MAG PlayStation 3

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

Generally favorable reviews- based on 554 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 66 out of 554
Buy On

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. Oct 10, 2011
    7
    I really wanted to love MAG. As in, by now I've devoted a great deal of time to progression and unlocking, just to get a real insight into all three factions. the good news is, its a deep game, progression of sorts is never ending, with a (potentially) constantly evolving conflict. the key word there is potential, and that's where the cracks start to show. MAG felt more like a proof ofI really wanted to love MAG. As in, by now I've devoted a great deal of time to progression and unlocking, just to get a real insight into all three factions. the good news is, its a deep game, progression of sorts is never ending, with a (potentially) constantly evolving conflict. the key word there is potential, and that's where the cracks start to show. MAG felt more like a proof of concept, a taste of something grander in a stale genre. I just hope lessons are learned for the next installment as the combination of 50%+ sniper teams, exploitable spawn points and dart control system make this a hard game to truly enjoy... Expand
  2. Mar 22, 2013
    7
    Some people say MAG stands for Massive Action Game. They are absolutely right! This game is massive. In some modes, there can be as many as 256 players playing together. The action part is spot on too. Many times I found myself in the middle of a huge battle and couldn't decide where to go, because every direction looked dangerous. There are some things it could work on though. One thingSome people say MAG stands for Massive Action Game. They are absolutely right! This game is massive. In some modes, there can be as many as 256 players playing together. The action part is spot on too. Many times I found myself in the middle of a huge battle and couldn't decide where to go, because every direction looked dangerous. There are some things it could work on though. One thing is it can take as many as 20 minutes to join a game. The only other thing I can complain about is you can't choose which map to play at. The network chooses for you, which can be really annoying because I once played on the same map 8 times in a row! While it's no where near a perfect game, MAG is an excellent substitute to CoD and Battlefield. Expand
  3. Mar 19, 2011
    5
    Terrible maps. 256 players is too many, especially since they all have mics. No single player. You're paying full retail price for half a game, if that. The graphics are good but players don't stand out the way they should. You'd think enemies are chameleons. I couldn't find a way to shoot with my trigger. Seriously? We have to shoot with the bumper? That alone can ruin it. The controlsTerrible maps. 256 players is too many, especially since they all have mics. No single player. You're paying full retail price for half a game, if that. The graphics are good but players don't stand out the way they should. You'd think enemies are chameleons. I couldn't find a way to shoot with my trigger. Seriously? We have to shoot with the bumper? That alone can ruin it. The controls just don't feel crisp and tight. This game provides a lot of "line drawn in the sand" battles. It lead to camping, big time. There's only one swan area on each side and it leads to spawn killing. Horrible game. I still own it, just because I don't get rid of games. Expand
  4. FrankieT
    Feb 3, 2010
    5
    MAG's biggest feature is 256 players. Significant cutbacks in areas like graphics, framerate were required in order to accomodate 256 players. Zipper was successful in getting 256 players online at once, so what's the problem? 256 players is the problem, because it simply doesn't make MAG better and more players definately doesn't make it more fun. Simply put, MAG is a MAG's biggest feature is 256 players. Significant cutbacks in areas like graphics, framerate were required in order to accomodate 256 players. Zipper was successful in getting 256 players online at once, so what's the problem? 256 players is the problem, because it simply doesn't make MAG better and more players definately doesn't make it more fun. Simply put, MAG is a gigantic turd that flatout sucks. Take a mediocre game like this and throw it in a community that struggles to support even the stellar online mp games and you are left with stinky FAIL. Expand
  5. AbdelK.
    Jan 28, 2010
    5
    256 players do not make a game good. Gameplay machanics do. It lacks fun gameplay. MAG doesn't have anything special gameplaywise.
  6. TheMaster
    Jan 29, 2010
    6
    An honest review, this game isn't anything special and little has been done since beta to make it playable/enjoyable. It is a sub-par FPS and a sub-par MMO, and worse it is tagged with a ludicrous price tag. I was excited for MAG, I was there in beta day one. And sadly the final copy is just bad. Still all of this said, it is better than anything on the xbox-three-shitty.
  7. Nov 1, 2010
    6
    The only good thing about this game is the amount of players you can have on a map in one session, other than that the game is slow, has awful graphics and is nothing like the standard the call of duty games have set for online first person shooters
  8. Mar 29, 2012
    6
    Bought this game as a sub for Battlefield 3 as I don't own a PS3 copy of BF3.. Honestly? It would've been an awesome concept and execution.. If it were the year 2003. As it stands, you have archaic gameplay wrapped around a great concept. Graphics being dated? Don't mind. Gameplay being that dated? Game breaker. The game was released in 2010 with gameplay flaws not seen in theBought this game as a sub for Battlefield 3 as I don't own a PS3 copy of BF3.. Honestly? It would've been an awesome concept and execution.. If it were the year 2003. As it stands, you have archaic gameplay wrapped around a great concept. Graphics being dated? Don't mind. Gameplay being that dated? Game breaker. The game was released in 2010 with gameplay flaws not seen in the genre since half a decade before. ANY war shooter that allows players to run directly INTO gunfire and knife the attacker before the ASSAULT RIFLE rounds take them down is awfully dated at best, terribad at worst. If you're a sucker for big battles, RENT this game and try it out. Do NOT make the mistake of BUYING this game based on this or ANY review. Expand
  9. AspenT.
    Jan 27, 2010
    6
    I have mixed feelings about this game but I can say one thing for certain. It is not going to make game of the year. First off, the controls are really really poor. Why on Earth does SCEA still not provide options to configure controls to the industry standard of COD
  10. MarkH.
    Feb 1, 2010
    7
    First of all, I have a lot of experience with these types of games. I played hundreds of hours in both Battlefield 2 and 2142 on the PC, so I have some high expectations for team based games. It's a good game for anyone who enjoys teamwork. I would like to say that aiming in this game is EXTREMELY hard on a regular TV. I upgraded to an HDTV and HDMI and the difference in aiming was First of all, I have a lot of experience with these types of games. I played hundreds of hours in both Battlefield 2 and 2142 on the PC, so I have some high expectations for team based games. It's a good game for anyone who enjoys teamwork. I would like to say that aiming in this game is EXTREMELY hard on a regular TV. I upgraded to an HDTV and HDMI and the difference in aiming was phenomenal. It completely changed my opinion of the game. Please consider this before buying. Overall the game is fun, but you do need to be with a good squad, and a good team. However, the game does suffer some balancing issues. SVER has more players (people from beta realized that SVER maps are better, and also several game stores had preorder incentives for SVER), leading to more wins towards the "shadow war". (They get more matches). SVER's maps are also easier to defend than others, leading to more wins on their part. As a result, their team has more high level people. It's a snowball effect, with SVER getting better and better. This balancing issue needs to be fixed. (I personally play Raven full time, but I also have played SVER) It is kind of annoying how you can't switch sides, (yes, you can only have ONE character when you start) but it also prevents everyone from switching over to SVER. Also, the system for upgrades is by spending points, but you can only relocate those points by earning "respec points". It makes you think before you spend points, but the system is pretty unforgivable with testing out new weapons, as you will need to spend the points to respec. Really the balancing issues are all that is wrong with this game. I have a lot of fun with it, it can be very frustrating at times, but I still enjoy it. If you don't like working with other people, don't bother picking up this game. Expand
  11. TimothyP.
    Jan 26, 2010
    6
    Game has some really nice features, fluid game play and fun missions. But the game completely lacks content, has no single player campaign and the little content that it does have can be played through in about 2 days
  12. IanP
    Jan 31, 2010
    7
    Nowhere near as good as Killzone 2 or CoD. Resistance 2 online is slightly better too!! This is very much Bad Company with 256 players - which may cause the makers of BC to sweat, what with BC2 out soon!! But it is fun and worth checking out if you can find it cheap!!
  13. YarekG.
    Jan 26, 2010
    7
    Nothing special execpt the number of players. But MAG do it well lag free and interesting scenario. Must for ps3 owner
  14. Robest
    Jan 26, 2010
    5
    the game is fun to an extent. killing is always fun but when your kills gets revived faster than the time you kill them, that breaks the fun you get. i gave mag 5 out of ten.
  15. Jan 17, 2011
    7
    I am not used to play multiplayer fps games but I must admit that I have enjoyed this one. But even with that I agree with most people that says that the contents is not enough and besides I find sometimes pretty boring to die so often (but I understand that this is a problem of my lack of skills).
  16. Jan 5, 2012
    5
    this game is pretty solid when it comes to the graphics and game play but i did not like it because it is just to hard to play. unless you are a game wizard and can pick up anygame and instantly be good at it you will struggle with this. it is so hard to become good at it because no matter what class you are as soon as you step out into the open you get picked of by a sniper you havethis game is pretty solid when it comes to the graphics and game play but i did not like it because it is just to hard to play. unless you are a game wizard and can pick up anygame and instantly be good at it you will struggle with this. it is so hard to become good at it because no matter what class you are as soon as you step out into the open you get picked of by a sniper you have almost no health in this game that a stray bullet can and will kill you. as well there is a big emphasis on team play in this game that no one seems to get because unless you use the mic that came with the game there is no way to comunicate with your teammates therefore making the team element disapear since no one uses thier mics there is usually a small group of about 5 people using a mic that will stick together and play the game properly but other than that and when you need to defend a spot (which results in everyone camping around the objective anyway) the teamwork element gets compleatly thrown out the window. i wish there was a story line as well as online play but im trading this in because it is just to hard to play and get good Expand
  17. Dec 28, 2011
    7
    This game is pretty good, but it was a bit boring. Still it is better than playing mw3, and black ops. I thought this game was garbage at first, but i wasn't. It was so much fun.
  18. Dec 22, 2012
    7
    MAG works well and is fun even to today. The shooting is solid and the graphics are also looking good. This is even more impressive when you consider that you can download the game for £0.00. When it comes to the multiplayer game experience its your standard FPS, this means that it depends on who you're playing against and what map you are on. Thus it must be a 7. As it ticks all theMAG works well and is fun even to today. The shooting is solid and the graphics are also looking good. This is even more impressive when you consider that you can download the game for £0.00. When it comes to the multiplayer game experience its your standard FPS, this means that it depends on who you're playing against and what map you are on. Thus it must be a 7. As it ticks all the right boxes. But relies on its community to remain a fighting chance against other FPS. Expand
  19. Jan 15, 2014
    7
    DO NOT BUY! Servers are shutting down the end of january. Plus the game is pretty dead as is, only 1 mode is played and you usually have to wait over 5 minutes for a game. The fact that I'm seeing this game everywhere in retail for a rly good price is kinda sad. This game will probably be sold as a used game even after the servers are down....and this game is absolutely nothing without itsDO NOT BUY! Servers are shutting down the end of january. Plus the game is pretty dead as is, only 1 mode is played and you usually have to wait over 5 minutes for a game. The fact that I'm seeing this game everywhere in retail for a rly good price is kinda sad. This game will probably be sold as a used game even after the servers are down....and this game is absolutely nothing without its servers. This is why fps belong on the pc. Consoles are such money whores it's not even funny. They have this unspoken rule of being the cheaper to play model. Well they aren't. Stores make their money from console games. People return them and they resell them. In comparison you can't return a pc game or trade it in to a large vendor etc.

    The game? So I started playing this in 2012. This is probably the best fps console game for clans. Basically this is for alot of reasons, but one in particular.

    After you die you go into a dying state, and can be revived to full health with the click of a button by a teammate that is even 10m away from you! you can literally be killed....be rezed...be killed.....be rezed....etc etc...in a never ending loop.
    It makes for some interesting gameplay. When you are in this dying state the enemy has to shoot your remaining health to 0...and this usually amounts to more than half a clip from an assault rifle. It takes about a whole clip to kill some1 with heavy armour and 120 health....then you have to reload...and then empty another 12 rounds into the corpse to prevent any nearby enemies from reviving the guy you just killed. It rly doesn't matter how many kills you get in the game, what matters is how many you "finish off" after you kill them. As you might imagine an army of 2 is many times stronger than an army of 1. This is rly a team game and staying with your squad and team is how you win the matches.

    ALot of good cool things about this title though. in sabotage (the only game type with people in it right now) you spawn from an aircraft and parachute in after you succeed in the first 2 objectives. While parachuting in the enemy can shoot and kill you before you even make it to the ground. I like this. I like that a team is rewarded for playing well together. Spawn protection is a rly stupid thing in fps imo. That said, the defending team is always given spawn protection....and so are the attackers up until the final objective. If you run too far into the enemy zone you just die. So I mean..what I'm saying hardly applies to even 1/4 of your gametime.

    Other thoughts: there's 3 factions. you have to pay extra money to unlock more than 1 character profile (lol). I mean this prevents people from just going back and forth between factions (which I get makes sense), but....whatever give them money and you get an edge. 2-3 of the gametypes (it was 2 I think) were locked and you had to buy. They made one of them free a year or 2 ago...so there's 1 locked gametype you have to pay for still....which noone is playing (at all) so is a waste of money. Hell this entire game is a waste of money if you are reading this. You have till about the end of January before your rental expires. Then all you are gonna be left with is a basic basic basic 1 minute training mode.

    I didn't play this game with a clan...or with a buddy or whatever. So take my score however you want to take it.
    Also in each game type the wins per faction are tallied up and the winning faction gets an ingame passive reward. However these rewards are just for show. Were talking 5% increases in leadership range (rofl...useless) and 5% less cooldown on artillery (more rofl). It's a joke rly. If they made them worth something maybe I would take pride in every game I won or thought for a moment that it made a difference if we won or lost a match.

    Other gripes: Heavy machine guns suck in this game big time. game winning strategies sometimes amount to grenade spamming the enemy position so they stay dead when they die and can't be rez'd over and over.

    Oh and 1 more thing. If you want to know why your lovely game is so dead look no further than the community of clans. You do not want to be on a team with clan members on it. If you are, chances are they are going to be jerks and kick you either right before the match is over or half way in or right away. They either do this to make room for another clan member or because they are jerks. Either way they end up being jerks since when you are kicked you lose all exp and money from the match. The kicking system: if 4 members on the squad vote yes you are gone! It is rly easy to get kicked. I mean this is great for kicking team killers and guys abusing their mic. But typically you will have 4 members of the same clan in your squad, and they can boot you anytime they want to. There's no repercussion for kicking an innocent player. So maybe clans should ponder that for a while when they complain that "everyone is a cod or bf noob, that's why there are no players left".
    Expand
  20. Feb 23, 2015
    6
    Love the idea of 256 player battles and it really works. However the respawn system is tedious and quite annoying as it takes a long time to respawn..
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.