• Publisher: SCEA
  • Release Date: Jan 26, 2010
User Score
8.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 552 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 66 out of 552

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. TonyP
    Jan 27, 2010
    2
    A prime example of Sony over-hyping your typical very below average shooter. Laggy controls on top of lackluster game types makes this game fail short of almost any shooter I have ever played. If you want large battles with actual teamwork, go play Battlefield 2. Also no one talks on this game. Mostly the PS3s fault but also the demographic of this game appeals to the people who lack the A prime example of Sony over-hyping your typical very below average shooter. Laggy controls on top of lackluster game types makes this game fail short of almost any shooter I have ever played. If you want large battles with actual teamwork, go play Battlefield 2. Also no one talks on this game. Mostly the PS3s fault but also the demographic of this game appeals to the people who lack the knowledge to hook up a blue-tooth device. Expand
  2. JustinC.
    Jan 28, 2010
    3
    256 players is the draw, to bad they didn't supply a good shooter to back up the large numbers that can play this... got me a trade in I guess. Should have came to Metacritic earlier before buying to learn up on it :(
  3. SethB.
    Jan 29, 2010
    2
    Zipper Interactive shows their true colors with this garbage. I have not seen such a bug infested game since Quake 2 was released and the multi-player didn
  4. WhiteTiger
    Feb 1, 2010
    1
    HAZE 2!!! Its a freak game, poor graphics and the sound is terrible... 256 players this is not the way of good game!!
  5. DanielT.
    Jan 27, 2010
    2
    Kinda disappointing. sure it has the capability for lots of players playing at once, but its no executed correctly. kinda frantic, kinda confusing, but not a whole lot of fun. rent first before even considering buying.
  6. DartmouthR.
    Jan 26, 2010
    3
    The graphics sucks the controls are slugish and first game was laggy returned the game and got my money back.
  7. FredH.
    Jan 26, 2010
    3
    Mostly lame. 256 is way too many people walking around without headsets. The maps get too huge, and you end up walking around without seeing anyone for most of the match. The other alternative is walking two steps and getting shot. Neither is very exciting. Perhaps the game will pick up as more people buy it. Oh wait...
  8. FPSgamerGamerq
    Feb 1, 2010
    2
    This game leave much to be desired as a shooter...it's bland and repetitive.
  9. WillC
    Feb 1, 2010
    3
    Not worth full retail price. The game lacks variety which I feel will be added later on via paid dlc. Wait to buy this till it's in a bargain somewhere and even then just give a quick google to see if the online community is still around.
  10. Vonschna
    Jan 27, 2010
    2
    This game is imbalanced, some factions have very strong base maps while others have very weak maps. So it makes for a very imbalanced game straight up. It's like one team in a strategy game getting a hut while the other gets a fortress. The lvl system is flawed, when you get lvl 60 you can buy almost everything and have 1-2 main weps fully upgraded. The xp system is flawed, go medic This game is imbalanced, some factions have very strong base maps while others have very weak maps. So it makes for a very imbalanced game straight up. It's like one team in a strategy game getting a hut while the other gets a fortress. The lvl system is flawed, when you get lvl 60 you can buy almost everything and have 1-2 main weps fully upgraded. The xp system is flawed, go medic and get lvl 60 in 2 days or go another route and spend 150+ hours getting to lvl 60. Sometimes it's nice to have 5 medics fighting to revive but when they are running into the open to res 1 guy who will get shot down as soon as he's revived you know it's flawed. The graphics are sub par and it wouldn't matter too much, but the game has no colorblind option or team colors the whole game looks brown and every team looks brown. Expand
  11. Dec 30, 2010
    2
    Horrible, the game does not have enough content period. There are barley any guns at all and the guns are even very different from each other. Its like they made the the game half way then sold it. Plus if your on SVER it takes 20 min. to get into a match. If you buy this game be ready to get killed by the people who sit around all day and play it. You never get that sense of scale thisHorrible, the game does not have enough content period. There are barley any guns at all and the guns are even very different from each other. Its like they made the the game half way then sold it. Plus if your on SVER it takes 20 min. to get into a match. If you buy this game be ready to get killed by the people who sit around all day and play it. You never get that sense of scale this game just fails everything. DONT BUY Expand
  12. Aug 10, 2011
    1
    Zipper and Sony Sell this game on PSN in Europe, Australia and Asia. Shame they closed ALL Servers OUT SIDE OF THE USA. Until around June last year I might have given MAG an 8/10, Shame Sony and Zipper Doesn't care to provide the same equal service to those which bought the game in their own countries OUTSIDE of USA to find themselves forced to play on U.S servers with an Average ofZipper and Sony Sell this game on PSN in Europe, Australia and Asia. Shame they closed ALL Servers OUT SIDE OF THE USA. Until around June last year I might have given MAG an 8/10, Shame Sony and Zipper Doesn't care to provide the same equal service to those which bought the game in their own countries OUTSIDE of USA to find themselves forced to play on U.S servers with an Average of 200>300+ ms PING! Futhermore Zipper NEVER Commented on this fact on their Official Forums, likewise about the Euro Servers for Socom 4, These DEVS should understand how important it is to have a Dedicated server on a Regional/Local level especially due to the fact that this game is an ONLINE ONLY FPS. Therefore to provide European Players without the same service as US players is ridiculously. FPS games and high pings just don't mix. It's bad enough with P2P games but this game without Dedicated servers in Europe and Australia just takes the piss. Expand
  13. VmanB
    Feb 2, 2010
    1
    Well where do you start with this load of crap. I would love to defend any ps3 only game but this is possibly the worst fps game of all time. Even worse than COD MW2 and thats saying something. I don't know where all these great user scores are coming from but they must be playing a different game to me. Terrible graphics, sub par sound, very dodgy controls and no fun or excitment at Well where do you start with this load of crap. I would love to defend any ps3 only game but this is possibly the worst fps game of all time. Even worse than COD MW2 and thats saying something. I don't know where all these great user scores are coming from but they must be playing a different game to me. Terrible graphics, sub par sound, very dodgy controls and no fun or excitment at all. If your idea of enjoyment out of a decent multiplayer game is being killed by snipers all the time or frag grenades ever two seconds then this might be the game for you. All that happens is you spawn at base then make your way to the objective(If a sniper doesn't kill you first) then usually get killed straight away on arrival. Then you do the same thing over and over again for about 20mins each game. There plenty of bugs that probably will get sorted out with a patch or two but there's no fun to be had here anyway. Bought my game on friday and i'm just on my way back to trade in 5 days later A.S.A.P. I think i'll stick with Killzone 2 for now because this is a joke to any PS3 FPS fan. DO NOT BUY. Wait for Bad company 2 is my advise. You have been warned. Expand
  14. SeungchulL.
    Jan 28, 2010
    4
    Far less than stellar, what a letdown. lots of ambition, but executed poorly. controls are loose and sloppy, gameplay is confusing at best, guns sound like toys while explosions sound like firecrackers, too steep a learning curve (and this coming from a fps vet), a poorly constructed level up system, server problems, not to mention the visuals seem to suffer considering everything elseFar less than stellar, what a letdown. lots of ambition, but executed poorly. controls are loose and sloppy, gameplay is confusing at best, guns sound like toys while explosions sound like firecrackers, too steep a learning curve (and this coming from a fps vet), a poorly constructed level up system, server problems, not to mention the visuals seem to suffer considering everything else they were trying to do. granted, the game isn't without its merits considering the sheer size... liked the concept, bummed by the product. Expand
  15. Aug 14, 2012
    4
    What disappoints me most about MAG is how the PS3 hardware is incapable of coping with the 256 player game modes MAG boasts. Game maps are larger than normal but not terribly so, but large enough to separate the players into different hotspots during the 256 player modes. Teams of 128 are split into different segments so initially the game feels like a 32 vs 32 game. As the game modeWhat disappoints me most about MAG is how the PS3 hardware is incapable of coping with the 256 player game modes MAG boasts. Game maps are larger than normal but not terribly so, but large enough to separate the players into different hotspots during the 256 player modes. Teams of 128 are split into different segments so initially the game feels like a 32 vs 32 game. As the game mode progresses, more players meet in flashpoints and the framerate tanks under the pressure. My PS3 locked up numerous times during the 256 player game modes, even after cleaning the dust out of it. Because the controls are so sloppy and wonky, people seem to mostly nade spam in the hopes of downing the newbs who blindly rush into the meat grinder. The weapon variety is stale and you'll find yourself grinding for in game currency to get better guns of which there are only a couple meager improvements. You'll also struggle to keep up as you grind for XP to invest in enough skills to increase your survivability and make the game playable. Coordination is essential in this game, and yet so few people have mics. The game had ambition, I'll give it that, but it utterly fails in execution. Expand
  16. davidshepard
    Jan 28, 2010
    0
    best game ever
Metascore
76

Generally favorable reviews - based on 83 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 54 out of 83
  2. Negative: 0 out of 83
  1. Massive Action Game delivers on the promise of its name. It's certainly massive, and there is more than enough action to go around. MAG's biggest draw, however, is that it's perfect for both hardcore multiplayer FPS fans and newcomers alike.
  2. The challenge of branding MAG with a number (much smaller than its trademarked 256 and between 1 and 10) to denote its quality is akin to rating World of Warcraft after a weekend of gold-farming, long before the full majesty of the game has blossomed and shown its true potential. The best we can do is rate our early impressions, undoubtedly influenced by the game’s prospects for the future.
  3. 256 players in the same battlefield is clearly a new step beyond what console online gaming was offering. Spectacular in its size, MAG allows at the same time a deep approach for the hardcore FPS lovers, and also an easier gameplay appealing for those more casual action gamers. The lack of any non-online mode can limit its influence, and the visuals are not over the top, but in the end, MAG achieves success delivering the closest experience to fighting on a living battlefield.