You mean an A- ??

@ghaleon

check my previous post with the link.

screw edge..

The reviews aren't doing this game justice...

Well the beta put me off the game, so maybe they are doing the game justice.

unless its a massive overhaul from the beta

Ah ah, another PS3 exclusive rated down by Edge. Most ridiculously biased magazine ever ?

If it was on 360 it would get 8.

Halo 3 and ODST got 9 or 10 and they brought less than Mag to the genre.

It's not about inovation or Edge standards, it's just about 360 bias.

Dude, are you kidding?  I think you may have missed the point completely.  People aren't complaining that it didn't get a 9; rather that Edge's review is so much lower than any other review of the game, which is per usual of most playstation exclusives.  I'm sorry but that's just a simple fact.

I think you may be kidding yourself about the bias part.  Go look at Edge reviews of both PS3 and X360 exclusives compared to their metacritic scores.  Almost without fail, PS3 reviews are a good bit lower and those of 360 are higher.  If that isn't bias then it's the biggest coincidence I've ever heard of.

Seems a little harsh - I think Edge, like others, have reviewed the game too much against what it isn't vs what it is.

The best review I've seen so far is 1up funnily enough. Not because of the decent score, but the text (compared to trying the Beta) showed the reviewer was reviewing vs what MAG actually is.

The simple fact is this, if you want to jump in, play, respawn quick, not worry about anything too much during the match and focus on your own level and gear, then MAG isn't for you. It's just not. You might even like it, but it's not designed for you.

MAG is for people who want to take part in something closer to real battle, and who are willing to focus on the team over themselves.

I'll admit I'm more in the former camp, so may well skip MAG totally, but if what it is appeals to you it does the job well.

Judging by the reviews so far they're going to be split, from lower, it's a decent online FPS with weaker graphics and too high a difficulty curve reviews to it's the best 256 players online battle experience available - of course, being the only does make this easy.

I thought Edge would review it closer to what it is, but the text implies to me too many comparisons to what it's not with loss of points accordingly.

It's like some of the reviews giving it 6 for graphics, which is just flawed. MAG has very good graphics... for a game with 256 players.

Just like MW2 looks very good for a game with a lot less players and a high refresh rate (and lower resolution than 720p) while KZ2 looks very, very good for a game with a lot less players and a lower refresh rate (and 720p resolution).

I wonder if these scores will be re-evaluated when patches come in?

It could easily have been in the 80's range by now if it had these problems addressed before release.

Yay!

M.A.G. is of the same caliber of that of FF X to them.