Support NeoGAF

[c0Zm1c]

That's my feeling about this game - it looks like SoM (Max even looks as generic as the protagonist from that game) only with a car building mechanic instead of the nemesis system.

And this game looks like it could really benefit from using the nemesis system.

As a fan I really want this to be good, but we'll see. I've been playing the shit out of Until Dawn and Phantom Pain since last week, so I don't have time for this now either way.

I don't really understand these direct comparisons. Both games are published by the same company but neither is made by it. Avalanche (Mad Max) isn't Monolith (Shadows of Mordor).

The half price PC offers combined with a late review embargo set of alarm bells too.

That's at key seller sites though, which is common for PC game releases. The game hasn't been discounted at all on Steam.

 

[scitek]

So the early reviews paint it as around the same quality as all of their other games not named Renegade Ops.

 

[Mascot]

Not sure what all the hype here was about.

Ditto for the movie.

 

[ZoddGutts]

Looks like I'll be spending my money on the superior game tomorrow.... Stasis!

http://store.steampowered.com/app/380150

 

[SlickShoes]

It’s defiantly worth giving a try

OK THEN.

I'll wait on some real reviews from people from people that can use their words.

 

[Bedlam]

Well, seems like my concerns that I voiced in the other Mad Max thread are getting confirmed. Too bad. This is another one of those uninspired Ubisoft-template games and seemingly not even a very good one among those.

I don't really understand these direct comparisons. Both games are published by the same company but neither is made by it. Avalanche (Mad Max) isn't Monolith (Shadows of Mordor).

Why not compare those games? The monotonous progression through the game and the Ubisoft-map/objective design is the same in all of these games. Same for Far Cry 3/4, AC and so on. Disappointing.

Ditto for the movie.

Fury Road is an action-masterpiece and already a modern classic.

 

[robotrock]

Looks like I'll be spending my money on the superior game tomorrow.... Stasis!

This looks super cool. Thanks for posting it!

 

[Bedlam]

Looks like I'll be spending my money on the superior game tomorrow.... Stasis!

The guy is finished with his game? Awesome! I almost thought that will be one of those project that will never come together because it's too ambitous for one man. Will give it a look.

 

[Mascot]

Fury Road is an action-masterpiece and already a modern classic.

It sure is.

 

[viHuGi]

Let's hope for more positive reviews

 

[British Monsoon]

Well, seems like my concerns that I voiced in the other Mad Max thread are getting confirmed. Too bad. This is another one of those uninspired Ubisoft-template games and seemingly not even a very good one among those.

I'd actually put it above most of the Ubisoft-collectathon-style games out there, it just doesn't bring anything new to the table other than the car combat - it's uninspired in its execution, but the actual gameplay is fun as hell. Anyways, I wouldn't allow two terribly written blog reviews to cement your opinion.

 

[Kezen]

We need more reviews. This game seems cool but mechanics wise conservative.

The tech is there at least.

 

[c0Zm1c]

Why not compare those games? The monotonous progression through the game and the Ubisoft-map/objective design is the same in all of these games. Same for Far Cry 3/4, AC and so on. Disappointing.

I mean features such as the Nemesis system. That's Monolith's work not Avalanche. It would be nice if more people copied that, it's an interesting feature, but it seems people see Warner Bros. and assume everyone of the games it publishes will or should have the same features, even when they're by completely different studios.

 

[DJKhaled]

Got it pre-ordered, don't care about the reviews, I just want an entertaining game to play and I don't like the Metal Gear series.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

We need more reviews. This game seems cool but mechanics wise conservative.

The tech is there at least.

Come back at 4pm PDT

 

[Pifje]

Why did this even get such hype among the GAF hivemind? Just because the movie was good, or what?

 

[addyb]

Reviews. Good or bad I just don't pay attention to them. Watching footage is my way of deciding. I've watched enough footage of this to know I'll like it so pre ordered a few days ago. With game sharing on xbox one it's only cost me £16 so no big loss if I do indeed find it poor after some playtime.

Roll on tomorrow

Oh and I do appreciate that many base their hard earned cash on reviews and that's fair enough especially with limited funds or game time. It was a bad move launching this with mgs. It should of released in August.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

https://youtu.be/GXrL3clTBBI?t=17m10s

 

[robotrock]

Why did this even get such hype among the GAF hivemind? Just because the movie was good, or what?

I represent GAF as a whole, and I can tell you Why We Gave It Such Hype

Avalanche Studios, known for good video games Just Cause 2 and Renegade Ops, are releasing a new video game on September first.

I had to wake up the council for this post so I hope that was a satisfying answer.

 

[British Monsoon]

WITNESS!

 

[Shredderi]

Why did this even get such hype among the GAF hivemind? Just because the movie was good, or what?

What hivemind? I've seen more people be skeptic about this than hyped.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I represent GAF as a whole, and I can tell you Why We Gave It Such Hype

Avalanche Studios, known for good video games Just Cause 2 and Renegade Ops, are releasing a new video game on September first.

I had to wake up the council for this post so I hope that was a satisfying answer.

Needs more buzzing and wax-making

 

[semiconscious]

What the fuck kind of stupid name is "this gen gaming" and why can't they spell "definitely" correctly?

Also the rest of the excerpt reads like a half-assed forum post. But I guess it's an Official Gaming Review Blog™ so let's take their opinion seriously with a number and everything!

after years up here, i've become convinced that a number of people think that this ('defiantly') is the correct spelling ...

 

[ViciousDS]

Just Cause 3 has more stuff closer together and more room for playing around, based on everything I've seen. Mad Max has a lot of empty space because it's a driving game in a wasteland, which is going to hurt it.



It's like in school.

90% or higher is good

80% to 90% is average

70% to 80% is baseline

60% to 70% is "you're probably going to have to retake this class."

under 60% is "you failed."

Obligatory

People making 7's sound like it =shit

 

[Bedlam]

I mean features such as the Nemesis system. That's Monolith's work not Avalanche. It would be nice if more people copied that, it's an interesting feature, but it seems people see Warner Bros. and assume everyone of the games it publishes will or should have the same features, even when they're by completely different studios.

I know what you mean. It's just that peope found the Nemesis system very engaging in what would have otherwise been a bog-standard, uninspired Ubisoft-style game. It's not surprising people want that for Mad Max too, especially given the colorful characters one could come up with in the Mad Max world.

Mad Max, it seemingly turns out, is that bog-standard Ubisoft-style game. You're destroying outputs and you collect stuff. That's about it, the story seems to be as thin is paper and nonsensical (judging from comments of people who played it).

Sure, the moment-to-moment gameplay is hella fun. And the explosions! Right!? That's why the first impressions are naturally more euphoric. I strongly suspect that many of these impressions won't have the same tone when the players are 30 hours into the game and have raided the 87th same-y outpost.

It's too bad some developers take that drawn-out template and then call it a day/game. This is bad and lazy game design, in my opinion. In this case also waste of a great license.

 

[Fallout-NL]

Wow, a 7 is mediocre to you people,wtf.

Not this shit again.

 

[wazoo]

It's like in AMERICAN school.

90% or higher is good

In Europe, 50% is ok as it should be.

It makes comparison of reviews of different sources completely impossible depending on the background of the reviewer.

 

[prudislav]

Mad Max has a lot of empty space because it's a driving game in a wasteland, which is going to hurt it.

Well without a wasteland setting i wouldn't be Mad Max ;-) I find kinda complains about wasteland setting in effing Mad Max hilarious

And that youtube review i posted on previous page sounded pretty good with biggest complaint being that Max dousnt sound too australian :-D

 

[British Monsoon]

Sure, the moment-to-moment gameplay is hella fun. And the explosions! Right!? That's why the first impressions are naturally more euphoric. I strongly suspect that many of these impressions won't have the same tone when the players are 30 hours into the game and have raided the 87th same-y outpost.

28 hours in, still loving it. I'm sure that'll all change in the next two hours, though

One of the reasons raiding outposts over and over has yet to get boring is because of the variety in the challenge. The basic progression goes: scout outpost > take out defences and gain entry with the car > proceed on foot to defeat enemies and destroy key facilities in the base. But the game does a good job of throwing new enemies at you, both on the road and on foot, and it's these that make things more challenging as new moves, new tactics and new weaponry are introduced.

 

[c0Zm1c]

I know what you mean. It's just that peope found the Nemesis system very engaging in what would normally have been a bog-standard, uninspired Ubisoft-style game. It's not surprising people want that for Mad Max too, especially given the colorful characters one could come up with in the Mad Max world.

Mad Max, it seemingly turns out, is that bog-standard Ubisoft-style game. You're destroying outputs and you collect stuff. That's about it, the story seems to be as thin is paper and nonsensical (judging from comments of people who played it).

Sure, the moment-to-moment gameplay is hella fun. And the explosions! Right!? That's why the first impressions are naturally more euphoric. I strongly suspect that many of these impressions won't have the same tone when the players are 30 hours into the game and have raided the 87th same-y outpost.

It's too bad some developers take that drawn-out template and they call it a day/game. This is bad and lazy game design, in my opinion. In this case also waste of a great license.

Well as I said in the other thread I don't think that's a reason to write it off, especially not yet. Other companies tend to do the "Ubiworld" better than Ubisoft. Dying Light was the example I used, which I know some people hated, but I loved it and I know others did too. Adding to that, the reputation of Avalanche is a good reason why this is getting some attention (hopefully deservedly!)

 

[Krabboss]

I know what you mean. It's just that peope found the Nemesis system very engaging in what would have otherwise been a bog-standard, uninspired Ubisoft-style game. It's not surprising people want that for Mad Max too, especially given the colorful characters one could come up with in the Mad Max world.

Mad Max, it seemingly turns out, is that bog-standard Ubisoft-style game. You're destroying outputs and you collect stuff. That's about it, the story seems to be as thin is paper and nonsensical (judging from comments of people who played it).

Sure, the moment-to-moment gameplay is hella fun. And the explosions! Right!? That's why the first impressions are naturally more euphoric. I strongly suspect that many of these impressions won't have the same tone when the players are 30 hours into the game and have raided the 87th same-y outpost.

It's too bad some developers take that drawn-out template and then call it a day/game. This is bad and lazy game design, in my opinion. In this case also waste of a great license.

Open worlds are ruining AAA games. That is going to be my presidential platform.

 

[Barrylad]

Not to act like only the IGN-tier matters (lol @ that) but I don't know if the two posts in OP were really worthy of spawning this thread.

Disappointed the embargo for press reviews is so late but they haven't exactly been secretive with this game. There are 30/60+ minute videos out there, with the devs playing the game for Gamespot et al. You can very easily ascertain what this game is and if it's for you, based on the footage available.

For me, it looks like a hoot. I am anxious for reviews though - I'd love to know how the finished build performs, if the story is worth a damn, how long it is etc.

 

[xrnzaaas]

Got it pre-ordered, don't care about the reviews, I just want an entertaining game to play and I don't like the Metal Gear series.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Bedlam]

Open worlds are ruining AAA games. That is going to be my presidential platform.

Open worlds can be done right. Red Dead Redemption would be a fine example. No bloat and the side stuff is built in much more organically.

"Collectathons ruin open worlds" would be a better campaign slogan.

 

[suddenlyissoon]

At least I didn't pay that much for it.

 

[GeeTeeCee]

I'm sure I'll pick it up once I'm finished with The Phantom Pain.

An open world game with Arkham style combat? That style of game is my bread and butter.

 

[Litri]

This doesn't look good...

 

[Wind's Howling]

Open worlds can be done right. Red Dead Redemption would be a fine example. No bloat and the side stuff is built in much more organically.

"Collectathons ruin open worlds" would be a better campaign slogan.

There was plenty of 'bloat' in RDR but it was just that the story, world and side stuff were so interesting that it did not matter how many hours you put into it. There was always something interesting to find.

Honestly, Far Cry 4 was just as interesting but people seem to just generally hate on Ubisoft despite even having played the game and following GAF's ''popular opinion'' about Ubisoft.

 

[Human_me]

Honestly, Far Cry 4 was just as interesting but people seem to just generally hate on Ubisoft despite even having played the game and following GAF's ''popular opinion'' about Ubisoft.

Yep, I do wonder how many people have missed out on great games just because of stupid things like that.

 

[ViciousDS]

There was plenty of 'bloat' in RDR but it was just that the story, world and side stuff were so interesting that it did not matter how many hours you put into it. There was always something interesting to find.

Honestly, Far Cry 4 was just as interesting but people seem to just generally hate on Ubisoft despite even having played the game and following GAF's ''popular opinion'' about Ubisoft.

The amount of collectibles is what kind of ruined it for me. You would get a map and go to look at what you think possibly may be roughly 15-20 chests in order to see just one section of the map to be filled with a 100 + masks + more


It got overwhelming to look at.

 

[Bedlam]

There was plenty of 'bloat' in RDR but it was just that the story, world and side stuff were so interesting that it did not matter how many hours you put into it. There was always something interesting to find.

A little bit, but far less than in these types of games. Also, as I said, it was much more organically woven into the game. There was no map with 200 outposts to raid or chests to find. There were about 30-40 meticulously crafted locations, side stuff happened with people running up to you during your travels, for treasure hunts you had to identify geographical features with drawn maps, for finding flowers or hunting you only knew the general area where to look for but you still had to find the stuff by yourself and it was all the more satisfying and engaging for it. It is a huge difference compared to just checking off hundreds of dots on a map.

The amount of collectibles is what kind of ruined it for me. You would get a map and go to look at what you think possibly may be roughly 15-20 chests in order to see just one section of the map to be filled with a 100 + masks + more

It got overwhelming to look at.

Same for me. I'm a completionist. I like finishing stuff, completing all activities in games etc.

That doesn't mean I want to do the same shit hundreds of times.

That's also the difference between Arkham Asylum and Arkham City for me, for example. I loved doing the Riddler challenges in AA, in AC I did not even bother due to the sheer amount.

Game design has gone wrong when games start to feel like work.

 

[Jackpot]

Why did this even get such hype among the GAF hivemind? Just because the movie was good, or what?

ooooooo, that's a bad choice of words.

 

[Mozendo]

Awaiting biogamer girl review.

Ever since the Destiny ad they're one of the few sites I go to read for the reviews.

 

[poodaddy]

You can't just make up your own scale.

How am I making up a scale? As I said I have no dog in this race, but I know hyperbole when I see it and calling a 7 mediocre is absolutely false. On a 1 to 10 scale it stands to reason that 5 is absolutely middle of the road and is average, otherwise the entire concept of the ten point scale makes no sense. With that being said mediocre literally means "something of moderate quality, not very good." This is just a simple google search here. If the game is mediocre, which it might very well be I honestly don't know or care, then it should be rated a 5 or below as that would be a below average score. I'm not saying the game will be good, rather I'm pointing out how absurd these ten point scoring systems are if they don't mathematically make sense. The only dog I have in this race is that I was a bookkeeper and HR professional for the past 5 years and I loves me some numbers so I just want to see them make sense. The game might honestly be shit, who knows, but if it is it shit then it shouldn't be getting a score above a 5, 6 at the most. But hey, we all know that the scoring system used by most game journalists is fairly absurd and varies quite a lot from person to person so maybe I'm just yelling at the cloud here. Just my thoughts on the matter, if you disagree that's fine but don't accuse me of making things up or speaking falsely on anything when that's simply not the case. Please and thank you.

 

[Teknoman]

I represent GAF as a whole, and I can tell you Why We Gave It Such Hype

Avalanche Studios, known for good video games Just Cause 2 and Renegade Ops, are releasing a new video game on September first.

I had to wake up the council for this post so I hope that was a satisfying answer.

Don't forget the videos of the game look awesome, because they look awesome.

 

[Bedlam]

How am I making up a scale? As I said I have no dog in this race, but I know hyperbole when I see it and calling a 7 mediocre is absolutely false. On a 1 to 10 scale it stands to reason that 5 is absolutely middle of the road and is average, otherwise the entire concept of the ten point scale makes no sense. With that being said mediocre literally means "something of moderate quality, not very good." This is just a simple google search here. If the game is mediocre, which it might very well be I honestly don't know or care, then it should be rated a 5 or below as that would be a below average score. I'm not saying the game will be good, rather I'm pointing out how absurd these ten point scoring systems are if they don't mathematically make sense. The only dog I have in this race is that I was a bookkeeper and HR professional for the past 5 years and I loves me some numbers so I just want to see them make sense. The game might honestly be shit, who knows, but if it is it shit then it shouldn't be getting a score above a 5, 6 at the most. But hey, we all know that the scoring system used by most game journalists is fairly absurd and varies quite a lot from person to person so maybe I'm just yelling at the cloud here. Just my thoughts on the matter, if you disagree that's fine but don't accuse me of making things up or speaking falsely on anything when that's simply not the case. Please and thank you.

Are you new to this video game review thing?

The tilted scales are a direct result of game reviewers' dependence on publishers feeding them material for the reviews. Wouldn't want to bite the hand that feeds you so you give that mediocre game a 7 instead of a 5 so you don't fall out of grace. It's a win for both sides, but yeah, we gamers have to deal with that shit now and interpret the scales accordingly.

 

[Lucifon]

Game is great. Played about 4-5 hours and I'm absolutely loving it. How anyone can score it 6.5 is beyond me but hey that's how opinions work I guess. Does feel like the Shadow of Mordor of 2015 in terms of a sleeper hit.

 

[Rosur]

Game is great. Played about 4-5 hours and I'm absolutely loving it. How anyone can score it 6.5 is beyond me but hey that's how opinions work I guess. Does feel like the Shadow of Mordor of 2015 in terms of a sleeper hit.

That sounds good (though don't see it being as big as Shadow of Mordor due to no Nemesis like system).

 

[ViciousDS]

Same for me. I'm a completionist. I like finishing stuff, completing all activities in games etc.

That doesn't mean I want to do the same shit hundreds of times.

That's also the difference between Arkham Asylum and Arkham City for me, for example. I loved doing the Riddler challenges in AA, in AC I did not even bother due to the sheer amount.

Game design has gone wrong when games start to feel like work.

Yup, you sound like me! Only Ubisoft game I came close to 100% was Watch Dogs.....all I'm missing is the multiplayer wins one.

Not sure what kept me going....probably because it was the only current GTA style game, blowing up vents was fun as hell and the size activities involving hacking didn't really bother me. But its world also wasn't insanely overwhelming. It was big, but due to transportation and activities it didn't bother me.

 

[Rosur]

How am I making up a scale? As I said I have no dog in this race, but I know hyperbole when I see it and calling a 7 mediocre is absolutely false. On a 1 to 10 scale it stands to reason that 5 is absolutely middle of the road and is average, otherwise the entire concept of the ten point scale makes no sense. With that being said mediocre literally means "something of moderate quality, not very good." This is just a simple google search here. If the game is mediocre, which it might very well be I honestly don't know or care, then it should be rated a 5 or below as that would be a below average score. I'm not saying the game will be good, rather I'm pointing out how absurd these ten point scoring systems are if they don't mathematically make sense. The only dog I have in this race is that I was a bookkeeper and HR professional for the past 5 years and I loves me some numbers so I just want to see them make sense. The game might honestly be shit, who knows, but if it is it shit then it shouldn't be getting a score above a 5, 6 at the most. But hey, we all know that the scoring system used by most game journalists is fairly absurd and varies quite a lot from person to person so maybe I'm just yelling at the cloud here. Just my thoughts on the matter, if you disagree that's fine but don't accuse me of making things up or speaking falsely on anything when that's simply not the case. Please and thank you.

This why I think more sites should use a 5* review system (like Giant bomb does) it makes more sense with how games are reviewed.