• Publisher: SCEA
  • Release Date: Jan 26, 2010
Metascore
76

Generally favorable reviews - based on 83 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 54 out of 83
  2. Negative: 0 out of 83
Buy Now
Buy on
  1. The bottom-line is that MAG is a game that requires a pretty serious time-commitment in order to enjoy. You won't get involved with the Shadow War until you've been playing for a while, and most of the individual leveling seems to be designed with hardcore players in mind, possibly taking hundreds of hours to fully level-up.
  2. 73
    All in all, MAG is a more than decent game and it comes recommended for anyone loving multiplayer. The tactical element is deep enough to make MAG a very good game, but it can also tackle it. You’ll be dependent on the tactical skills of your fellow players to get good results. If everyone does what they are supposed to, then the satisfaction will be high. When things go awry, then frustration will soon follow. Aside from the occasional map that is too large, there are no structural errors a gamer will get stuck on. The question is whether the lack of a single player will deter some gamers.
  3. PSM3 Magazine UK
    73
    Technically impressive but MAG is too scattershot to universally appeal. [Mar 2010, p.84]
  4. A classic approach to the Online FPS genre with the blessing (?) of 256 people connected to the server. Massive, but not so incisive.
  5. A solid FPS, with ideas behind it that should have made it epic, but in practice, many of the grand ideas fail to translate into viable experiences. The fact that I didn’t experience any lag in over 50 games, regardless of the number of players on varied connections, is no minor feat. It’s very nearly there, and with some tweaking could be the future franchise to overwhelm them all.
  6. Games Master UK
    71
    Overwhelming at the start, underwhelming by the end. A solid online shooter but not essential. [Apr 2010, p.84]
  7. The irony then, is that the game which can accommodate the greatest numbers of players in the history of the medium will be best enjoyed by a dedicated few. For those players, at least, numbers really aren't everything.
  8. It's not the finished article by any means, and through updates Zipper may realise its potential. It needs more game modes, tweaks to the spawn system, better controls, and it needs to make everything a lot clearer for those who find clans and massive action intimidating. If it does this, MAG will gain a foothold and thrive.
  9. 70
    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.
  10. Your mileage will vary greatly in this epic-scale shooter that rewards only the most dedicated.
  11. MAG’s player count is an impressive technical achievement, but the game world feels oddly mechanical. Outside of the high player count, the uninspired world fails to stand out from the pack. If every gameplay mechanic were kept intact and shrunk down to a 16- or 32-player game, MAG would be an experience as generic as its title.
  12. 70
    MAG, much like actual war, is often an ugly, confusing mess that tosses a group of people into extraordinary situations where they can overcome through teamwork or die as frustrated individuals. If you're looking for just another game to see your name on top of a leaderboard then keep on walking.
  13. MAG is a tough game to review. There's so much keeping it from being a must-own (lack of single-player campaign, visual problems), and yet the multiplayer is really engaging after it opens up the first couple of hours. If you need a combat fix and can't wait for Bad Company 2, this is definitely worth renting.
  14. It's such an uneven and eventually tiring experience, I think this is a good foundation on which to build a franchise, its just they need to make it so much more.
  15. If you can recruit a legion of 256 like minded players then MAG would be an experience like no other, but its potential is sadly lost as, at this primal and critical stage, it still needs time to fully flourish.
  16. MAG is not particularly user-friendly. I am told that below its exterior, if you find a good clan and have a good headset, it is a deep, fluid military shooter with hundreds of hours of gameplay lurking within it.
  17. Kudos to Zipper for being trailblazers in terms of how many people you can cram into a game but beyond this USP, MAG is a fairly generic affair. It all works well but it isn't mind-blowing. And with a full-price tag, minus an offline campaign, it's hard to see where the value for money lies here.
  18. Playstation Official Magazine UK
    70
    Swings wildly and rapidly from the incredible to the mundane. [Mar 2010, p.108]
  19. MAG delivers a massive online multiplayer for up to 256 players, a good matchmaking and almost no lag. The maps are huge, but they come with a mediocre design and you can see only four of them when you choose your army. The frame rate has frequent issues, while the sound effects are mediocre. We were expecting more from Zipper Interactive's PS3 debut.
  20. While innovating with its 256 players on a battlefield, the end result was not positive enough to make the game stand out among so many other good titles for online gaming.
  21. Playstation: The Official Magazine (US)
    70
    Relies a bit too much on the players to make the game fun. [Apr 2010, p.70]
  22. MAG is a multiplayer game to the core. It doesn’t have a single-player campaign, scripted sequences or AI-controlled bots – only online battles and nothing mode. In the times, when Battlefield and Unreal Tournament feature storylines, cinematics and dialogue, Zipper’s creation feels like the last of the Mohicans. But the lack of a story is not what killed MAG. The concept, the release time frame and the rivals did.
  23. If anything, the game is a tech demo of sorts for what is possible in online gameplay. It delivers a fun experience and whether or not that's worth the price of admission now or until the game drops to $40 or $30 is up to how dedicated the person is.
  24. With its robust clan support MAG still offers a cooperative experience on a rare scale for bands of dedicated players willing to weather the unnecessary confusions and ungenerous structure of the early game. For the rest, MAG rarely deals out the empowerment and clarity of purpose that other team shooters, like the forthcoming Battlefield: Bad Company 2, offer from the get go. It’s not quite ‘welcome to the suck’, but gamers may wonder if MAG’s a battle worth fighting.
  25. Boomtown
    60
    It doesn’t provide an experience – it merely provides the tools with which to make an experience. Therefore your enjoyment is really dependant on whether you’re the type of person who is likely to seek out and become a member of an existing clan, or have enough online friends to create your own. If you’re not, then you’re much better off sticking to the more user friendly Battlefield, or COD: MW2.
  26. On one hand, MAG is an ambitious experiment that has delivered on many of its promises – it genuinely offers lag-free 256 player online battles with a huge potential for team work. On the other hand, it is a game that struggles to find a sense of purpose beyond this, or a real sense of identity.
  27. games(TM)
    60
    An interesting idea, but it's fundamentally flawed in its execution, with too much trust placed on trigger-happy gamers to overcome these barriers to play. [Issue#93, p.126]
  28. MAG tries and does some things well. 256 player battles still seem too chaotic and the game relies heavily on having a good team which is hard when it's a public style offering.
  29. A lot of bugs and lack of content soils a game with a fascinating concept of vast online battles. Maybe something for the real war enthusiasts, otherwise we advise you to stay away from this.
User Score
8.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 573 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 73 out of 573
  1. NickC.
    Jan 28, 2010
    10
    This is really incomparable to games like MW2. If you play call of duty style you will hate this game die a lot. If you at least attempt to This is really incomparable to games like MW2. If you play call of duty style you will hate this game die a lot. If you at least attempt to work along with your teammates and form strategies it becomes one of the best experiences you can get from a FPS. Even if your not the best FPS player, you can still do decent and have fun in this game. Full Review »
  2. May 12, 2011
    10
    1000 hours. enough said...
  3. May 8, 2014
    9
    So, yeah, MAG is dead. Its servers have been down for a lil' while already so why am I wasting my time typing a review for a game nobody willSo, yeah, MAG is dead. Its servers have been down for a lil' while already so why am I wasting my time typing a review for a game nobody will be able to play? Because MAG was a pioneering, underestimated FPS and it deserves at least a few minutes of my time, for posterity.

    Since this game is now dead, I'll write a review but I'll also add my little story concerning the game and why it ultimately failed to find its way in the very tight and ruthless FPS market which is almost under the complete grasp of two gigantic franchises, Battlefield and Call of Duty.

    I got the beta of MAG before its release. I immediately fell in love with a few aspects of the game. The first one was the whole teamwork concept. We're still in the prehistoric age of online gaming. Most players who play shooter games will toss aside the whole teamwork aspect, going in like Rambo. Well, MAG forced you to work with other players in order to achieve victory. That wasn't new for the genre, but the fact that you had squads and platoons, the vast use of headsets and the respawn which had a countdown so that you could reappear with your squadmates all encouraged and enforced teamwork.

    The second thing that really got me interested was the overall difficulty of the game which was due to its realism. Once again, teamwork was essential here if you wanted to survive. Also, you had to aim at the right body area to kill someone effectively. Most shooter games sure will make you deal more damage with head shots, but many will allow you to kill someone with a single sniper bullet in the foot and that's something I always hated - it removed the realism I was looking for.

    MAG was not an ordinary shooter. Heck, I'm not even sure you could see it as a FPS because it was so different from the other FPS at the time. The main reason for this was the vast amount of players who would kill each other in each and every game. With over 200 players simutaneously, this game was more of a war simulation than a video game to me.

    Another thing I loved was the fact that the game didn't really reward you for killing people. Sure, you'd get experience for kills, but in order to win, you had to destroy or conquer objectives which forced you to come up with strategies. You couldn't camp in this game and be part of the victory effort at the same time.

    When the game was released, it faced some harsh criticism. The thing is, many so-called pro reviewers played the beta and hypocritically wrote their review on the real game that they barely played. I've noticed a trend in pro video game reviews ( especially with IGN ) where they want to release their review ASAP ( to get the upper hand against other video game websites ) and they will often base themselves on betas... So yeah that's my opinion for the early and bad reviews of MAG.

    The critics of this game hurt its sells for sure but MAG wasn't perfect either. There were 3 factions in this game and one called SVER was overpowered for a very, very long time. Not only were the weapons better but the maps were strategically easier to defend as a SVER whilst the RAVEN faction was the complete opposite.

    The whole idea of factions was terrible. It split players in 3. If a friend chose to join VALOR and you were in SVER, you couldn't play with him, you were forced to play against him. They should've given up on factions and focused on clans instead.

    Zipper put a lot of effort into improving their game based on the gaming community. I have to give credit to them, because I think they spent a lot of time ( and money ) on patching it up. In the end, they kinda got rid of part of the faction problem by allowing, example, RAVEN players to defend maps of SVER. They did their best to recalibrate overpowered guns - unfortunately, to the point of nerfing some of them.

    The main flaw with this game was not the number of players ( I've rarely seen a laggy game despite playing with people from Japan, Australia, France, Brazil, etc. etc. ), but the size of the maps. They made the maps so huge that even if there were tens and tens of players, you would sometime have to run for an extended period of time before you actually encountered an enemy. All they had to do was to keep the same number of players but reduce the maps. This would've led to more action and less dull moments, especially after you respawned.

    This game was not only a pioneer in the number of players ( I'm sure this will be a norm in the upcoming years ), but also in the whole military hierarchy department. Squad leaders, platoon leaders and officers in command were ordinary players like you and me who had more experience than others and were given some extra power to influence the course of the battle. Once you were one of those, you could really tell that a good leader in this game was often the reason for a victory or a defeat. Battfield 4 recently implemented a similar concept in their game so I think people have noticed the potential of leaders in FPS games.
    Full Review »