14
+9
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Its actually really good this. Its different to MW2, in the least that you can normally last more than 3 seconds without dying! If people take to it and play it properly it will be brilliant and have long term appeal. Graphically, for its scope and size it looks good too. Definately worth picking up, unless reviews for Battlefield 2 are amazing I will stick with this I think (demo didnt exactly wow me). I'd pitch MAG, at the moment at an 8. In time, as long as the game is well supported etc that score may improve for me.
insincere_dave
29/01/10 @ 11:05
#15
-9
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Two - Five - Six - SEVEN
darren1976
29/01/10 @ 11:06
#16
+24
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
What are you talking about Mogs? There are several good games now that justify a PS3! Behave yourself and stop trying to upset PS3 only owners ;)
Doctor_What
29/01/10 @ 11:06
#17
+11
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
My housemate is one of the dedicated SOCOM players so I'm pretty certain that he's going to adore this when the userbase settles down a bit. Not my cup of tea, but I think it's going to be fantastic for a certain breed of gamer. Good on Sony for giving this a bash.

SOCOM has steadily improved in every aspect since release (framerate, menu design, graphics, textures, feel of the weapons, audio... the lot!) so I would be very surprised if the same didn't happen here. I look forward to what MAG becomes in the future.
space ace
29/01/10 @ 11:07
#18
+12
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
In videogames marketing, bigger has always equalled better.

fixed
El-Dev
29/01/10 @ 11:08
#19
+6
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I'd agree with the bottleneck criticism, getting round these can be tricky but when you're given constant instructions it is very good. Then again that's only if you've got a good team leader. If people like online FPS they'll most probably like this.
knightmt
29/01/10 @ 11:09
#20
+2
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
It will be very interesting to see how many people are still playing this in six months.
If it gains a following and can maintane the large numbers of grunts that beta has been showing it might just save the chaos that it courts.
The big problem with fps is that AI is very complicated to create and people whilst being predictable are pretty addaptive. There is nothing really to compare MAG to.
stevetuck
29/01/10 @ 11:09
#21
+9
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
If people take to it and play it properly it will be brilliant and have long term appeal

I can see it now!

Me: Right we need to take this bunker and hold it till captured
Random Yank: eermmmm Death...match?
Me: No take and hold
Random Yank: deathmatch got ya!
bodypopper
29/01/10 @ 11:15
#23
+11
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Battlefield: Bad Coimpany 2 it is then...
Mkwone
29/01/10 @ 11:18
#24
+16
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@marcgiu Apart from Killzone got 9/10 and Haze got 4/10

I'm still going to buy it

the message i got from the review was that this is a good game if you want to put time into it, otherwise stick with CoD style instant multiplayer fixes.
Fab4
29/01/10 @ 11:18
#25
+41
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I'll be picking it up tomorrow..anything that steers away from the shit that CoD has become will do me fine. Yes, I said CoD is shit...neg away :P
mingster
29/01/10 @ 11:19
#26
+2
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Seems about right.. i had exactly the same experience from the beta.
well done on a timely review though.
ParanoidZombie
29/01/10 @ 11:23
#28
-1
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
folowing orders gives you xp? What if those orders are completely stupid? I wish there was a game that gives you xp for refusing to obey, I would buy it.
knightmt
29/01/10 @ 11:23
#29
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The users are loving this on MetaCritic, but there are only 200 of them so far, lets see if it falls as low as MW2 after 800 reviews.
BritishBlue1
29/01/10 @ 11:24
#30
+1
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I'm on the fence with this one, I played the closed Beta and I'm not entirely sure of it's lasting appeal. I'd rent it first before rushing out to splurge some cash. To be honest the only way I can see this having any type of legs is if they go nuts with the DLC, free and paid, with a a fair amount of post-release commitment from Zipper this could turn into something of an FPS gem for PSN. Or it could just crash n burn...depends how it's supported by fans and developers alike.

7 out of 10 seems a fair score to me personally.
Edited 2 times, most recently on 29/01/10 @ 11:27
betahoven
29/01/10 @ 11:31
#31
+11
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
From playing the beta I thought it was pretty good. I think Sony's overall marketing of the game has really let it down though, as from day 1 all they've really talked about is 256 players, when for me the more interesting aspects of the game are the persistent "shadow war" meta-game (ignored in this review) and the ability to take leadership roles where if you rise high enough through the ranks it effectively becomes a RTS game. It's quite unique in several ways apart from the player count.

Also the name is awful.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 29/01/10 @ 11:36
52pickup
29/01/10 @ 11:31
#32
+9
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
A fair review, and i think a 7/10 means they had a bloody good try. 7 is a good score.
BritishBlue1
29/01/10 @ 11:35
#33
+11
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@marcgiu

Yeah and Halo 3 got a very (very) generous 10 out of 10 when it wasn't a patch on the first one, or the second one for that matter...mind you, I think I was the only person who enjoyed playing as the arbiter in Halo 2...

Anyway, enough of the fanboy talk.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 29/01/10 @ 11:35
mikeck
29/01/10 @ 11:37
#34
+4
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I was on the closed beta and wasn't that keen, but have had a full copy since Tuesday and am loving this game. It offers so much more than MP in a game like MW2 (which I do really enjoy, before anybody alledges otherwise). This game will not suit all tastes, but it's certainly a lot of fun.

I have to take umbrage with this quote from the review though As with Planetside, to the casual onlooker MAG will look like a dumb free-for-all Um...surely that's what games like MW2 are though...dumb free for all...MAG caters for much more tactical thinking, the whole element of having player officers etc supports the structure of the game...if you're going to play as a lone wolf, you won't get much out of this game.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 29/01/10 @ 11:38
creepylizard
29/01/10 @ 11:38
#35
+28
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"O-U-C-H

Was considering buying a PS3 for this, but what's the point now?! It remains just a George Foreman grill. Last reason to buy a PS3 - gone

RIP Sony. "
Either a very transparent attempt at trolling or, more worryingly, a blinkered, retarded refusal to acknowledge Last guardian, heavy rain, god of war 3, uncharted 2 et al...
And I don't even have a PS3..
M_of_the_sys
29/01/10 @ 11:38
#36
+1
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Hmmm. There are bottlenecks but like the reviewer said himself, there's different ways to approach each objective. If you know the maps, the bottlenecks aren't a problem.
Fair play though. 7/10 is a good score for a game that's not going to appeal to everyone.
DrDamn
29/01/10 @ 11:40
#37
+5
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I was leaning more towards BFBC2 due to the vehicular madness. Those that have just looked at the score and made a judgement that MAG is not all that should actually read the text of the review though. There is a lot of very good points made about things which it does well.
Chazmeister
29/01/10 @ 11:42
#38
+6
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I remember playing on Tribes servers that had 256 players, although it could get a bit laggy during the bigger battles, but then that was back in the days of 56k dialup, so hardly surprising. I had some fantastic games on the 128 player servers mind you. Two teams of 64 all rushing towards each other and engaging in a furious pitched battle down in some valley, they were good times and to my mind the original Tribes has never been beaten for FPS MP gaming fun.

If that sort of thing was possible back in the days of 56k dialup I don't see why the same can't be done today. I don't understand this insistance that devs have in making multiplayer small scale affairs of 8 v 8 etc. It would appear that even this game compartmentalises its 256 players off into smaller battles. I say give the people what they want, give us great big epic chaotic battles and to hell with all this small squad sized gameplay.
El-Dev
29/01/10 @ 11:43
#39
+19
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Why does every sonybot list response consist of at least 50% unreleased titles?"

Why is every Sony related comments thread full of comments from 360 only owners?
creepylizard
29/01/10 @ 11:43
#40
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@frod
I don't know whether that was directed at me or not but the only PS3 game I've played is MGS 4 and I didn't like that much.
I was merely trying to suggest that proclaiming Sony to be dead is a slightly ludicrous statement. I personally like my 360 and have no intention of buying anything else so...
muscleblade
29/01/10 @ 11:46
#42
+5
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"This game looks really polished graphically"

Typical Darren comment. No offense.
NGCes26294BIV
29/01/10 @ 11:47
#43
+2
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Left 4 Dead showed that it's difficult enough to get four people to follow one game plan. How on earth are 128 people going to manage it on a service where hardly anyone uses voice chat?

Good luck to them though - the FPS genre needs more innovation.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 29/01/10 @ 12:10
M_of_the_sys
29/01/10 @ 11:48
#44
+4
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@NGCes26294BIV

I don't know how but they have. I don't know what you mean by 'hardly anyone'. The majority of the squads I have joined have had mics. Have you played the game and found the opposite to be true or are you just spouting crap that you've heard other people say?
Edited 1 times, most recently on 29/01/10 @ 11:55
creepylizard
29/01/10 @ 11:52
#45
+3
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@frod
i don't really get the false data comment but after looking at the thread is does seem like seem people have a bit of a bee in their bonnet about something...ah, well
Petulant_Radish
29/01/10 @ 11:55
#46
+25
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Why are all fanboys cunts?
MightyMouse
29/01/10 @ 11:55
#48
+5
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The best times I've had in fps games have all been when playing as a team for bigger objectives than killing x number of people. This game sounds pretty much perfect.
hardtech
29/01/10 @ 11:56
#49
+4
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I played this during the beta and that let me make up my mind. While the review does make a good point in regards to pick up teams, if you get into a good squad with a reliable group of players and the game really comes into its own.
butler`
29/01/10 @ 12:02
#50
-4
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
*waiting on bad company 2*

Comments: 1-50 of 176 Next →

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

X View gallery