HOW did MM only get a 73 on Metacritic?

[Baklavah]

I hear nothing but good things. Reviews praise it, the gameplay looks solid and the car is freakin cool!! How does it only get a 73? wtf? What am I missing o_o ??

[Baklavah]

引用自 ReeNoiP：

To be fair Mad Max does have some real problems and some things that can be an issue depending on what you like. I enjoyed the game, but it's not without its flaws.

It suffers heavily from "assassins creed syndrome" where 90% of the game is doing the same activities over and over, unlocking a new part of the map and doing it again. The activities in Mad Max are not particularly varied, so it's easy to see how one can get bored with them. This is enforced by the lack of enemy variety and interresting story missions.

There is really no excuse for the autoturning camera. It's pointless and annoying.

The collectible vehicles are rather pointless. The Magnum Opus is always the best choice.

The harpoon is so good it makes other vehicle combat options mostly obsolete. Ramming is fun, but you are handicapping yourself.

Some people are just getting sick of Arkham style combat.

They can get sick of Arkham style combat all they like, but no one can really deny that it's effective for fighting multiple opponents.

[Something Hank]

引用自 Baklavah：

引用自 ReeNoiP：

To be fair Mad Max does have some real problems and some things that can be an issue depending on what you like. I enjoyed the game, but it's not without its flaws.

It suffers heavily from "assassins creed syndrome" where 90% of the game is doing the same activities over and over, unlocking a new part of the map and doing it again. The activities in Mad Max are not particularly varied, so it's easy to see how one can get bored with them. This is enforced by the lack of enemy variety and interresting story missions.

There is really no excuse for the autoturning camera. It's pointless and annoying.

The collectible vehicles are rather pointless. The Magnum Opus is always the best choice.

The harpoon is so good it makes other vehicle combat options mostly obsolete. Ramming is fun, but you are handicapping yourself.

Some people are just getting sick of Arkham style combat.

They can get sick of Arkham style combat all they like, but no one can really deny that it's effective for fighting multiple opponents.

Effective, yes. But interesting? Becoming less so.

[Donut Steel]

TotalBiscuit had some interesting thoughts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJANS0VTpbY

Mad Max is a game I keep thinking about every so often and that is rare. My thoughts on how the game is often criticised(some talking points in this thread too) is it's sheer double-standards. Every game Warner Bros has released in recent years has used a variation of the Arkham Asylum design in the same way Ubisoft has made most of the major releases variations on the Assassin's Creed template. So unless that repetition heavily weighs down Ubisoft(and sometimes it has but mostly hasn't), then why should it for WB Games who have not cranked out the same skeleton every single year, sometimes multiple times a year, for almost a decade now?

Also no surprise: Polygon(sigh) is one of the worst reviews. Just remember this when you think of Polygon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3pQ0oO_cDE

[Baklavah]

引用自 Arec Balrin：

TotalBiscuit had some interesting thoughts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJANS0VTpbY

Mad Max is a game I keep thinking about every so often and that is rare. My thoughts on how the game is often criticised(some talking points in this thread too) is it's sheer double-standards. Every game Warner Bros has released in recent years has used a variation of the Arkham Asylum design in the same way Ubisoft has made most of the major releases variations on the Assassin's Creed template. So unless that repetition heavily weighs down Ubisoft(and sometimes it has but mostly hasn't), then why should it for WB Games who have not cranked out the same skeleton every single year, sometimes multiple times a year, for almost a decade now?

Also no surprise: Polygon(sigh) is one of the worst reviews. Just remember this when you think of Polygon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3pQ0oO_cDE

TB knows how to be objective when it calls for it.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHA That Polygon review... SPECIAL.... lmao.... They are the worst. Why do they even review games? They're terrible.

[TheBear]

Funny, last i played was back in 2015 looking at the last save when i finished the game.

Got in the mood again after playing some crossout, and i have to say, i forgot what a beautifull game this is, not just graphics but that sense of being in a wasteland where all that exists or remains of humanity are tribes and warlords.

No game manages to mimick that as far as i know.

[Michael]

引用自 Bury Tomorrow：

引用自 kbmodigity：

To go back to what I said earlier, look at t game like civ 6. Firaxis payed out a small fortune for a marketing campaign before release.

Here is a link to the metacritic review of that game http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/sid-meiers-civilization-vi

Civ 6 is known by many to be one of the worst sequels to a game ever. Most users cant stand the game play and the changes they made compared to civ 5 yet the game gets an 88?????

All the critic reviews are 80+. Its pretty obvious they all got a nice gift basket full of money to say nice things. Hell, the reviews probably would have been 95+ except the game was so poorly made.

You then look at the user reviews and they are mostly neutral to negative.

It goes to show you that a reviewer is nothing more than a person who does paid advertisements. If your game is crap just throw some money at them and they will say its great. Don't give them anything and they will still review all AAA titles, but if they don't get a kickback you better hope your game is realy good or they will most likely give it just a fair review (and when I say fair i mean in rating, I don't mean it in the honesty sense).

Civ 6 is a great game. I'm enjoying it a lot, coming straight from civ 4.
I strongly disagree with the example you've chosen. The logic is good, though.

As a longtime Civ fan, coming straight from civ 5 to civ 6, I strongly agree with him. I played one or two games of civ 6 at launch and quit in disgust. I haven't touched it since and I doubt I will. Comparing it to 5 diesn't seem fair, because even Beyond Earth was a much better game than 6.

[Aku]

I think the lack of multiplayer knocked it down some. They could have added co-op at least. But as a single player game it's very good. It has some flaws, like I wish the world was more alive. And by alive I mean when you're at strongholds and other places you can talk to all the npc's and have conversations like in Elder Scrolls or Fallout. People mostly don't say much in this game. Repetition, like has been said. And really, once you upgrade Jeet's stronghold there really isn't much reason to take the time to upgrade the other ones because you can always just fast travel to Jeet's to replenish everything. The griffa tokens make the game pretty easy too, though you can always pass on those if you want the game to be harder. But the rest of the game is a blast.

[CursedPanther]

引用自 Dobian：

I think the lack of multiplayer knocked it down some. They could have added co-op at least. But as a single player game it's very good.

Forcing a coop mode into everything can be the downfall to be honest. Thank goodness MM doesn't have it.

[Regi]

引用自 Michael：

引用自 Bury Tomorrow：

Civ 6 is a great game. I'm enjoying it a lot, coming straight from civ 4.
I strongly disagree with the example you've chosen. The logic is good, though.

As a longtime Civ fan, coming straight from civ 5 to civ 6, I strongly agree with him. I played one or two games of civ 6 at launch and quit in disgust. I haven't touched it since and I doubt I will. Comparing it to 5 diesn't seem fair, because even Beyond Earth was a much better game than 6.

The cartoonish look of civ 6 actually makes me wanna puke + it has no actual changes from civ 5 unless i missed something