• Cwf2008 - January 26, 2010 4:50 a.m.

    256 players...i think its just way too overambitious. I could be wrong when the game comes out. Then again why do i care i have a 360 and theres plenty of good shooters on it that dont feel the need to slam 256 players on it. Of course PS3 has them too so its an even playing field
  • CH3BURASHKA - January 26, 2010 2:34 a.m.

    From the beginning, I was not all that impressed with the prospect, because although 256 sounds like a lot and like 'real life' (why you'd want that is beyond me), the game, as the article said, will live or die based on the user base. If no one buys it, it's dead. If everyone buys it but doesn't cooperate, it's dead. The game requires too much teamwork to succeed on a casual consumer level. Only the hardcore people who strive to be generals will make this work, and I don't think they will be enough. That being said, good luck, Zipper.
  • Spybreak8 - January 26, 2010 2:33 a.m.

    Amnesiac said "It's nice to see you guys taking your time and doing this review right. As personally disinterested as I am in this game, I still really want to know if it can work." And that was exactly what I was going to say.
  • Curtis_Stone - January 26, 2010 2:17 a.m.

    I actually commend you guys on taking your time with the review...Kudos guys, kudos!!
  • TURbo - January 26, 2010 1:59 a.m.

    MAG should have dedicated servers so there is more bandwidth, and less lag.
  • razorman57 - January 26, 2010 1:56 a.m.

    I totally with all the comments that are saying MAG is good. I say that for your guy's reviewer, chose someone who played the beta, so they know what to do already and will have no problem in explaining the complex structure of MAG. I was in BOTH the betas, and told my friends of them (and they loved it) and now we will play it and pwn. for both the betas though, I only had very few lag problems, and i played a lot. I agree with most the commenters that MAG is something that takes a while to understand, and as soon as you understand it, THEN you are finally playing it.Seriously guys, dont rush the review, because that will only make it more inaccurate.
  • sterlins16 - January 26, 2010 1:44 a.m.

    I think the game was great there was no lag on the beta and the only problem was that the guns didnt have any unique qualities they just looked different and i would give the game an 9/10
  • GamesRadarMatthewKeast - January 25, 2010 11:14 p.m.

    If you're wondering whether 256 players on one map can work, then worry not, because at least conceptually, it has already been proven. PlanetSide succeeded at getting 400 players on one map, and it was awesome. Yes, I'm seeing if I can match Charlie's Gabriel Knight references with my PlanetSide references. Now, whether the PS3, combined with whatever architecture the devs used, can handle 256 players? We'll have to see, and while the Beta is helpful in predicting that, we won't know for sure until a bit after the live release. The bottlnecks won't be a problem for long if the maps are designed well, because as players learn the game, they'll figure out how to flank the enemy and attack through unexpected routes.
  • Cyberninja - January 25, 2010 11:13 p.m.

    i wish beta would have worked for me so i would have a opion
  • Sameplanetdifferntworld - January 25, 2010 11:12 p.m.

    U guys said the same thing about warhawk....and look at it now if u were to review warhawk today u would have to give it 9 and above
  • mccore24 - January 25, 2010 11:03 p.m.

    i agree with CRUMBDUNKY for the most part the pricing is way off for online only $40 is pushing it but $60 is completly ridiculous! i too was in both the open and closed betas and i have to say gamesradar did the right thing by not reviewing this game yet.from whta i read it seems that the review session gamesradar attended had some serious problems. i frequently played the 256 player mode on both betas with no problems due to lagging or headset troubles. i will admitt that the game needs some work such as an improvement on the way to aquire new weapons and upgrades but other than that it is a great game with a great concept. i give this game a 10/10
  • lovinmyps3 - January 25, 2010 10:56 p.m.

    I predict server issues getting the game 5-7 and then if that gets fixed the scores will move up to 7-8.
  • frayed - January 25, 2010 10:54 p.m.

    Glad you decided to hold off on the review to get more time with the game. That said, I feel you've missed the mark with this 'impressions' piece. It's a bit pointless when the game requires at least a good week of play to get into - the command structure, which is what pushes all the 'communication', through the game is limited to higher ranks, and you have to spend some time on the servers to get a feel for the community (like an MMO). I'll agree that it isn't impressive visually, compared to the other competing shooters (though it's smooth and quite easy on the eye). However, it offers an experience unavailable elsewhere - that of a fully populated battlefield with large numbers of players working as a team to achieve multiple objectives. Even Battlefield Bad Company 2, which is easily the best multiplayer I have played this generation (through my extensive time on the PS3 beta), cannot capture the sheer scale and tactical chaos of the frantic final moments in a MAG Domination game. I can't help but feel that you're basing your impressions of the game by comparing it to Modern Warfare 2. This is a terrible mistake. They are entirely different styles of multiplayer. MW2 is a jump-in, arcade shooter. And for those of you who say it's competative - get outta here. I've been in PC gaming since the days of CS Beta 6.5, like many others, and I can tell you MW2 is as 'casual', as FPS games come. No serious clan would touch it. There's no room for teamplay and it rewards poor effort with killstreaks. If it's popular great, but don't say it's a well balanced, tight and fair FPS with a teamplay focus. The 13-year-olds giggling at the new abuses they've invented for each other will tell you differently. MAG, on the other hand, is all about rewarding effort and cooperation. I played it for a week during the Open Beta, and I ranked up to level 20. Trust me, once you've had the time to customise your character, choose your kit, weapons and skills, you will feel an attatchment to your soldier and your faction. You will want to fight as a team, as you will have spent many hours customising your place within it (sniper, demolitions, engineer, medic, or assault). The game cleverly asks you to make these choices, as an MMO would, and therefore encourages a bond with your character. Now, it is a game for the hardcore among us. Casual gamers won't have much to enjoy beyond the scale, before they return to MW2 - where they don't have to work for their kills. But, for those of us who really hate being noob-tubed, and shot in the back by someone who has just spawned directly behind our position, MAG offers the chance to use your wits and skill on the battlefield to make a difference. With the shifting nature of the objectives, there really is a chance to be a hero for your team by clearing a certain area of enemies so your squad can come in a take over, or place the charge that moves the whole frontline of the battle half a mile towards the enemy base. This stuff happens in MAG. But it doesn't give it to you. You have to be brave enough to learn the ropes, to take risks, and, yes, communicate. I'd say, in 80% of my time in MAG, there was a squad leader giving out instructions to my squad - even if it was just a few hearty words of banter to get us going, or a few status updates. Once you get used to it, it's easy to feel connected to the rest of the battle. Anyway, this has been a long comment, but I have to argue strongly that MAG is not just worth your money, but it's also worth a fair bit of praise as well.
  • farsided - January 25, 2010 10:26 p.m.

    called it. back when MAG was announced I said it was going to be a clusterf*ck and what do you know? Also, if the bottlenecks are anything like what that screenshot shows, snipers will become ridiculously overpowered. Honestly it reminds me of Aztec on Counterstrike, but if you shoved in about 50 more guys. It's not a matter of skill, it's just a question of which team is stupid enough to actually try to walk through the doorway and get shot to death.
  • crabbo - January 25, 2010 9:19 p.m.

    Having participated in the Beta I can say I didn't experience much lag. So perhaps that in itself was an isolated problem at the review event. As far as everything else goes, I feel inclined to agree. The different factions, were different only in appearance and name. I noticed a lot of Modern Warfare esque attributes (even going as far as copying the XP+ font). Teams hardly worked together in any way that could be considered productive, and as you said generally just converge on one objective. After which the game shifts from a tactical multiplayer experience into a balls out death match. (Which doesn't work very well in confined spaces with large amounts of players. I have not played the full game, but if I were to review what I played in the beta (roughly 12 hours) I'd give the game a 7/10.
  • Pocotron - January 25, 2010 9:15 p.m.

    Well if everyone reviews for the, apparently crap show-off, MAG is hosed. So, kudos to you for (no pun) lagging behind?
  • DasavageJ - January 25, 2010 9 p.m.

    Oh and you may already know this but I think the biggest difference between all the factions is there home maps, each of which give a sense of a home field advantage for the defending team. I know its not big, but it is there.
  • DasavageJ - January 25, 2010 8:50 p.m.

    I really have got to throw out there that I've actually only had two instances of lag while playing the MAG open Beta. Both times it was just a minor three of four second rewind and then I was back and synced (is that a word?) into the action. On top of this I, for whatever reason, believe this game is just as good as every shooter out right now. Maybe I'm just crazy but the huge multiplayer idea just sits very well with me.
  • kernzy10 - January 25, 2010 8:48 p.m.

    hold on a minute here... are you boys at games radar completly oblivious to the fact that there was a beta version released for around 2 weeks available for download of the PS store? if you noticed en you woulknow that the game was pretty good, i had about3 or 4 lagging problems in the total 100 or so games i played. the guns? yea they arnt that special but there are new guns, attachments and upgrades available to purchase with points earned in gameplay. this is what i saw on the BETA version, it can only get better from here, im sure that more guns, maps and attachments will be added for the release day of the game.
  • oryandymackie - January 25, 2010 8:48 p.m.

    If they'd just thrown customisable mechs in there... P.S, NOO! SPAMBOT!

Showing 21-40 of 49 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.