Now only if there were more non retarded reviewers that could actually understand what's the game about...

that's why MAG is non-generic, and you see that's the problem of gamers today, you like everyone elese think everything have to be about YOU!!!!!, screw you, MAG is about your army.... literally, sacrificing yourself for your teammate, surrendering your k/d for the acomplishment of the objective, that is what set games like MAG apart, fps does not have to be about you, and here's another thing the game also allows you to be that lone wolf but only if you do it correctly, just playing a domination match, I alone slipped past enemy lines destroyed their mortor and recon outpoast, and shortly after my teamed pushed past their defence lines, That was me who had a major role in that, and I did it alone, but no-one will ever know, just like in real war when a single soldier does something that changes the battlefield, that is what sets MAG appart. Screw you, I willingly got myself killed once to revive a teammate, I got to him just before I died, my teammate then killed the 2 guys who killed me and then he revived me, that's MAG.

*goes back to playing MAG*

Kylie, MAG is not generic.

I think the best way to describe it, is that MAG feels like war, whereas other shooters feel like sports. The player count is necessary for that feeling. Its not generic... in fact its completely different.

In most console shooters, you do well by killing as fast as possible, and win by having a team full of people with a better K/D ratio than the other team, typically. Or you cap the flag, or steal the gold, or whatever -- nothing really beyond an online deathsport. MAG feels like a war. If you run around trying to score kills quickly... you get gunned down mercilessly by smart defenders in covered locales, or the attackers take away your bunkers, or blow up your comms relay, etc. You don't bother with the objectives, and the other team gets a hefty advantage. MAG is about surviving and accomplishing, rather than killing and scoring.

I think you have to play it (ideally with a couple friends and headsets) in order to really understand.

In that case, its now a question about whether the console market wants a war simulator. Pretty much anything with the word sim in its title or genre destription lives on the PC with the exception of racing games.

I think that you need to be careful about drawing a line between PC and Console gaming.  You could say that RPGs like Dragon Age and Mass Effect belong on the PC as well.  In a sense, you're falling into the same trap that people did when, pre-Halo, the gaming media often suggested that online shooters would never make the transition to consoles, and that PCs were the shooter platform of choice for the majority.

To explain and expand my point:

The PC game market and the console game market in terms of their nature are fundamentally different along one major tangent. The main draw card for the console market is its instant/quick gratification of users. On the PC market you usually have to wait for something before you can get your fix. Whether its an install or an update or hunting around for a mod to improve or give a new spin on the game experience, a PC gamer doesn't expect instant or quick gratification. Looking at other series like Civilization is probably easier than the shooter market, a game like Civilization sells millions on the PC but its not a game where the fun starts as soon as you put the disc in.

I won't say that the game market on the PC is in a particularly healthy state relative to where it was, because many of the good girls and boys are transitioning to consoles and the pirates are remaining. However the first port of call for an ex-PC gamer is more likely the Xbox 360 than the PS3 due to the legacy of PC games sharing the Xbox platform for a while now. You can see it if you consider the relative performance of PC style games between the platforms, especially games like Dragon Age Origins with quite a large disparity between the PS3 and Xbox 360 considering the % difference in userbase size.

So whilst im not saying that the PS3 doesn't have a fine and vibrant gaming community, what im saying is that with a higher proportion of traditional console gamers without a PC gaming background, the PS3 is likely the 3rd weakest platform to release this type of game on because proportionally it would have fewer people who can deal with the game style where instant gratification isn't a given. In addition to this, a game like MAG or any shooter for that matter which relies on online needs momentum to propel it to success. These games rely heavily on word of mouth, even more so than single player games because multiplayer gamers are particularly vocal and are subject to a herd mentality where if enough go one way, they all tend to move in that direction.

I totally agree with everything except the ps3 bieng the weakest platform, this game would failer hard on the 360, 360 has little to no hardcore community in fps, just a shit ton of casusals who think they are hardcore, warhawk,  socom, killzone 2, ps3 has the closest thing to a pc enviornment on a console, it just pailes in comparison and is greatly outnumbered by casusals

I think that the only generic thing about MAG is your perception of the game. Also how can you say that  your actions only affect you? did you played the beta or the game or are you basing your opinions on the youtube videos you have see? Your actions affect your squads, they affect your platoon heck they could affect the entire team. The only reason that I can see behind your post is that you are ignorant of the nuances of the game an its effect was lost on you.

opps meant to quote kylie.