By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - IGN: MAG Review!

twesterm on 02 February 2010
Thechalkblock said:

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.

But the thing is the game was released incomplete in your words, that is what users are buying. 

Shouldn't they know this?

IGN or any other reviewer can't review promis, they can only review what is there.  I'm sure if there were updates promised, they could mention those, but there have been none.  How can they talk about updates when Zipper hasn't talked about updates?

How would it actually be more responsible for them to speculate and create rumors in the review?

If for whatever reason Zipper didn't support the game or the patches they released didn't fix anything, how stupid would that make IGN look?  They can only review what's in front of them.

Now if there was a seperate MAG expansion pack like Lost and the Damned or Borderlands Zombie Island, then that could be reviewed seperately.



 

Around the Network
Twistedpixel on 02 February 2010
Thechalkblock said:

 

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.

Its quite likely that a buyers review would score the game down in a couple of months. A review is for someone buying the game and by that time the dedicated players would remain and the weaker players would have dropped out. In a couple of months MAG will be an even more intimidating game so likely a 70% MAG now becomes a 65 or 60% MAG in a few months.

 



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

Thechalkblock on 02 February 2010
twesterm said:
Thechalkblock said:
 

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.

But the thing is the game was released incomplete in your words, that is what users are buying. 

Shouldn't they know this?

IGN or any other reviewer can't review promis, they can only review what is there.  I'm sure if there were updates promised, they could mention those, but there have been none.  How can they talk about updates when Zipper hasn't talked about updates?

How would it actually be more responsible for them to speculate and create rumors in the review?

If for whatever reason Zipper didn't support the game or the patches they released didn't fix anything, how stupid would that make IGN look?  They can only review what's in front of them.

Now if there was a seperate MAG expansion pack like Lost and the Damned or Borderlands Zombie Island, then that could be reviewed seperately.

Yes I agree with that, like I said the game being incomplete is reflected in the reviews and that's perfectly fair.

But that was never my main point, which was even if it's not their fault reviewers reviews will most likely represent an incomplete version of the game. It's Sony and Zipper Interactive's fault that this happened, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true.

I know you can agree that Zipper isn't going to abandon MAG if it needs fixing, it's almost certain they will do whatever they can to enhance the experience.



Thechalkblock on 02 February 2010
Twistedpixel said:
Thechalkblock said:

 

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.

Its quite likely that a buyers review would score the game down in a couple of months. A review is for someone buying the game and by that time the dedicated players would remain and the weaker players would have dropped out. In a couple of months MAG will be an even more intimidating game so likely a 70% MAG now becomes a 65 or 60% MAG in a few months.

 

Couldn't the same be said about other online games like the Call of Duty and Halo series? Or are those different from MAG in some respect?



Reasonable on 02 February 2010
Boutros said:
The graphics score is not really justified. They gave GTAIV 10/10 for graphics and they were not good at all but when you consider the scale of the world it was impressive.
Isn't it the same thing with MAG?

Clearly the score for graphics is somewhat suspect.  This happens though.  In pure critical terms the score should be based on the graphics/game combination - i.e. are the graphics weak for a 256 player game or good for a 256 player game?

Here, IGN has obviously skewed from 'pure' evaluaiton based on the game to comparison evaluation - i.e. comparing the graphics to apparently similar titles.

Having played the Beta I'd say the graphics are an 8.5 in terms of the game itself.  I'm sure you could squeeze a bit more detail in, but doubt they could be much better for this game on this console.

MAG was always going to struggle though in this area as you're going to see some reviewers clearly evaluating it on its own basis and some comparing it to other titles in areas which are inappropriate.

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Around the Network
Twistedpixel on 02 February 2010
Thechalkblock said:
Twistedpixel said:
Thechalkblock said:

 

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.

Its quite likely that a buyers review would score the game down in a couple of months. A review is for someone buying the game and by that time the dedicated players would remain and the weaker players would have dropped out. In a couple of months MAG will be an even more intimidating game so likely a 70% MAG now becomes a 65 or 60% MAG in a few months.

 

Couldn't the same be said about other online games like the Call of Duty and Halo series? Or are those different from MAG in some respect?

Theres always such a wide variety of players so a new player can fit right in after a couple of quick matches. I don't think you can say the same for playing MAG 2 months after release.



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

soulsamurai on 02 February 2010

How about this with all the arguing?

A thread dedicated to "MAG's Score in it's current state?"

Someone who plays the game regularly and who is impartial can adjust scores accordingly.

Socom is a good example of what i mean. I own the game and loved the first ones, but when it first came out i thought it was worth a score of 46. Now with all of the updates etc i think it deserves a solid 7.0 no higher no less.

Mag Right now I think deserves a 8
It's a really fun game, controls and etc i think are fine except the knife seems reallly off. I think it does what promised, but i know there can be improvements and as far as the comment Zipper saying they arn't going to support it there was just a thread a few minutes ago an interview saying they were still making stuff for the game...I can't find it atm though If i do I'll edit it in.



CURRENTLY PLAYING:  Warframe, Witcher 2

Thechalkblock on 02 February 2010
Twistedpixel said:
Thechalkblock said:
Twistedpixel said:
Thechalkblock said:

 

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.

Its quite likely that a buyers review would score the game down in a couple of months. A review is for someone buying the game and by that time the dedicated players would remain and the weaker players would have dropped out. In a couple of months MAG will be an even more intimidating game so likely a 70% MAG now becomes a 65 or 60% MAG in a few months.

 

Couldn't the same be said about other online games like the Call of Duty and Halo series? Or are those different from MAG in some respect?

Theres always such a wide variety of players so a new player can fit right in after a couple of quick matches. I don't think you can say the same for playing MAG 2 months after release.

Well, we'll just have to wait and see won't we?



Thechalkblock on 02 February 2010
soulsamurai said:

How about this with all the arguing?

A thread dedicated to "MAG's Score in it's current state?"

Someone who plays the game regularly and who is impartial can adjust scores accordingly.

Socom is a good example of what i mean. I own the game and loved the first ones, but when it first came out i thought it was worth a score of 46. Now with all of the updates etc i think it deserves a solid 7.0 no higher no less.

Mag Right now I think deserves a 8
It's a really fun game, controls and etc i think are fine except the knife seems reallly off. I think it does what promised, but i know there can be improvements and as far as the comment Zipper saying they arn't going to support it there was just a thread a few minutes ago an interview saying they were still making stuff for the game...I can't find it atm though If i do I'll edit it in.

That sounds like a good idea.



twesterm on 02 February 2010
soulsamurai said:

How about this with all the arguing?

A thread dedicated to "MAG's Score in it's current state?"

Someone who plays the game regularly and who is impartial can adjust scores accordingly.

Socom is a good example of what i mean. I own the game and loved the first ones, but when it first came out i thought it was worth a score of 46. Now with all of the updates etc i think it deserves a solid 7.0 no higher no less.

Mag Right now I think deserves a 8
It's a really fun game, controls and etc i think are fine except the knife seems reallly off. I think it does what promised, but i know there can be improvements and as far as the comment Zipper saying they arn't going to support it there was just a thread a few minutes ago an interview saying they were still making stuff for the game...I can't find it atm though If i do I'll edit it in.

So someone who is biased towards the game should tell everyone what they think of it?

One of two things would happen:

  1. The person doesn't like it and only plays it because of the thread.  The score stays the same or actually goes down.
  2. The loves the game so they keep playing it.  You can find someone that loves even the worst games and they will rate it high.  The person who keeps up with the thread obviously loves it and is more biased than any review you find.  Each time thier's any update it goes up 0.2-0.5 until it steadies out at a 9-ish.

I really doubt #1 would happen, it would probably be #2.