Reviews and Problems with MAG: Massive Action Game
Showing 1-10 of 299
27 July 2013
Summary: This game is good, however it could be made better. The only amazing part is 256 player battles! the maps are huge! the graphics kinda suck and its kind of hard to keep track of friends. But it is still amazing! Battlefield is better though!
Summary: Since this game is multiplayer only, this game doesn't really deserve 5/5. But, the multiplayer part is great. There are some things you have got to understand before getting this game : 1) This is a teamwork based game. If you have tons of friends who are interested in this game, and you are interested in this and want to actually use teamwork, buy this game. You wouldn't want to miss the epic 256 player battle.
Summary: Amazing 256 players in game, another online multiplayer only game on PS3 like warhawk,its shock to see a small batallion of armies on screen but they shld adjust the balancing of maps and squad to even better,especially for a game that main in multiplayer.
Summary: Even after a year MAG still remains my favorite shooter on console, I love the focus on squad based infantry combat. With a minimum of 64 players each match (before ragequits) each round in MAG feels more like a full scale assault instead of a 8v8 airsoft arena.
Summary: This was a fantastic experiment in large-scale FPS action. It shines in rewarding team coordination, and in capturing the scale of its largest battles. A fundamental flaw that was never addressed was that MAG locked a player into a faction (one of three), and gave every incentive for the most competitive to gather together in one of them. There was no balancing mechanism, and so SVER This was a fantastic experiment in large-scale FPS action.