On Reddit – or any other online cesspool of bad opinions – you’ll occasionally see a post reminiscing about some supposedly “underrated” game released way back when. A hidden gem, if you will (but not really) that has received an average critic score of 5 to 7 out of 10 when it first launched.
Think games like Batman: Arkham Origins, Mad Max or Order 1886. Or if you want to go back further, True Crime, Saints Row (the original one) or The Bard’s Tale (the 2004 re-imagining). Your underwhelming copycats, cash-in sequels/prequels or short cinematic adventures (sold at full price). Those types of games.
The truth is that most of them are still underwhelming. Usually because they fail to stand out in any way or offer anything that you can’t find better executed elsewhere. They don’t serve as the best (or even second- or third-best) examples of their respective genres. They are just games in those genres. Decently-executed games, but not good, great or excellent. Just decently-executed.
Of course, this is all opinion-based. Nothing I just said is a fact. Or something you should agree with.
So, if you do indeed like the supposedly underrated or underappreciated game in question, that’s okay – keep liking it! But please, for the love of all that is holy, do recognize that the thing you like has been dubbed “mediocre” for a reason, and thus, when recommending it, mention why it’s better than other examples in its genre. What is so good about it that you’re willing to overlook all of its less-than-stellar parts? Is it merely the fact that it’s your second or first game of this type? If so, it’s a valid reason – mention it. If not, what is it then? The aesthetic? The story? The main character? The feel? Explain yourself!
This applies to some YouTubers too, who are quick to criticize a modern game, like MrMattyPlays here criticizing Dragon Age: The Veilguard, yet also defending older games like Mad Max and Batman: Arkham Origins.
Here’s a fun fact – Dragon Age: The Veilguard has a higher critic rating on Metacritic than either of those games. The rating for the PlayStation 5 version currently sits at 82. No, it’s not as highly rated as some of the masterpieces out there, like Red Dead Redemption 2 or The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, rated at 97 and 93, respectively (PlayStation 4 versions), but its rating is still relatively high.

Your potential party in Dragon Age The Veilguard.
But I’m not here to talk about The Veilguard. It’s too new.
Actually, it’s Avalanche’s Mad Max that inspired me to write this piece in the first place. Based on recent reappraisal of the game on Reddit and YouTube alike, you’d think it’s some kind of underappreciated masterpiece, far better, apparently, than any of the so-called “slop” released these days (like Star Wars: Outlaws or the aforementioned Dragon Age: The Veilguard).
But that’s just patently untrue. Mad Max is no less mediocre than Star Wars: Outlaws. In fact, I’d say Mad Max is even more mediocre today, in 2025, than in 2015, when it was first released.
Why?
Let’s start with its setting. It’s another game set in a post-apocalyptic desert where bandits and lunatics reign supreme. Off the top of my head, I can instantly think of two other franchises that deliver the same setting in a better way: Fallout and Borderlands. Sure, Borderlands is set on a different planet (not Earth), but its desert-y vibe is very similar. The difference is that Borderlands, like Fallout, delivers a setting with much more variety. You get caves, mountains, bandit camps, secret bases, small towns, big metallic cities and so forth. It’s never just a desert.

The city of Sanctuary from Borderlands 2.
What do you get in Mad Max? Desert plains and bandit camps. Maybe a cave or two. That’s it. What’s more is that this desert is devoid of anyone interesting. The wacky denizens you get to meet in the Mad Max movies are nowhere to be found. In Borderlands and Fallout, you get all kinds of zany characters. Notable examples include Handsome Jack, Tiny Tina and Claptrap from Borderlands and Ceasar, Marcus and Mr. House from Fallout. These are just a handful of picks. There are many more. Is there anyone like that in Mad Max? Maybe Chumbucket, but that’s it as far as I’m concerned.

Ceasar from Fallout New Vegas.
What about Mad Max himself, the eponymous protagonist? Is he interesting? Hardly. He’s your typical gruff white male protagonist. The kind of guy you used to seeing in plethora of other video games. Except that he lacks their charisma or even the charisma of his movie counterparts (whether he’s played by Mel Gibson or Tom Hardy).
So, okay, the setting is boring, but what about the gameplay? Well, that depends. Do you like checklist maps found in Ubisoft-like open-world games like Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry? No? Then walk away immediately! This one’s not for you.
The thing is – I do enjoy Ubisoft-inspired open worlds. Shadow of Mordor/War, Ghost of Tsushima, Insomniac’s Spider-Man games and Horizon are all fantastic.
Each of those games brings something new to the table or excels in one or two additional areas. For instance, Shadow of Mordor/War games, on the surface, look like blatant Assassin’s Creed and Batman: Arkham rip-offs (by including Creed’s wall-climbing mechanics and Arkham’s counter-based combat system). What’s new here is the nemesis system, which completely changes how you interact with the world. In Shadow games, you’re taking down Mordor’s entire army, thinning out its ranks one orc at a time, and you get to know each of them, personally. Then you get to build your own army by subjugating them (like the psychopath you are).

The nemesis system in Shadow of War.
Horizon games have robotic dinosaurs of varying sizes, plus a unique post-apocalyptic world (which features tribal humans and those same robotic dinosaurs – instead of regular animals). Ghost of Tsushima has a beautiful painting-like rendition of Japan and exciting new combat system, while Insomniac’s Spider-Man games have breath-taking traversal mechanics that you won’t find anywhere else. It also helps that all three of these games have fantastically written stories that get you invested in their characters and worlds.

The unique world of the Horizon games.
Mad Max, on the other hand, indulges in Ubisoft-likes’ worst impulses, while offering nothing of its own. To progress in the game, you have to essentially “grind” for a currency called “scrap” to modify your car and lower bandit influence across the map. You do this by engaging in various side activities, which couldn’t be more cookie-cutter. You infiltrate bandit camps, you race, you climb Ubitowers™ and so on. Multiply that by a 100, and that’s Mad Max for you.
It doesn’t help that the story is about you building up your car (called the Magnum Opus). That’s it. There are no real stakes otherwise. The baddies are all generic thugs, who don’t match the zaniness you’d find in games like Borderlands or even Fallout (let alone the movies on which the game is based on) and the setting is a copy-paste wasteland with no real character.
So, what else does Mad Max have to offer? Exploration? Hardly. It’s a checklist game where everything is recycled ad nauseum. Fun combat? Well, yes, it is actually fun. It’s also a rip-off of the combat systems found in the Arkham and Shadow of Mordor/War games – both of which offer far more than Mad Max does. Given how much fighting you get to do in this game, the combat gets old fast. Stealth? No, there is no stealth here. Driving? It can be fun, but again, the mechanics resemble other games, like Sleeping Dogs, in which you too can side-ram into other vehicles. Borderlands is another game series that has fun vehicle combat – in addition to other great gameplay mechanics. Or if you prefer post-apocalyptic non-looter-shooter games, Metro: Exodus might also scratch your vehicular combat itch.

Vehicular combat in Borderlands 2.
So, what else is there in Mad Max? The visuals? Yes, the game can look gorgeous, even by today’s standards (though let’s face it, graphics haven’t advanced as much in the last 10 years as we’d like to pretend). However, the game can take you well over 40 hours to cross the finish line – meaning that its visuals are unlikely to sustain your attention for that long. Something else would have to keep you hooked. The addictive nature of collecting scrap, I suppose (which does not equal fun, by the way – Jimquisition has a great video on that).
And yeah, to add insult to injury, the game is a total grind. A timewaster that has little to offer other than take away your precious time on this earth. Grind for scrap. Grind to lower bandit influence over a region. Grind. Grind. Grind! Why? Because that’s the game, baby!
Open-world games aren’t exactly rare these days either. There are so darn many of alternatives out there (with more coming out every year). And they are all so darn long that you’re unlikely to run out of better options before getting to Mad Max, especially in 2025. I’ve already provided examples of similar games to Mad Max in this article, but if you’re looking for a more comprehensive list of open-world alternatives that are rated above 80 on Metacritic (according to critics), here it is*:
- Assassin’s Creed: Origins (score of 81 on Metacritic)
- Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey (score of 83 on Metacritic)
- Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla (score of 80 on Metacritic)
- Batman: Arkham Knight (score of 87 on Metacritic)
- Borderlands 3 (score of 81 on Metacritic)
- Cyberpunk 2077 (score of 86 on Metacritic)
- Death Stranding (score of 82 on Metacritic)
- Fallout 4 (score of 87 on Metacritic)
- Far Cry 5 (score of 81 on Metacritic)
- Ghost of Tsushima (score of 83 on Metacritic)
- Hogwarts Legacy (score of 84 on Metacritic)
- Horizon: Zero Dawn (score of 89 on Metacritic)
- Horizon: Forbidden West (score of 88 on Metacritic)
- Marvel’s Spider-Man (score of 87 on Metacritic)
- Marvel’s Spider-Man: Miles Morales (score of 85 on Metacritic)
- Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 (score of 90 on Metacritic)
- Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain (score of 93 on Metacritic)
- Metro: Exodus (score of 82 on Metacritic)
- Middle-Earth: Shadow of War (score of 80 on Metacritic)
- Red Dead Redemption 2 (score of 97 on Metacritic)
- The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (score of 92 on Metacritic)
- Watch Dogs 2 (score of 82 on Metacritic)
*Limited to games released in the last 10 years, as of 2025. Scores are for the platform with the highest number of reviews.
Now, if you’re a committed gamer who’s beaten most of the above games multiple times (or found some of them not to your liking) and are scraping the bottom of the barrel, then sure, give Mad Max a try. While you’re at it, look at other games that have been deemed mediocre by the critics. Days Gone and Batman: Arkham Origins are out there too, you know. So are Ghostwire: Tokyo, Mafia 3 and Mirror’s Edge Catalyst. In fact, I’d recommend Arkham Origins and Ghostwire above Mad Max simply because they are not endless grindathons like Mad Max. Mafia 3, too – thanks mainly to its spectacular visuals and captivating story (though like Mad Max, the game can also be a grind).
So, why am I going on about this? Did I just want an excuse to tear Max Max a new one? Of course I did. It’s fun. However, the real reason I wanted to discuss Mad Max and other similarly “underappreciated” games of yore is that people keep recommending them as though critics were wrong to point out their shortcomings. They were not. If anything, those shortcomings are more pronounced now than they ever were before.
This is meant to be a cautionary tale for those of you who are hungry for more games. If you hear someone sing praises of an old game that’s supposedly been “done dirty” in its heyday, watch out – they might be wearing very thick nostalgia goggles. A lot of times, you’ll see recommendations along the lines of this: “Sure, the game has a paper-thin story, repetitive gameplay, drab copy-paste environments and no unique features, but I had fun with it. It’s worth a try. Get it while it’s on sale.”
Okay. Sure. Maybe.
The truth is that there are so many games out there. Don’t waste your time on mediocre ones until you’ve exhausted all your options (which is unlikely). Try new genres too. And don’t assume that just because a game is old that it’s automatically better than whatever is coming out today. That’s not really true. Mediocre typically becomes even more mediocre over time. So, don’t let nostalgia, or someone else’s opinion, sway you into having a mediocre time.