VG Reloaded 8/10

http://www.vg-reloaded.com/?p=3657

For me the overall experience is much more important than add something new to the genre (talking about the "generic" concept).

I don't see how MAG can give me a different/unique experience. I honestly don't think that 256 players is big of a deal because big number of players and big map is similar to small number of players and small map in my opinion (the action will be the same, you will easily find enemies in both ocasions).

I am not saying that MAG is a bad game, it's probably an excellent game from what I saw (videos and reviews).

You shouldn't push any oppinion about the game if you haven't played it, it's really different and unique experience. It's sad to see people comment about it, when the only thing they could've done was to MAYBE watch some videos. You have to experience this, it is really hard to describe it in a way that others would understand the feeling you get by playing this game.

Yes, I will play the game, I am just waiting for my neighbor to buy it. I am not exactly giving an opinion about the game itself, I am giving an opinion about the 256 players thing, I don't think it's something that will give me a different experience and I explained why. As I said, this game looks very good and the number of players will be the last thing that I will pay attention.

Fortunately, I don't listen to someone else's opinion of a game to decide whether I like it or not. I will play MAG and then decide if I want to buy it, plain and simple. I don't trust any of the big review sites anyways. So MAG gets a 6 for Presentation?? For what?? I'm sure it's because Zipper hasn't been licking IGN's nutsack behind the scenes. I don't even want to look at what MW2 got for "Presentation".

That's a good read.  Ironically enough myself and my PC friends all bought PS3s because we felt 360 was mostly just going to offer the same games - but we're probably the exception to the rule!

One element of PSN I think has been underexploited, by Sony and developers, is that in theory it's more open, and a more PC like, mod orientated environment is possible.  For the moment while Live is fairly open it does seem to limit that level of access.

I'd like to see Sony take a new title and ensure that, like UT3, it supports mods, etc. activitley, but actually put some effort into trying to foster a community around it.  In theory, if it was embraced, you'd see games on PS3 have lots of extra maps, modes, etc. built by modders.

Given how keenly Sony want to try and push FPS and similar titles I'm surprised they don't try more with this angle, as it would be a clear point of differentiation.  Of course, as you say PS3 is very well seen as the weaker market for these titles vs 360, so it's a bit of a catch 22 in some ways.

Thanks, you're playing PC and PS3 right? So the PS3 is an extension to the PC experience for you and not the other way around? This is what I gather reading your previous posts. As people who have attention towards multiple platforms we're quite the small minority, personally I find the PC tends to clog up my gaming time and right now im playing a game on multiple monitors and typing this. I tend to look for consoles for a fresh experience because I tend to fall into a routine of playing the same older games and often I even have more than one game going at once!

I suspect the reason why the mod capabilities have been under-exploited is the difficulty of getting user generated content to play properly. They can't optimise the game for a certain style and laymen have little sense of how to place things without aversely affecting frame-rates. I saw a recent analysis of Mod-Nations racers and they are struggling to get the framerate minimums up above 20FPS. I would hate to see how that'd look with user generated tracks. In addition to this I would suggest that user generated content is often of little utility over officially released and vetted content and the same rules between Live and PSN apply for having paid moderators ensuring people don't make rude or offensive content.

I suspect that Sony has always been playing catch up with their titles thus far. They are good enough from a perspective of their chronological years, but the third parties actually have had an advantage over them in that they have been on the market for another year. Sony has been competing with 1st generation shooters against 2nd or 3rd generation shooters which also have had the luxury of establishing themselves on the market before serious competition arrived. This has meant that they have had little ability to use their first party studios to shape the audience on their own console, a luxury which Microsoft has used to great effect. Since the game which defined the online for their system in terms of shooters has always been Call of Duty 4, they have an elephant on their shoulders in terms of trying to compete.

PushSquare 4/4

http://www.pushsquare.com/10633/mag-on-playstation-3-review/

TheGamingLiberty 9/10

http://thegamingliberty.com/index.php/2010/01/28/mag-review/

It could be argued that this is the first time there ever was a commander type thing like Battlefield 2 had (or at least I read) for the consoles.

But in your defense, yeah, the 256 players never really affected me personally. Since the devs split up everything (which is a good thing, don't get me wrong), it never really felt like I was playing against 256 players, but a mini-game within the big one.

This game wasn't for me, but I could really see this game developing a really strong following. I mean, yeah, the 255 players aren't in front of you, but those who understand the implications of far away events, and look at things in a macro perspective will love the strategy MAG can have. If the dedicated fanbase use mics and cooperate well, then matches can be really tight and enjoyable.

So I think it's unfair for you to call it generic, when it's probably going to be the most niche game this year.