MAG review highlights strengths and flaws of the console MMOFPS
by James Egan 
Jan 30th 2010 at 10:00PM
Filed under: Game mechanics, Reviews, War, Consoles, MMOFPS, MAG
MAG is a PlayStation 3-exclusive MMOFPS title we've been keeping our eyes on at Massively. The inevitable debate aside about whether Zipper Interactive's title is an MMO or not -- yes, tanks and guns replace dragons and magic spells -- the game accommodates up to 256 players in a zone at a time. The idea of FPS gameplay with that many people at such a high degree of graphical detail is pretty mind-boggling, and it's something we've explored a bit in the MAG beta. Our parent site Joystiq recently sat down with the game now that it's officially launched and wrote a short MAG review.
Joystiq's Griffin McElroy gives a brief overview of MAG's gameplay and his assessment of the title's merits and flaws. That idea of 128 players per side doesn't mean you'll all be charging towards your opponents in one awesome wave, he notes. Rather, you'll typically be interacting with your fellow soldiers on a squad level (4-8 people) to achieve objectives, with multiple squads comprising platoons, and four such platoons forming an army.
McElroy goes on to discuss his experiences with leadership roles. He writes, "Surely you've tried to verbally orchestrate grand, four-front assaults in other multiplayer shooters, such as Battlefield 1943. What MAG does is take that idea of leadership, and place it in a cogent, straightforward in-game interface."
He also discusses the incentives for squad members to follow orders, and how the various gametypes (Suppression, Sabotage, Acquisition, and Domination) play out. McElroy notes that with such a large number of players on your side, no single player's performance is likely to turn the tide (either towards victory or towards defeat). Success and failure in MAG is determined by a group's cohesiveness as well as the competency of its leaders.
"Regardless of which gametype you're playing, or which role you're fulfilling, the wheels really fall off the wagon when your squad, platoon and army doesn't function as a single unit," he notes. He also warns that there's a steep learning curve, particularly for players who progress into higher ranks and begin to direct these campaigns.
Overall, his assessment of MAG is positive, and many of the negatives McElroy cites can be attributed to the aforementioned learning curve players are facing in this game, regardless of whether they're grunts completing objectives or the ones calling the shots. Still, MAG stands apart from other games in the shooter genre, largely by virtue of the sizeable armies engaged in pitched battle and how vital it is for players to work together.
If this title has caught your interest, have a look at Joystiq's MAG review for more on what Zipper Interactive's console MMOFPS has to offer.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Oizu said on 3:36AM 1-31-2010
Shame its NOT an MMOFPS though, its just like COD but with bigger servers, is Battlefield 2/2142 also an MMOFPS then? Afterall they both have commanders and large team sizes.
Reply
Nick said on 1:31PM 1-31-2010
This game has 156 more players in an instance then Champions Online, thats why Massively considers it an MMOFPS, with multiple instances of the same maps running at the same time. Is it really that hard to understand why they call it that?
ZachDude said on 4:09AM 1-31-2010
Its not like cod actually. Progression is different. And playing the lone wolf will get you killed in an instant. No rediculous killstreak rewards either. Mw2 killed fun multiplayer gaming for me. Can't stand it really anymore. MAG is 10x better. Give it a rent to see for yourself.
Reply
Oizu said on 5:20AM 1-31-2010
But that's not my point at all, i'm not talking about the gameplay, i'm talking about how the game is set up, its just individual servers and lobbies, there is no persistant world there, no where to go and chat with people. That is the crucial difference between an MMOFPS like Planetside, Global Agenda or even *shudder* Crimecraft, and a regular FPS, like COD, MAG, BF2, TF2, CS:S, UT3 and all the others.
Damn Dirty Ape said on 10:16AM 1-31-2010
I don't see how this is any different than global agenda. Sure it may be watered down a bit, but all the core elements are still there. The 'persistent' part of the game may be a little on the weak side (each of the three factions can earn contracts by doing well in the different game modes, these contracts give the whole side a minor game play boost of some sort), but since the game doesn't charge a subscription I don't really hold it against them. I think the most equivalent game I can think of was 'Chrome Hounds' for the xbox 360, but that game had very small battles in comparison.
I've been having a blast so far. My only real complaint is the draconian respec rules that cause respeccing to get more and more expensive each time to use it (until eventually it gets so ridiculous even a good player would have to play for weeks to earn a new respec, at which time it would even become MORE difficult for the next one). It wouldn't really be a problem if the game allowed you to create more than one character at a time but you are limited to one character per PSN account. This makes it difficult to try out different possibilities (i.e. shotgun toting medic/engineer? all-out sniper? super athletic assault rifle commando?). It would also be nice to have a few more maps, but the ones that are there are friggen HUGE (I'm nearly level 15 in the game and I still feel clueless about most of the maps, and there are quite a few I've never even played yet).
theremover said on 1:47PM 1-31-2010
@Oizu:
There's persistancy in that you're fighting for your PMC to gain contracts. There's also stock tracking on the website to see how your corporation is doing. It may not be much, but it's a cool concept. Watching the bar graph in-game to see how close your corp is doing by comparison to the others is definitely an exciting aspect of it all.
Chat and looking at people's characters isn't "persistent world". There aren't many MMOs that really have any sort of persistence beyond your own character.
ZachDude said on 10:29AM 1-31-2010
Yeah I'm about fifteen also. Add me psn is BrutalSageZ
Reply
Damn Dirty Ape said on 6:50AM 2-01-2010
I may not be able to play much for the time being as the fiance just brought home a new puppy (oh sleep how I miss you already, and it's just been one night). My PSN name is Piepants and I'm on the SVER faction.
ZachDude said on 10:46AM 2-01-2010
The puppy gets better man. Just let it whine, first night is the worst.
theremover said on 1:49PM 1-31-2010
MAG has been great. I went and bought a PS3 just to play it.
I would like to see more out-of-game community tie-ins and emphasis on the ongoing progress of your PMC but it's a very impressive package.
If anyone is on the fence/thinking about getting it, i've posted my own sort of review/overview of my experience with it initially at gamespot
http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/mag/player_review.html?id=704706&tag=all-about;review1
Reply
ZachDude said on 2:11PM 1-31-2010
@theremover I was wondering what those bars meant. What do the pmcs get if their stock is higher?
Reply
Damn Dirty Ape said on 6:47AM 2-01-2010
If you hit the 'rewards' button in the deploy menu it will tell you, but basically there are 3 different contracts for each game type (acquisition, domination, sabotage). I don't remember which ones go to which, but if I remember correctly the bonuses for each contract are +5% to leadership range, +5% to experience, and -5% to tactical cooldowns. A neat little bonus, but nothing that will make or break a team.
Brian! said on 2:45PM 1-31-2010
I wish this was a PC game too.
Reply
ZachDude said on 10:43AM 2-01-2010
Just get a ps3... :)
ZachDude said on 10:13AM 2-01-2010
Yeah but that exp bonus is nice. :)
Reply