MAG was the most underrated 7th gen game

256 player battles, dwarfing Battlefield's 64 players

And anyone who plays it knows how fun it was. Pure chaos and fun. I have Battlefield 4 on the PS4, and I can tell you MAG blows it away. BF4 is like a kids game compared to MAG. Too bad zipper went under and we never got a sequel.

MAG would have owned Battlefield and Call of Duty a million times over on a next gen console.

mooooo

I always wanted to get into it, but I found it to be too chaotic for it's own good.

I had fun with Mag, I just gotten my PS3 7 or 8 months earlier and this was one of the first big Multiplayer games on the system I played.

Got boring after a few weeks though. I prefered KZ2 over it.

No it was a below average shooter.

If only it were half the shooter that BF is....MAG might not even be on par with CoD either. MAG wasn't underrated, it was fairly rated.

More players does not equal better, the majority of the reason why MAG failed was because they were so focused on numbers and not making an actual quality shooter.

-Planetside existed long before MAG. And Planetside was pretty much the foundation for MAG...so....

-Planetside 2 is going to be on PS4 and it's been on PC for over a year now. It cannot and will not overtake CoD/Battlefield.

@ShepardCommandr:

Or maybe you just weren't smart enough to know how to play it. Mag had more going on in a single game of domination than every COD and Battkefield gametype put together.

People like to praise Battlefield yet all you really do is chase flags back and forth, over and over again like were still in the 6th generation.

Never played it. After seeing the average reviews I skipped it tbh.

@BattleSpectre:

The reviews made me laugh actually. If you would have gave the game a chance, you would have seen that the big sites didnt even know how to play the game. Its like they have grown so accustom to the simplicity of Bsttlefield, COD and a million other shooters, they didn't look any deeper than the tip of the iceburg.

Battlefield could have learned so much from Mag and a hybrid of both could be the best multiplayer shooter ever made. But the real question is, 'Could Gamers handle something like that?'.

@Murderstyle75: Is MAG still active?

Mag was another sub par Sony shooter I thought. Feel free to lol and call me a stupid COD gamer and that I "didn't understand it"... but when all the reviews and most of the gamers agree, I thinkl it's more the games fault than mine.

MAG was flawed yes, but its potential was greater then any shooter I've ever known. A sequel would have been AAA for sure.

Seriously, Battlefield has outgrown 64 player maps. Im tired of going to a flag and theres maybe 1 guy defending it if any, in a full 64 player server. In MAG you had to fight for everything and it was much more satisfying.

Battlefield 1942 had 64 player matches 10 years ago. If the next Battlefield doesnt increase the player count (64 to 96 or 128 would help alot), while learning from MAG by adding things for the engineer class to actually repair or destroy, Im done with the series.

Even the few maps in MAG's domination mode were so much better designed then the Battlefield 4 maps.

They should've made some more (and better) SOCOM games for PS3

MAG stunk. Its possible that they patched the game, but when I played it, it sucked pretty bad.

MAG was awesome, and kept improving every week with updates.

It's a shame the community died out and the dev closed, I would love to see a MAG 2.

I thought Lollipop Chainsaw was.

@locopatho:

What was so sub par about it? Please elaborate. Reviewers rated it bad because they didn't know how to play. Some gamers didnt like it because they either didn't play enough to unlock domination or they tried to play it like COD.

If you think MAG was so bad, give it a detailed review.

@BattleSpectre:

Slightly however since the generation is over, the game is like four years old and Zipper is no longer a company, the servers are going down in Jan.