Yes because the perfect 10's on GTA4 mean it is flawless. 

To a certain extent this reminds me of my experiences with Tribes, which was a FPS in the late 90s which was unique because its multiplayer was designed around very large team based competition. IIRC it supported 128 players per map but 64 was more common, and this was at a time when 8 to 16 player multiplayer matches were the norm for PC FPS. Tribes was brilliant if you played between two clans and absolute trash as a pick-up game, primarily because the game required cooperation and coordination to be successful; and this is almost impossible to achieve unless you’re playing with a team that was fully formed ahead of time and have played together in the past.

I have a feeling that 1 year from now there will be a dedicated following for MAG who believe that it is one of the greatest games ever, and a very large group of people who played it and thought that the massive mob of morons made the game nearly unplayable.

MAG did play average to me, if it wasn't for the insane number of players it'd be fully generic imo.

The thing is people will eventually learn how to play the game and get used to it. These reviewers should have waited untill people knew what to do untill they reviewed the game.
It's just like for COUNTER STRIKE. Everyone figures out some time or another how to play counter strike, and that you need to work as a team and the end experience is jsut fantastic! Beginners really have a hard time with counter strike but they eventually learn!

Same thing with Mag people will eventually learn how to play!!! People will eventually learn that they should listen to their squad leader and do the missions etc etc.
And anyways with my experience in the beta, I knew no one, but a large majority of my games were extremely fun and addictive, and people were doing what they needed to.

FOR ANY OF YOU PEOPLE STILL WONDERING IF MAG IS GOOD OR NOT, IT IS A FANTASTIC GAME. Just learn how to play it, get used to it and you'll finish my loving it. And everyone else will eventually learn what to do as well.

All I can say is... well, look at the source.

Kind of reminds me of the outlet that gave Demon Souls a super low review.

CrapReviewSiteX:" I have an idea, lets review a game poorly because we are poor at the game"

Seems all too prevalent among startup review sites.

 EDIT: Ok, went and read whole review. My above comment stands. This is not even a review of the retail game either, just the beta... in a phase of beta where people in general were still figuring out what to do. Actually there are so many flaws in the review, I would not know where to start in addressing them. But the reviewer essentially said that " This game isnt MW2, and I did not know what to do ". He also co,plained about people not working together. In my beta experience, many times there was some degree of cohesion and teamwork even if not intricatly planned teamwork... this tells me he limited his playtest of the beta to one or two matches.

I'll reserve my judgment for when I can rent the game (hopefully later today or by the weekend).

destuctoid and thesixthaxis have already given better review scores for MAG people(8/10 which is not bad), and you can smell the bias in this review a mile away, no matter because it won't count .

this reviews is not fair to Zipper. Its based on BETA :/

it's not just that he unfairly marked it down big time just because he could not understand how to play the game properly, I mean, if he cannot understand this type of game maybe someone who can understand what tactical shooters are about should have reviewed it instead.

also on the graphics department he did not take into account that this game is allowing 256 players, of course the graphics had to be turned down a notch, even still i was quite impressed at the graphics considering the player count, this game deserves at least 8/10