TheWorthyEdge
Member
BLOOOOOOOOD! The man.
-
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
BLOOOOOOOOD! The man.
User 479360
Banned
M.W.
Member
Obviously they don't.
User 479360
Banned
M.W.
Member
Hence your bump after 5 days. I get it.
CortexVortex
Banned
I don't get these bad reviews. Normally I'm getting bored really quick when it comes to open world games but Mad Max is just an amazing experience.
The setting is beyond awesome, the combat feels perfect and... it's fucking Mad Max, guys.
The setting is beyond awesome, the combat feels perfect and... it's fucking Mad Max, guys.
M.W.
Member
It's the best open world game on the market right now.
It's ok to admit it. It's fucking fun.
User 479360
Banned
Just to add the review. I was done after that, until you replied.
I don't want to argue, though, and I'm glad others like the game. This is not my review, but I wanted to add it to the list.
I think that the crux to the above problem, that many players enjoy elements in a game that reviewers rate negatively, is to an extent a result of the review process and having to finish a game relatively quickly, thereby making games such as Mad Max inherently difficult to appreciate beyond their central gameplay mechanics or hooks. By looking at its composite parts, certain reviewers and players may not get the same fun out of Mad Max' overarching open-world setting, ambiance and free-form agency (could also just not be your thing if you like linear experiences, that's cool too).
If you critical path it, the game is not going to be fun because its story serves the gameplay. If you go completionist on it, it's going to be tedious. It's a blend of the two that can be pretty fun. As weird a comparison as it may be, if you play Animal Crossing solely by earning money, paying off the debt and collecting furniture, you will encounter the same gameplay loops over and over, or run out of stuff to do in a day. Fishing and digging holes is not what the game is about. There is little to no skill involved and from a pure gameplay perspective not super fun. Most people understand this and approach this series from a different standpoint. Instead, the optimal way to play Animal Crossing is focusing on the things you enjoy doing, look around town at what's new and chat a bit, dig up some fossils, etc. and call it a day. Rather than the game explicitly setting goals for you (apart from the loan), you set your own and dictate the pace at which you approach the things the game has to offer.
It's similar in Mad Max in the respect that the world is quite large and the things you can do are manifold, but if you start doing one after the other it becomes a repetitive timesink. Unlike reviewers, regular players don't need to think about a deadline to finish this game by and have the luxury to try a bit of this and a bit of that. Rather than writing down 'well the combat's not as good as in this other game that's similar' and thinking of it in a more rigid, checkboxy kind of way, I think that most players (as in not reviewers) are not compelled to qualitatively assess each element of a game and just take it as they go. It's why dumb action movies are fun if you don't get hung up on logic and shitty dialogue or whatever.
Mad Max is also not about filling in markers on a huge map like Jim talks about. That is missing the point of these kind of games. You're not obliged in any way to all of these things unless you set that arbitrary goal for yourself. When you want to have fun, you ask yourself the question of what you can do to enjoy yourself, not how fun doing X is for Y amount of hours (unless you're a machine). So, what it comes down to I think is that Mad Max is better than the sum of its parts, which individually I think everyone has agreed are nothing new, but if you've been cultivated to think about games in that way or approach it from a similarly restrictive pattern of thinking, it's unlikely you'll enjoy it. Another factor of some importantance is the fatigue reviewers get of having to play games that have very similar loops between one another. Many people won't have played Shadow of Mordor, Assassin's Creed Unity, Arkham Knight and all those within the last 12 months. If you don't and you don't feel obliged to make every purchase a highly critical value-based judgement, you're not gonna feel like you should have bought this or that game instead because some individual elements (that aren't actually directly transferable because context matters) are better, or whatever.
In short, the way you approach a game matters. Don't do shit you feel gets repetitive, because there's other less shitty stuff to do. Be creative, go sightseeing or something. Ultimately it's not reviewers who decide if a game is good or bad, but you so who cares anyway (but because so many people only let reviews dictate what they do and don't like, mediocre reviews will hurt sales, yes).
That Codemasters game, Fuel is another example of the above. Arguably not a great game, but you'll find a lot of people who enjoyed the hell out of driving around the barren open world just looking at stuff, or finding a group of likeminded people and take an online road trip together from one corner of the map to the other.
If you critical path it, the game is not going to be fun because its story serves the gameplay. If you go completionist on it, it's going to be tedious. It's a blend of the two that can be pretty fun. As weird a comparison as it may be, if you play Animal Crossing solely by earning money, paying off the debt and collecting furniture, you will encounter the same gameplay loops over and over, or run out of stuff to do in a day. Fishing and digging holes is not what the game is about. There is little to no skill involved and from a pure gameplay perspective not super fun. Most people understand this and approach this series from a different standpoint. Instead, the optimal way to play Animal Crossing is focusing on the things you enjoy doing, look around town at what's new and chat a bit, dig up some fossils, etc. and call it a day. Rather than the game explicitly setting goals for you (apart from the loan), you set your own and dictate the pace at which you approach the things the game has to offer.
It's similar in Mad Max in the respect that the world is quite large and the things you can do are manifold, but if you start doing one after the other it becomes a repetitive timesink. Unlike reviewers, regular players don't need to think about a deadline to finish this game by and have the luxury to try a bit of this and a bit of that. Rather than writing down 'well the combat's not as good as in this other game that's similar' and thinking of it in a more rigid, checkboxy kind of way, I think that most players (as in not reviewers) are not compelled to qualitatively assess each element of a game and just take it as they go. It's why dumb action movies are fun if you don't get hung up on logic and shitty dialogue or whatever.
Mad Max is also not about filling in markers on a huge map like Jim talks about. That is missing the point of these kind of games. You're not obliged in any way to all of these things unless you set that arbitrary goal for yourself. When you want to have fun, you ask yourself the question of what you can do to enjoy yourself, not how fun doing X is for Y amount of hours (unless you're a machine). So, what it comes down to I think is that Mad Max is better than the sum of its parts, which individually I think everyone has agreed are nothing new, but if you've been cultivated to think about games in that way or approach it from a similarly restrictive pattern of thinking, it's unlikely you'll enjoy it. Another factor of some importantance is the fatigue reviewers get of having to play games that have very similar loops between one another. Many people won't have played Shadow of Mordor, Assassin's Creed Unity, Arkham Knight and all those within the last 12 months. If you don't and you don't feel obliged to make every purchase a highly critical value-based judgement, you're not gonna feel like you should have bought this or that game instead because some individual elements (that aren't actually directly transferable because context matters) are better, or whatever.
In short, the way you approach a game matters. Don't do shit you feel gets repetitive, because there's other less shitty stuff to do. Be creative, go sightseeing or something. Ultimately it's not reviewers who decide if a game is good or bad, but you so who cares anyway (but because so many people only let reviews dictate what they do and don't like, mediocre reviews will hurt sales, yes).
That Codemasters game, Fuel is another example of the above. Arguably not a great game, but you'll find a lot of people who enjoyed the hell out of driving around the barren open world just looking at stuff, or finding a group of likeminded people and take an online road trip together from one corner of the map to the other.
Calavera520
Member
after having a dozen or so hours with the game I can't begin to understand some of these reviews. Like others have said, maybe it's the review process. But that's no excuse for coverage which somehow paints this as a sub par game. There's amazing art direction throughout and it's a legitimately interesting open world design with distinctive locations. I'm loving the game but perhaps it's because I can take my time and really just explore on my own.
I recommend to anyone to go to the balloon points to get the fast travel functionality but don't actually mark anything. It's a lot more fun to just stumble across the various points of interest rather than just checking off points on an overly crowded map.
also in no other open world game have I been so compelled to actually 100% tasks. I always insist on finding every bit of scrap and destroying every insignia in every location i visit. Any other game I tend to not care. Also those photos you find are pretty interesting little bits of history.
I recommend to anyone to go to the balloon points to get the fast travel functionality but don't actually mark anything. It's a lot more fun to just stumble across the various points of interest rather than just checking off points on an overly crowded map.
also in no other open world game have I been so compelled to actually 100% tasks. I always insist on finding every bit of scrap and destroying every insignia in every location i visit. Any other game I tend to not care. Also those photos you find are pretty interesting little bits of history.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Guys/gals.
You liked/loved the game and some people didn't. That's all there is to this.
Its called opinions.
You liked/loved the game and some people didn't. That's all there is to this.
Its called opinions.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
Every now and then you just get this anomaly that comes along where reviewers are miles off from fans and this gen it is Mad Max. I don't think there is any way of explaining it.
I still feel that reviewers really 'got it wrong' with this game. Mad Max doesn't really do anything new however, and pardon the pun, the game fires on all cylinders and does already-established things very well.
-- The combat feels better than Batman/Mordor. I appreciate that Max doesn't fly halfway across an open room to hit an enemy in order to maintain a combo.
-- I like that large swarms of bad guys can still overpower you.
-- Once you're punching someone you seem committed to the action and can't just hit parry at any point and cancel out of it. Makes you think a little more.
-- The car combat honestly reminds me of Burnout, which is a massive plus to me.
-- The oil camps feel really varied in structure which helps mask repetitiveness.
-- The combat feels better than Batman/Mordor. I appreciate that Max doesn't fly halfway across an open room to hit an enemy in order to maintain a combo.
-- I like that large swarms of bad guys can still overpower you.
-- Once you're punching someone you seem committed to the action and can't just hit parry at any point and cancel out of it. Makes you think a little more.
-- The car combat honestly reminds me of Burnout, which is a massive plus to me.
-- The oil camps feel really varied in structure which helps mask repetitiveness.
I got to play this for a while over the weekend, and I gotta say... It really does seem like every inch the tedious open world paint-by-numbers exercise in repetition that some (most?) critics have said it is. Just filler busy work out the ass and some annoying ass vehicle handling in addition to the overly simplistic combat.
NullPointer
Member
Strong words.
I'm a little late posting this on here, but I wrote the review for TechRaptor.
Gave it a 7.5/10. Had a lot of fun despite its flaws.
Gave it a 7.5/10. Had a lot of fun despite its flaws.
pnutboy
Member
PC Gamer's review is finally up. They seemed to really enjoy the car combat but found the story and melee combat to be lacking. Still, it's great to hear that the port runs pretty well.
Shadowhaxor
Member
And here's our view on it. The Outerhaven's review of Mad Max 7.8/10
PayOffWizard
Member
What was the overall Gaf opinion on this game? I'm thinking of picking it up cheap on the PS Store.
Generally good, generally bad, mediocre?
If it helps I like the ass creed games but hated shadow of mordor.
Generally good, generally bad, mediocre?
If it helps I like the ass creed games but hated shadow of mordor.
exmachina64
Banned
Then you probably won't like it.
You travel from region to region, doing the same tasks to unlock the next region. The plot's lacking and while the gameplay systems are fun at first, it ultimately gets too repetitive to remain engaging. To a large degree, the character of the environment was captured and there are some cool emergent gameplay moments, but it never lives up to its potential.
In another thread, someone summarized the game's development troubles; Avalanche apparently did the best they could.