MAG

Before continuing with this review, we should make one important point absolutely clear – your experience with MAG might be better than ours. You might join a tightly organised, well-oiled machine of a clan where everyone knows their place in the ranks and fulfils their role dutifully. Rank and file soldiers look out for each other and trust in the judgement of their squad leaders and platoon leaders, while commanders orchestrate battle plans with the shrewdness and authority of history’s finest generals. And you might find a similarly well-trained clan to fight against, and you might find that the battles you have are tense tactical struggles where each man’s skill in battle is as important as the strategic thinking of the officers in the field.

It's virtually impossible to follow the games large-scale action

You might. But realistically, the chances of as many as 256, or 128, or even 64 people coming together online who are that like-minded and that well matched are very, very slim. It will happen, because where online gaming communities have a will, they’ll always find a way. But the level of organisation, dedication and co-operation required to arrange the kind of match that MAG has ultimately been designed for will ensure that only the most dedicated, hardcore players will ever experience one. And if you’re really that into the idea of MAG’s large-scale military confrontations then you’re not reading this review, you’re playing it already.

So if you are reading this review, you’re more likely curious about MAG, although probably not quite sold on it yet. You’ve played a bit of Modern Warfare, a bit of SOCOM, some Battlefield, maybe even a touch of Operation Flashpoint, and you’re wondering if bigger might equal better in the military shooter stakes. For you, sir (or madam), we really don’t think so. For MAG to be a worthwhile investment for a casual, or even moderately hardcore, gamer it needs to nurture you and take care of you and induce in you a proper understanding of how it works, and how it is fundamentally different from any other online shooter ever made, and how you won’t get the most out of it if you play it like other shooters.

If it fails to do that then you’re essentially left running around, aimlessly shooting at anything that looks like an enemy. And guess what… it fails to do that. Zipper Interactive emphasises nothing more highly than the importance of communication when describing how MAG should be played, and is quite right to do so of course. And we suspect that were someone – a disappointed games critic from NowGamer for example – to complain that MAG didn’t work properly because everyone was just running around doing their own thing without co-operating, Zipper’s response would be to suggest that the problem was that players were not communicating with each other.

MAG is generally a solid shooter, but it's designed to be played tactically

At this point, the disappointed games critic – who expected such a response and has prepared a witty and theatrical retort to it – would produce a mirror from the back of his trousers and holds it up to Zipper Interactive’s surprised, and possibly mildly repulsed, face. Right back at you Zipper – you can’t expect players of your game to communicate properly when your game does not communicate properly with its players. Our experience with MAG, as you’ve probably already figured out, was not an exercise in unified, large-scale, military cut and thrust. No, it was an exercise in futility, and in confusion, and in not knowing what was going on or what we were really supposed to be doing.

… continued