Storms can be bad but oh my god the scrap you can get from them.
[editline]12th September 2015[/editline]
Also, the first time I entered Gastown, one of the first voices I heard was Laura Bailey's, I am honestly started to get irritated hearing her voice pop up everywhere now, mostly because she's so god damn Monotone.
What i'd like to do is get these tracks to work in this game, or in any post apoc game to be fair as the movie is amazing and so is the soundtrack, i hear these 2 songs when i'm walking around in this game
[video=youtube;F1xI0LZ6YhA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1xI0LZ6YhA[/video]
[video=youtube;dSwyJ0aaM4k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSwyJ0aaM4k[/video]
I love the shit out of Deep Friah, even if he's completely a side character
This update broke my game. Map no longer works.
Not happy.
[QUOTE=Bravo;48670534]This update broke my game. Map no longer works.
Not happy.[/QUOTE]
As in the map button apparently refuses to work? Just keep playing, it comes back after some territory hopping. Happened to me shortly after game release, first thought it was my controller, then tried keyboard, both refused to open map. It "fixed" itself after I just continued to play for 10-20 or so minutes. I can't say if it was something I did or what, but it did come back.
Yeah pressing TAB does nothing. I'll see if that helps then, thanks.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48656620]i like it but i can totally understand all the critical bleh-yness its been getting
its like an ubisoft game but instead of towers its balloons, instead of (in the case of acreed) new toys/gadgets to play with, its new features for your car, same character upgrading scheme, even a similar unlock system
you could bet your ass if it was on uplay only or even just had the ubisoft logo attached it would be hated by tons of people solely because of those[/QUOTE]
But none of those Ubisoft games ever got as much hate before.
I think people are just salty because they are comparing it to MGS, which is the most hyped game of the year (even moreso than Fallout 4 somehow) and even then I honestly think Mad Max and MGS cannot be compared. They are two very different games with very different objectives.
It's insane how the reviews blatantly nitpick on stupid shit and overlook some of the games biggest strengths too. Like, the game is beautiful and the sound design is downright amazing. Those two things alone count for so much of the enjoyment of this game because you get to watch the spectacle unfold. They also don't mention all the extra shit thrown in like the fully rebindable keys, camera mode, and video capture.
I'm usually fine with others expressing their opinions but if you call this game "bad" then you are a fucking idiot. You can call it bland, or mediocre, or uninspired, but in the end it is a competent title and Avalanche clearly went out of their way to make an excellent port for an enjoyable game. They tried, and that alone counts for so much.
[editline]13th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Araknid;48658259]I hate how nowadays lots of people see 70% rating as bad, with like, 80 being the minimum for a game or movie
its so fucking dumb[/QUOTE]
That's because the videogame industry has done that. So many garbage games got a 7/10 or even 8/10. It is rare to see a game go below a 4/10 and it just shows how pathetic and meaningless rating scales really are. They are incredibly arbitrary.
A lot of that is due to the lowering standards of the game industry. I could see Mad Max getting a 6/10 years ago for being nothing special, but now we accept games being broken and shitty to the point that releasing a broken game will still get you a 5/10. The reviews in general are just adding fuel to the fire of my hatred for gaming journalism.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48671699]ac: rogue and ac: unity have roughly the same critical reception as mad max currently does, mad max has the advantage of being a franchise that most people still love whereas most of the internet actively wants ac to die[/QUOTE]
But Unity was a straight up broken game that didn't add anything new and took some stuff away even.
It proves my point. Mad Max is getting the same scores as a objectively broken game.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48671737]unity worked pretty decently on launch actually, though it had a garbage framerate and some graphical issues on consoles, it ran fine after a few patches (provided you had a strong enough setup) and the combat/customization was heavily improved on imo[/QUOTE]
No it didn't. I could excuse the many bugs but the framrate was so bad on PC that the game was simply unplayable at times. "Ran fine after a few patches" could be said about almost any game. Rome II was also unplayable at launch, but it "ran fine after a few patches". My point is that a game should be judged by how it is when purchased. Mad Max was an excellent game with minimal bugs and zero framrate issues when purchased day one for me. It never required any patching.
And I will mention Rogue. Rogue was a sequel; it had to measure up to its predecessors and top them. If a sequel fails to impress more than the original, then what is the point really? Just replay the original. Rogue was a good game by all accounts but it didn't do anything to really wow the AC audience. A game being "decent" is fine but a sequel being decent isn't as fine, since it has to top the originals. Otherwise you may as well not make a sequel. Mad Max has the advantage of not being a sequel, so it has no other games in a series to measure up too.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48671802]while mad max isn't a sequel, it has a ton of other games in the genre to measure up to
i.e. games from the same publisher (batman, mordor, hell they even have the same on-foot combat) and the general elements that open world games have been getting more and more
[editline]12th September 2015[/editline]
at the heart of it, it just feels like it got middling reviews because it does everything other open world games do with similar proficiency as past ones, not really improving on much at all (and in some ways regressing, as this game's combat in both areas could use some work)[/QUOTE]
That's were I disagree though. The game didn't do it with similar proficiency, it did it with superior proficiency largely thanks to the graphical and sound design that made the generic combat more engaging than its contemporaries.
I won't argue that the game [I]isn't[/I] generic in many regards, but the reviews fail to mention areas were it excels. Namely how gorgeous it is, how well the environments are designed, and how great the visual effects look (which enhances the car gameplay drastically). I'm saying that the gameplay is generic but there is more too Mad Max than that, but the reviews fail to mention any of it. Have we become so jaded and excepting of the current gen that we no longer appreciate when a game as beautiful as Mad Max comes out? Is that bit alone not worthy of at least [I]mentioning?[/I]
I've finally finished the game
The final battle (or chase) was a bit underwhelming and basically counts as a reskinned convoy fight you should win with ease if you did your homework regarding your car
One sure thing about Mad Mas is the absolute dark ending it got, which however perfectly fits the setting
I've also wrote a [URL="http://steamcommunity.com/id/eliamoroes/recommended/234140/"]Steam review[/URL] of it, if anyone is interested
This is how my Magnum Opus looked at the end of the game
[t]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/427069887425451592/EAA5D1590F78E33B9BA2846B474F233DD6A086CC/[/t]
For the ending: [sp]I was actually fine with Max killing Chum. It was a nicely dramatic moment and fittingly dark. Plus it makes perfect sense if you consider that Chum was the whole reason Hope and Glory were killed, considering he told Scrotus about them.[/sp]
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48671683]
That's because the videogame industry has done that. So many garbage games got a 7/10 or even 8/10. It is rare to see a game go below a 4/10 and it just shows how pathetic and meaningless rating scales really are. They are incredibly arbitrary.
A lot of that is due to the lowering standards of the game industry. I could see Mad Max getting a 6/10 years ago for being nothing special, but now we accept games being broken and shitty to the point that releasing a broken game will still get you a 5/10. The reviews in general are just adding fuel to the fire of my hatred for gaming journalism.[/QUOTE]
consumers don't usually go out and buy games that are rated 7/10 because that means they could potentially buy a 60 dollar game that's utter shit. it's all about the price point. if it was a 7/10 title for 20 bucks it'd have a lot more sales
i'm glad i paid 25 bucks for mad max. i would be utterly pissed if I paid anything more and got what I did. it's fun but it's not 60 dollars fun
also you can't really rag on assassins creed because even if it does get poor ratings it sells 10+ million copies in its lifetime solely because it's an established franchise. it might be a crappy title but it is still a financial success, and that's all businesses want
mad max isn't an established franchise. it's new and it's not innovative whatsoever and consumers pick up on that when they have to pay full price for something that'll be in the bargain bin in a few months
Also regarding sounds/graphics; they don't really mean as much these days unless the graphics are extremely blatantly awful like that new godzilla game. pretty much every game that comes out these days looks great and sounds great. that doesn't mean that they're any good
[QUOTE=69105;48673157]consumers don't usually go out and buy games that are rated 7/10 because that means they could potentially buy a 60 dollar game that's utter shit. it's all about the price point. if it was a 7/10 title for 20 bucks it'd have a lot more sales
i'm glad i paid 25 bucks for mad max. i would be utterly pissed if I paid anything more and got what I did. it's fun but it's not 60 dollars fun
also you can't really rag on assassins creed because even if it does get poor ratings it sells 10+ million copies in its lifetime solely because it's an established franchise. it might be a crappy title but it is still a financial success, and that's all businesses want
mad max isn't an established franchise. it's new and it's not innovative whatsoever and consumers pick up on that when they have to pay full price for something that'll be in the bargain bin in a few months
Also regarding sounds/graphics; they don't really mean as much these days unless the graphics are extremely blatantly awful like that new godzilla game. pretty much every game that comes out these days looks great and sounds great. that doesn't mean that they're any good[/QUOTE]
But that is my point, 7/10 is not shit. Buying a 7/10 game should be a surefire bet for most people. The game industry's shitty, skewed, and straight-up farcical reviews have mutated those scores to mean 7/10 is bad.
My comparison to Unity is that it got equal or better scores despite being an objectively bad game on launch. An objectively bad game is anything that is broken or buggy. Mad Max works fine, and every element works as intended. That doesn't mean it isn't mediocre or anything, it just means that the fucking thing [I]works[/I] in its entirety.
Once again, I am not necessarily ragging on the fairly negative review scores because 5/10 or 6/10 is fine if you really think the game is just bland. I'm ragging on how 7/10 can be considered a bad review score. I'm also ragging on Jim Stirling's quite frankly dumb score of 4/10. 4/10 is a bad game, make no bones about it.
I guess the whole idea of scoring something as complex as a video game on a scale of 1 to 10 is inherently idiotic to begin with though.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48675248]when your car combat game's combat is boring and repetitive there's an issue there[/QUOTE]
There's also the ability to make it entertaining on your own accord. Blaming the game for being boring when it's the player that decided to take the simplest, most efficient approach - much like the quote you made - is rather silly.
Granted you can only take it so far with a limited tool set, but still. Find harpooning wheels boring? Challenge yourself to eliminate enemies in a different manner, switch to an enemy vehicle for a bit, don't use your shotgun, etc.
Again, there isn't a very large palette to work with, but that doesn't mean the player can't at least try. An open world game can only take the player so far.
i feel like you havent played the game enough yet or just, cant get any fun out of it idk
ive just had so many awesome intense moments in this game during the car combat on top of the incredible setting that ive loved it so far
my only complaint really is that the hand to hand combat gets a bit repetitive after a while
wow ok then youve played roughly the same amount as me. not for everyone i guess but ive found the car combat to be pretty damn intense sometimes especially if you use first person
i agree that it can get repetitive but discovering places is p fun for me. i totally understand though why a lot of people dont like it
it reminds me of borderlands in a lot of regards
[editline]d[/editline]
that quote about the car combat is so blown out of proportion though. he just sounds angry
My problem with the game so far is I've had zero "wow!" moments. It just feels like going down a checklist, or doing your chores. Very rarely is it intense to the wire fighting. 25 hours in and it feels little more interesting than 2.5 hours. And there is almost zero organic gameplay, which really disappoints me. Not once have I seen some Roadkill start attacking a Scrotum convoy, for example. If you are, say, fighting a convoy, and you pass some Buzzards, instead of fighting the convoy too, or splitting up to fight the convoy and you, they all focus directly on you. I don't feel like I'm part of a living world that's going on regardless of me, I feel like everything that exists in this world exists only to serve me as a player.
yeah. because it's not meant to be played like a checklist where you drive to each and every scrap location. completionists will lose their minds during this game
i just drive around checking out locations. the only ones that ill always end up investigating are the ones that have history relics or seem like they might be cool to explore
i stumbled on a place hidden in the ground by chance at nighttime when i wasnt looking at my map, jumped down into a hole and found this [sp]buzzard chapel thing[/sp] which was p cool
yeah everyone whos playing this game has gotten road warrior and all the best upgrades before theyve even hit the end of the barrens. meanwhile i still have a pretty down the middle car and im just starting my first mission at gastown, i dont really get why youd do that
maybe im having more fun because im not going after every single scrap and having a good challenge against better armored, sometimes faster cars. just do the base requirements and level up at your own pace
[editline]d[/editline]
like do you think the devs intended for players to have the best stuff before theyve even gotten past like half the game? i dunno
my harpoon is still shitty bc it costs a button and there's other stuff i wanna spend the scrap on so i havent had quite the same experience so far maybe
Because the story missions are so damn short since they expect you to do more than a little side missions. For example, one of the most intense parts of the story is split between two missions and the second one is gated behind "Do 2 stronghold projects for Deep Friah and do 4 Wasteland missions." Completely ruins the flow of the already too short story.
i agree though. the missions are often pretty skeletal unfortunately and doesn't leave a whole lot to do besides running around the map which gets old for almost everyone eventually
the more i think about it it's a game with a lot of potential but there really isnt enough meat in it. good but not worth the price i paid for it imo
[editline]d[/editline]
one of my other complaints was that they did pretty much nothing interesting with the dog. i thought he was going to end up becoming more of a companion, and it couldve been a good addition to the hand to hand combat too to mix things up a little. hell it mightve raised the game by a point
i mean the dog was a pretty big part of mad max, wasnt it?
[IMG]http://s27.postimg.org/pq6j2wxsj/maxdog.jpg[/IMG]
or it couldve helped you gather scrap :P
I paid full price and didn't feel ripped off. I got almost 40 hours out of it, I just don't see myself going back to it now that I've put it down. The game was stellar compared to many (most?) others out there at the same price point, it's just... I guess it's missing the point of Max as a character, and missing a lot of obvious potential gameplay cues.
I would have made vehicles other than the Interceptor more disposable to Max - something you use to get close to an objective, then ditch it and work your way through the rest of the convoy by climbing on vehicles, killing the crews, and using them to get to the next one. I would have had motorcycles and semis and buses. I would have had more interesting, more dynamic factions... Mad Max, as a setting, lends itself really well to gameplay like Clear Sky had - where NPC factions are competing for map territory, and you can influence their progress or watch them burn each other out to collect the loot.
Rambling a bit... but that's what I would have done. Chumbucket could still fit in that way, just as somebody more rooted to the garage. You could still tell a story this way as well.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48677401]i think what would have improved car combat would be for them to get rid of chumbucket and replace him with the dog
chum could still be a story character, but having him in your car at all times really lets the devs be lazy in how they handle car upgrades and a majority of car fighting
the harpoon shouldn't have existed, and instead there should have been more of an emphasis on max doing shit himself i.e. climbing onto enemy vehicles, throwing consumables (i.e. hand grenades, molotov cocktails, shrapnel bombs, etc)[/QUOTE]
Jumping on cars wouldn't make sense for Max unless there was someone else driving his car. Fury Road was the only movie where he did any hopping from vehicle to vehicle and that was because he was on a War Rig that had a lot of room to move around on, plus Furiosa was driving.
Just because the car combat doesn't match your vision doesn't make it lazy.
I also really hate the anti-flip mechanism.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48675248]7/10 isn't shit but its bad compared to better games currently out there, it really doesn't help that most people/critics relate the system to school grading rather than a more balanced system
also you can't really fault jim's review, a lot of the things are incredibly relatable if you play the acreed series or any other ubi games
here's a relevant quote
when your car combat game's combat is boring and repetitive there's an issue there[/QUOTE]
I'd say anything from a 6-8 is just a judgement call. Get it if you like the setting/characters, genre etc. It's not bad, but it's not for everyone.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48676635]theres roughly 5 ways of destroying/disabling an enemy vehicle
pull off door and shoot/pull out driver
pull off tire
ride next to it and keep the fire on till they explode
shoot a gas tank
or ramming a lot
the problem with most of these is they don't really have much of a pretty effect to them or any real sense of weight
esp. when you play as most enemy vehicles, since all you can do with those is just keep on ramming[/QUOTE]
You can also lead them into environmental hazards or use vehicles with fire blasters (which can be unlocked for the Opus by lowering threat is one of Jeet's areas) or using a vehicle that shoots bombs out the butt.
Or a combination of all three.
And even then, variety isn't the point. I would rather a game does something very well than doing many things but not as well. The vehicle combat is fun if you actually want to have fun with it, but if you take the simplistic way out by using the harpoon then you have no one else but yourself to blame for your boredom.
Also, what the hell are you on about? The vehicle combat does have lots of good visual feedback and feels very weighty. Are you even playing the same game?
[editline]14th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48677152]the problem is it actually is meant to be played like a checklist
if you want any of the best upgrades, you're going to need to checklist each region so you can reduce the threat so you can get that best engine upgrade, or that best muffler, etc[/QUOTE]
There's only a handful of upgrades locked behind that though.
Most of them are locked behind story missions which I will concede is still pretty bad.
[sp]So I read Chum dies, but what happens after that? Can you still roam and do missions? How does the harpoon and stuff work?[/sp]
[QUOTE=Niven;48677546][sp]So I read Chum dies, but what happens after that? Can you still roam and do missions? How does the harpoon and stuff work?[/sp][/QUOTE]
[sp]The game in a way rewinds to before the ending shit happened, only the missions are completed, so it's like an alternate version of the end.[/sp]
I was especially disappointed in the names of the upgrades for the engines. Bantam V6, Major V6, etc, then just repeat the exact same prefix for the V8's.
Could have been "Stock V6, 4-barrel V6, Twin-carb V6, Long Tube V6, overbored V6, Stroker V6, Supercharged V6, Turbosupercharged V6."
"Stock 302 V8, Triple-carb V8, 350 overbore V8, Supercharged V8, 454 Aluminum Head V8, Double-supercharged V8, Double Supercharged V8 Stroker, Angel Combustion V8"
Or at least come up with different names for the V8 dangit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
