GamePro writes: "As a tongue-in-cheek spoof of action video games, Matt Hazard fails. There are some geniunely funny self-referential bits but the developers just didn't take it far enough. It also suffers from some design issues, chief among them pathetic AI, boring boss fights, and a general lack of polish. It's ironic then that Eat Lead actually ends up being a half decent action game, even if it does fall victim to some of the same cliches that it tries so very hard to make fun of".
Can you judge a video game by its bad, sometimes bonkers box art? More often than not.
The Phalanx cover I do remember well, to be fair it did show a star ship on the cover too.
The worst box art in recent memory was the Doom 2016 one. That cover was depressingly generic.
We groan at the cheese. Also, The Master of Disguise.
One of our newest writers Ewan takes a look at the gaming past and with that we present to you, Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard – Forgotten But Not Gone!
I hoped this would fare better. Doubt any of the other big name sites will give it better scores. Such a good plot. Yet, I won't write it off completely until I've tried it myself.
I'll be renting there will be some guaranteed good laughs in this game.
If a game fails, why is it being given 3.5/5? Failure would be 49 or lower would it not?