this is not fair, not fair at all.

he is saying how the game is more than likely to get patched and get better along with time as the community grows...just like the other socom game, it isnt the game game that got like a 5 on IGN anymore, its 70+ material now, so as time passes by MAG become a better game....he not saying that they shouldnt have reviewed it or anything, but that the review should not be a staple that goes along with the word MAG

MAG is absurd, if you get into it its by far the best console shooting game ever made. If you aren't into the premise of team work and leadership and whatnot, this game will fall flat. This game is definitely going to garner a really loyal fanbase, like socom.

the reviewer seems mad and disturbed at losing all the time and from the start you could tell from his voice that he is frustrated from losing and is taking his anger out on the review. i don't think that video review was justifiable enuff for the game as a whole. i wanna watch other reviews to compare ign's.

Did you read the end of the review?  It also talks about how Zipper has announced no plans for support on the game.  I'm sure there will be something, but it's crazy to assume it's going to change the game from a 7 to even an 8+

Whatever the case, a non-review doesn't help anyone trying to buy the game now.  What do you think reviews are actually for?  E-penis waving wars on forums or people trying to decide if they want to buy the game?

People who are looking to buy the game now aren't interested in what the game will be in 6 months from now, they would rather want to know what it is right now.  If the game did need 6 months to become an 8+ plus game and you think it's unfair it gets rated this low now and then not changed, then perhaps they should have had the forsight to not release the game yet.

Sure they waited, but was it long enough? Nowadays games are released incomplete, it's just the way it is. They're updated and fixed after release. In other words they reviewed a version of the game that isn't yet complete. Many games are updated, receive extra content, are tweaked, etc. and become better games than they originally were. A review can only review the version of the game that currently exists. If MAG is fixed up in a couple months and turns out to become an exceptional game, is IGN going to update it's review for the game? No.

Reviewers can't just go around updating their game reviews whenever a game is fixed, of course. What does this say about the legitimacy of the review? The review becomes nothing more than an impression for the incomplete version of a game. It takes the validity of the review away in comparison to the final package.

I'm not saying it's right for games to be released incomplete, but the fact remains unchanged that the game will most likely be fixed and subsequently better.

I don't mistrust the review, but rather disregard it.

jesus, would you calm down >_> seriously man....dont reply to me if your going to be sarcastic and try to make me look like an idiot, ITS a forum, so relax, and have a friendly debate for once in your life

anyways, I DID READ THE REVIEW, and i know that Zipper is going to patch the game, they always do, what else are they gonna do, leave it and start a new ip outta nowhere? no, if anything, if there is any developer that loves thier community its zipper....and btw, i know that even if future reviews came out, i am sure no one would care, I NEVER said they would....but thats not the point, which is what you are missing, the point is that i was intrepreting thechalkblocks post so that maybe you would get it, but i guess you didnt, because instead of going "oh i see what you mean, but still it wont matter", you reply with a sarcastic post >_>

You can call games incomplete and I can understand that, but then when do you call them ready for review?

A week?

A month?

Six months?

A year?

How long should customers have to wait for reviews? 

Should every game get the same amount of time?

Or should we go back to the Atari days when there weren't game reviews and it was a complete crap shoot when you buy a game?

In a perfect world you could ask the Game Stop employee or friends and that would be enough, but it isn't.  Fanboys will always say a game is a 10/10 if they like it or a 1/10 if they don't, you just won't get a straight answer.  The only option is to turn to an impartial site (and lets not argue they aren't impartial here, just in case you're thinking that, that's another thread).  Again, perfect world people would actually read reviews but we all know they don't.

Complain all you want, if the developer doesn't want a low score for an incomplete game, they shouldn't release an incomplete game.  That isn't the reviewers fault, by your logic it's the developers (or publishers) choice.

watch out, hes gonna take ur post the wrong way and attack again lol

You're right, it isn't the reviewers fault that the game that was released was incomplete. Since MAG has had an official release it's basically required for reviewers to review the game no matter what.

But like I said, the review is for an incomplete version of the game. Therefore, I question the legitimacy of the review in a couple months. I'm not arguing that reviewers should wait to review a game until it's complete, but rather just whether the review is valid or not. The game was released incomplete, and that's reflected in reviews.

The main issue I have with MAG's release is not the low reviews, it's the fact that it's incomplete. Instead of releasing an incomplete game, why didn't Zipper Interactive keep the BETA going awhile longer?

People shouldn't have to buy MAG to help Zipper Interactive work out bugs for a couple of months, that's what the BETA should have been for. 

Therefore I disregard the review, but I also disregard MAG.