Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
I don't think Mordor or Dragon Age would review any lower if they released later. Those games seem like inherently fun experiences to me when I play them. I think some of that thinking could be influenced by game burn out.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mad Max: Review Thread.
- Thread starter Krappadizzle
- Start date
I don't think Mordor or Dragon Age would review any lower if they released later. Those games seem like inherently fun experiences to me when I play them. I think some of that thinking could be influenced by game burn out.
| Praxis |
Banned
Nine times out of ten that is the case. They try so hard.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Since I haven't played it yet because like most of us in North America I'm waiting for it to unlock and haven't really read at all as to what the story actually is. If I could have chosen a route to take with the story I would've gone with being more focused on building the legend (with its own positive and negative side effects) of Mad Max with each controlled region having its own story arc for you complete.
Also could've opened a nice door for a New Game Plus option.
As for Shadows of Modor, I enjoyed the power fantasy of a raging spectre it provided when you got your skills properly built up, there was a great deal of satisfaction in almost effortlessly decimating a small army of Orcs. I enjoyed it more than the combat in the Arkham games, especially after a few perks unlocked such as the one that let you keep your combo/momentum for a time after combat ends.
Also could've opened a nice door for a New Game Plus option.
As for Shadows of Modor, I enjoyed the power fantasy of a raging spectre it provided when you got your skills properly built up, there was a great deal of satisfaction in almost effortlessly decimating a small army of Orcs. I enjoyed it more than the combat in the Arkham games, especially after a few perks unlocked such as the one that let you keep your combo/momentum for a time after combat ends.
flaxknuckles
Member
They are worse than Amazon reviewers cus at least they only post crud on funny products and not treat every game review like a comedy contest.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
Thank you. Will you by any chance add an update to the review to let us know how much, if at all, the new patch changes the experience. It sounds like a substantial patch but sometimes that isn't always the case.
Baldwin_the_First
Member
I'm lazy, what's the consensus over the longevity of the story? Is it more more than 15 hours?
KefkaTaran
Member
Yep, that is 100% the plan as soon as I have my hands on a retail copy.
took me about 30-40 hours with a fair amount of side stuff. You could probably power through just story in 15 or so, but you'd likely have trouble at the end, where it gets hard if you don't have upgrades.
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
Sorry. I'm not being harsh or anything towards the reviewer himself as I know it's not up to him or in his control. The patch will probably be a minimal difference if that but my problem isn't with the reviewer himself, it's more with the way sites handle reviews as a whole.
I do agree in regards to a game never being done and I could get into a long debate about it in general but instead, I'll just say that's a conversation for another time and place.
If a person bought the game and it's sitting in front of them and they didn't open it because they're waiting for reviews, to be perfectly honest, they should quit gaming. And I have realized that not just here but every forum/message board, day one reviews are only important to those who either want to praise the game like it's the best ever or bash it like it's the worst ever.
I'm simply a gamer and will try out games if im interested in them. Perfect example is Infamous Second Son. Watched gameplay videos on youtube, read reviews and seemed like it might be good. It's not great. It's not horrible. It's simply not for me but I gave it a fair shot to see if I would like it. Reviews have way too much influence on gamers and that simply sucks. So many gamers look at games as if it's not a 9 or higher, it's garbage. It's simply not right.
Granted, to each their own but as a gamer, if I want to play a game like I do with Mad Max (or the other eight remaining games this year), I will do so regardless of reviews and scores. Impressions from gamers who have the game and are playing it at their own pace carry for weight and either get me more hyped or tones down my hype because they're playing a game that they spent their hard earned money on and have no bosses, no corporate bullcrap, no deadline, etc. and can simply give their impressions on the game as a gamer.
That's just how I look at it and again, to clarify, im not targeting or singling out the other guy personally. My problem and concern honestly has nothing to do with the reviewer and has more to do with sites and mags in regards to how they're run as a whole.
Sorry if I offended anyone or if anyone think im attacking them because honestly, im not and have no reason to do so.
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
Understood. Thanks and appreciate you taking the time to respond to my question. And nice, only 50% done in 30-40 hours...woohoo!!! That means 60-80 hours give or take for 100%. Can't wait!!!
And im sorry if I came across like I was attacking you or anything like that. I honestly wasn't. Simply wanted to know why the game was reviewed on a debug PS4.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
I think it might be wise to clue gamers into how this unfinished game review code works sometimes and how it may or may not matter. To some degree your doing that already but it never hurts to periodically remind us of what goes on behind the scenes in detail. And, it might not hurt to let gamers know just how much they are responsible for the state of things to some degree. We force early code to be reviewed by complaining so much.
I completely understand people enjoying games and having a lot of fun with them, even if they don't get stellar reviews. I just think reviews are inherently linked with the time they are released.
Enjoying and paying full price for a game that doesn't get 10/10 isn't something anyone should feel bad about it's just people don't look realistically at reviews. They are effected by the time they are released, media frenzy surrounding games, hype, game breaking bugs, publisher policies and many other things. Reviewers are people and you cannot expect them to completely live in a vacuum. For example someone who possibly played MGS the same week might be expecting a little more. Last year there weren't any other acclaimed open world game, the jade was coming over and SoM was one of the best games out but it's not exactly like it was a packed field. Especially when we talk about the major titles with major marketing muscle behind them.
I absolutely think that DA:I and SoM would have been lower rated if they were released this year - simply because it's a stronger field. There are games you can compare them to which can be considered as game changers. There is no fault in DA:I and SoM, they were hampered by also being crossgen - perhaps if more time and resources were spend just making a new gen game those games might have hold up better. Lets say in a decade are people going to look at 2014 and look at GOTY lists and compare them to other years and they just won't hold up. Crossgen has hampered game development but probably worked out very well for the big publishers. Titanfall, WD, SoM and DA:I might have done a lot worse if released a different year without major improvements to those games.
Baldwin_the_First
Member
I was expecting 10 to 15 hours so that's a great surprise! Thanks for the answer.
Woo-Fu
Banned
I don't think you've played Witcher 3 then. It raises the bar in many areas, most of which yield up direct comparison to systems in DA:I. In terms of quests alone---these are rpgs, right?---Witcher 3's attention to detail, voicework for every quest, no step and fetch it quests, no kill 10 bats quests, make most of the sidequests in DA:I look like half-assed filler. Now sure, there are certain things DA:I does better but none of them are what I'd call core gameplay.
I think Mordor would hold up, though. It's nemesis system hasn't been duplicated, must less surpassed, at least to my knowledge.
Krappadizzle
Member
Daniel77733, I think you're just super passionate about the subject material and hate to see it getting unnecessarily dog piled on. I think in the Polygon example, the score reflect's what's been written in my opinion. Which is nice as I hate when I see a review where the meat of the reviews aren't reflected in the score. I don't agree with the score myself, but I mean, it's all opinion based anyways so there's bound to be things where our opinions don't align. And that's ok
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
True. I am. I just think there's so much inconsistency in regards to reviews and majority of the time, games that get scored low or average would get rated higher by me and games that get high 9's and perfect 10's (which no game should ever get period) would get rated lower by me. Maybe its because I tend to go with the underhyped and underrated as opposed to the overhyped and overrated games.
Ah, whatever......in 13 1/2 hours, I'll be playing Mad Max for myself. Woohoo!!!
Krappadizzle
Member
True. I am. I just think there's so much inconsistency in regards to reviews and majority of the time, games that get scored low or average would get rated higher by me and games that get high 9's and perfect 10's (which no game should ever get period) would get rated lower by me. Maybe its because I tend to go with the underhyped and underrated as opposed to the overhyped and overrated games.
Ah, whatever......in 13 1/2 hours, I'll be playing Mad Max for myself. Woohoo!!!
I completely and fully agree. It feels like every game is an 8+ nowadays which just skews people's perspective on what a good score is and it just isn't the case as most games are massively overrated. If MGSV's review doesn't get updated to reflect it's bullshit pricing model I'll lose even what little respect I do have for these sites. Game reviews need to be all encompassing of the game and reflect the value. As it stands now, most are just well written advertisements for whatever publisher released the game.
Admiral Woofington
Member
let's be completely honest though, if a game is bad it'll get shat on by reviews, if it's good it'll get good reviews.
There are games that don't get the scores they deserve and might get forgotten, but this is the same with films. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is a very enjoyable film and it has ok ratings, but nobody watched it and the rating doesn't do the film justice.
RealityPales
Member
Polygon scored this game like it was a PlayStation exclusive.
curiouscharles
Member
lol - definitely at least an 8/10 [your joke, that is].
reviews are way mixed on this, but i don't care - already bought it at 60% off and waiting for steam activation!
Krappadizzle
Member
I mean...Destiny got a 88+ scores from sites like Gamesradar, Official Playstation Magazine, and Game Informer and that game didn't even have a story. Destiny would have gotten at best a 6/10 from me because it lacked so many elements of a game that I would consider important, even compared to Bungie's previous games Destiny was just awful so I wouldn't say that what you wrote is necessarily true at all. And that game sold a shit-ton.
Edit: Well, except for The Man from U.N.C.L.E. part. That movie was the bee's knees.
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
Exactly. I have completed 14 games this generation, all for PS4. Only two games have hit my 9 or higher rating. Far Cry 4 was a 9/10 for me personally as I fully enjoyed the game and even the repeating stuff like outposts were simply a blast. There were a few things I didn't like about the game why I didn't rate it higher. Considering the FPS genre is my least favorite genre and to still put in 80 or so hours into the game and complete it 100% is definitely saying something.
The other game is my current 2015 game of the year, The Witcher III at 9.5/10. Granted, using witcher senses gets repetitive but the story and characters just makes you want to do everything in the game and with the exception of a few random side quests that I missed, I did. Add in the visuals, music, sound, voice acting, immersion, atmosphere and while it's probably the weakest area in the game, the still at the very least good combat and the game was simply amazing. It's also an RPG which I honestly haven't played through a single one since the PSone era so for me to put in over 300 hours into the game, says a lot. And I want to play it again next year once both expansions get released.
Out of the other 12 games, 4 of them are in the 7 range and 8 are in the 8 range. Mad Max will probably hit my 9 rating unless there's some horrible stuff in the game because it's simply my type of game I like to play and most of all, it looks so much fun and a blast to play. Will it actually hit that 9 rating? That remains to be seen but going in, that's my expectation.
fastballspecial
Member
I can't agree with this kind of thinking at all. Nothing in entertainment is objectively good or bad. If Game A received a poor review from Reviewer A, then that reviewer thought the game was poor!
People who are reviewing Mad Max and don't like it... they have their reasons. And those reasons are their's alone. Same goes for someone liking it.
And I can't agree with "bad games get bad scores," etc, mostly because I've liked plenty of "bad" games and disliked "good" games. If I play and like a "bad" game, it's really not bad in my eyes.
I tend to stay out of review threads for these reasons but curiosity got the better of me this time. I like Mad Max and I'm excited to play game. I hope it's "good."
Admiral Woofington
Member
But that's an individual opinion. IGN members are to this date STILL playing Destiny and blogging about it, and it has a strong community. What is an 8 to them is a 6 to you sure, but it doesn't make their review any less valid. I get that you're trying to say that it sways the public in one direction vs another, but in your example of Destiny it was still a game that was solidly made and its biggest fault during review time was its lack of content which most people mentioned. There was no way in hell a Bungie game with decent to good reviews wasn't going to sell well with everything they pumped into marketing.
Most of the flaws of the game only came after reviews were long gone. And the gaming community at large will remember those by the time the second game comes out. It's not a perfect practice. Reviews will always sway customers, but I'd argue that the majority of the time they don't do anything spectacularly weird or out of the box.
I don't understand people who believe there shouldn't be games with a 10 score.
"How dare an arbitrary 10 point scale not reflect objective reality," when the 10 doesn't necessarily mean "perfect" anyway. These reviewers aren't reviewing on your scale: they're reviewing on their own. A 5 from one journalistic outlet may be equivalent to another's 7.
"How dare an arbitrary 10 point scale not reflect objective reality," when the 10 doesn't necessarily mean "perfect" anyway. These reviewers aren't reviewing on your scale: they're reviewing on their own. A 5 from one journalistic outlet may be equivalent to another's 7.
Krappadizzle
Member
I didn't say their reviews are less valid. I have no problems with any reviews to be honest in the sense that I know they are subjective to the individual. Destiny's lack of content is a pretty big misstep in my opinion to be giving it such a high score, especially considering it's advertisements and it being billed as a quasi-MMO lite game. Reviews are opinions, but people may make big purchasing decisions on those opinions and if a review and score don't correctly reflect what the actual game is or isn't it's a massive disservice to the audience.
I think it will probably hurt Avalanche a bit. The fact that it's being released day and date with MGSV coupled with it's gulf in review scores will leave people to just either pick it up on the cheap or not pick it up at all. Unless the movie's release is just enough push those on the fence into the buy camp.
edit: I can't help but wonder how much better this would have been received had it been released 2 weeks earlier or 2 weeks later.
Well the 5s and 6s match what I expected it to get seeing the leaked footage from two years ago while the 8s match what I was expecting after the re-reveal.
Looks like the product probably still had a lot of the genericness that was present back then, and just polished it despite the huge delays.
I wonder if this will notably hurt Avalanche. Just Cause 3 looks fine for a game being made by 90 people, but they still need to find work for the like 150-200 people in Sweden who just shipped this for quite the pretty penny.
Looks like the product probably still had a lot of the genericness that was present back then, and just polished it despite the huge delays.
I wonder if this will notably hurt Avalanche. Just Cause 3 looks fine for a game being made by 90 people, but they still need to find work for the like 150-200 people in Sweden who just shipped this for quite the pretty penny.
Daredevil7
Banned
If IGN was only one to give Mad Max high score of 8.4 one has to wonder about their 10/10 score for MGSV hmm.
plasmawave
Banned
Wut.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
No you don't.
Xplatformer
Member
LOL..and Tom Hardy looks nothing like Mel Gibson, who was in 3 films.
It doesn't matter. Sheesh.
Next you'll be complaining that Furiosa isn't in the game.
fastballspecial
Member
What are you going on about? Two separate games reviewed by two different people.
Lionel Richie
Member
Well its not based on the movie and has been in development for 4 years.
Furiosa is only in one of the four Mad Max movies.
Okay, it is the best one of the four though...
Permanently A
Junior Member
I wonder if MGSV's open world had any influence on these reviews? I've never seen such a strong reaction to the Ubisoft open world formula.
I think we finally reached the point where everyone has become sick of them. It took a while, but we got there.
User 479360
Banned
Hopefully my copy will arrive tomorrow.
I'm not sure I'm happy about hearing it's 35-40 hours long, though.
I'm not sure I'm happy about hearing it's 35-40 hours long, though.
KefkaTaran
Member
I don't think you've played Witcher 3 then. It raises the bar in many areas, most of which yield up direct comparison to systems in DA:I. In terms of quests alone---these are rpgs, right?---Witcher 3's attention to detail, voicework for every quest, no step and fetch it quests, no kill 10 bats quests, make most of the sidequests in DA:I look like half-assed filler. Now sure, there are certain things DA:I does better but none of them are what I'd call core gameplay.
I think Mordor would hold up, though. It's nemesis system hasn't been duplicated, must less surpassed, at least to my knowledge.
DA:I? Yes.
Shadow of Mordor? Nope, that's a Hack and Slash or maybe an Action-Adventure. Being able to level up and buy abilities doesn't turn a game into a RPG.
IdreamofHIME
Member
As someone who values innovation, I think SoM should still score as high this year and the scores for DAI continue to baffle me.
Got my copy yesterday along with MGSV, so its been put aside for now. I will most likely crack Max open on the weekend, once I have my Metal Gear fix.
The reviews don't bother me too much. Hanging around a 7 average is fine. I didn't get this thinking it would be GOTY material, just a decent game based on a universe i'm particularly fond of.
The reviews don't bother me too much. Hanging around a 7 average is fine. I didn't get this thinking it would be GOTY material, just a decent game based on a universe i'm particularly fond of.
Yea was expecting around 7's though seeing a few 6's was disappointing. Also the range of review scores on this game is quite wide.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
I don't think you've played Witcher 3 then. It raises the bar in many areas, most of which yield up direct comparison to systems in DA:I. In terms of quests alone---these are rpgs, right?---Witcher 3's attention to detail, voicework for every quest, no step and fetch it quests, no kill 10 bats quests, make most of the sidequests in DA:I look like half-assed filler. Now sure, there are certain things DA:I does better but none of them are what I'd call core gameplay.
I think Mordor would hold up, though. It's nemesis system hasn't been duplicated, must less surpassed, at least to my knowledge.
Yes, I have played it. It didn't ruin other games for me. I simply see it as a different take on the same thing.
Seems like a mostly positive review!