Given how the game is technically and artistically competent and at times excellent, it makes the current 69 Meta seem unjustified even when compared to other supposedly better games. Worst would probably be Jim Sterling's review, [http://www.thejimquisition.com/mad-max-review/] which further and definitively proves he has no clue how to assign numerical scoring in a cognitive, rational manner. I mean just read the headline:
When it comes to simply chewing through yet another open world game, Mad Max does suffice. It's a substandard but largely competent "AAA" game in a sea full of them, and those who do value the idea of content above all else will find more than their money's worth here...There's simply no reason to pick it up, however, if you've yet to try The Witcher 3, Shadow of Mordor or Batman: Arkham City. There are tons of better games that go for what Mad Max went for and do so in a superior manner.
Yup, that's a solid "4" sure. I'm also enjoying it more than The Wither 3 or Batman in terms of gameplay, and I paid for at least one of those (Mad Max and Arkham City were through monthly PSN+ deals). Never played SoM, but I did enjoy the LotR movies. Right now though, I'm inclined to say Mad Max is the best movie licensed game I've played since Goldeneye.