Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 29
  2. Negative: 7 out of 29
  1. In single player the game feels a little monotonous and lonely so thankfully South Peak have catered for those of us that like a little cooperative play.
  2. Although it does have a couple of flaws like a temperamental camera and some slowdown, as well as controls that take a little getting used to, it's such a blast to play and very addictive once you get into it.
  3. 70
    The iffy controls and problematic camera system do hinder the gameplay and the truly unforgiving checkpoint system could easily ruin it for most players, but those willing to look past these will find an enjoyable romp with some old-school flavor that most of today’s games lack ten fold.
  4. Simple and effective hack-and-slasher that will entertain rather than amaze. [June 2007, p.84]
  5. 65
    With a lengthy campaign and decent multiplayer, it is only a shame Monster Madness doesn’t play too particularly well but does add up to be an experience like no other.
  6. Overall, Monster Madness is a fairly decent gaming experience on its own, although when set alongside comparable titles like Dead Rising or even the decade old Zombies Ate My Neighbors, Monster Madness obviously doesn't reach its potential.
  7. That price tag is the modern-day equivalent of hari-kiri, minus the blood and honour. Which is a real shame because, given how much fun Monster Madness proves to be when four of you are carving up critters, it deserves so much better. An extra mark when the price drops. [Issue 19, p.84]
  8. Another failed idea is the ability to pick up items littering the different districts and use them as weapons. [June 2007, p.93]
  9. 60
    While not great, Monster Madness is generally fun with its mix of solid monster design and colorful, animated graphics.
  10. This would have been a great game for $39.99, but is very hard to recommend at $60. [July 2007, p.59]
  11. It has a delightful old school feel about it that is reminiscent of The Chaos Engine or the aforementioned LucasArts gem, Zombies Ate My Neighbours, but if you're interested in gameplay over middling next-gen visuals, you'd be better off browsing eBay than dipping your toe in the very American world of Monster Madness.
  12. Monster Madness could’ve been fun. It looks good enough to hold its own, and the general concept is pretty cool, but the execution just falls flat of the standards we should all hold for “next-gen” games.
  13. If you have two or more gamers in your household that are interested in this style of game, it may be worth a weekend rental. If you’re looking for a game that’s fun single player, or online, you need to pass on this title.
  14. While Monster Madness does much to scratch the co-op itch, and offers some titillating online modes, it sullies it with patchy execution and a series of poor design choices. [Sept 2007, p.93]
  15. Only through a scarcity of decent alternatives could we ever truly recommend this, and that’s just about as backhanded as compliments get. [June 2007, p.113]
  16. A counterintuitive control scheme, oddly balanced difficulty, obnoxiously repetitive combat, and a nearly useless camera in co-op mode. Eventually such problems become too numerous and too annoying to tolerate, turning what could have been a simple monster-killing romp into a scattered, clumsy mess.
  17. While it was never going to be a contender for Game of the Year, Monster Madness has failed to deliver in nearly every sense. It could have been worse, but by the same token it could have been a whole lot better.
  18. This is nineties videogame cliché; an unrelenting gangbang of tired mechanics presented in mostly derivative clothing. The script, dialogue and voice acting grasp for irony but only manage weak cliché.
  19. Indeed, while it’s not an abomination by any means, and can provide some mild entertainment (more so on multiplayer mode), it’s by no means worth more than a rent.
  20. For those old school gamers who had a fondness for the classic Zombies Ate My Neighbors, Monster Madness will disappoint in almost every level. It’s a game that borders on fun but just doesn’t quite make the right impression with its repetitive action, framerate problems and barely there story.
User Score
5.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 18 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 7
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 7
  3. Negative: 2 out of 7
  1. Nov 16, 2012
    8
    Definitely a different type of fun action game with dozens of intelligently designed monsters, zombies, creatures and some interesting weaponsDefinitely a different type of fun action game with dozens of intelligently designed monsters, zombies, creatures and some interesting weapons and good venues :) Full Review »
  2. Apr 23, 2015
    7
    Monster Madness is kind of a spiritual successor to the classic game 'Zombies Ate My Neighbors.' You have these cartoony characters, who goMonster Madness is kind of a spiritual successor to the classic game 'Zombies Ate My Neighbors.' You have these cartoony characters, who go around, and demolish zombies throughout town. But, despite the excellent source of inspiration, this game falls short. It's not necessarily a bad game, but there is something dissatisfying about it.

    1. The controls are too complicated. This has the earmarks of a casual, easy to pick up game, yet it it is very difficult to control your character. A game like this should only use a single analog stick, and have at most three, maybe four buttons.

    2. It feels like you're hitting air. When you attack zombies you don't really get that 'crunch' feeling, like something is registering. Improved sounds and animations for hits are sorely needed.

    3. There is a lack of humor. I know that the game looks fun and cartoony, but the characters do not live up to expectations. There are no laugh out loud moments, and since this is a parody of the zombie genre, that should be there. Funniness would have added a lot to this game. Wise cracks, puns, jokes should've been a major component of the title. When you look at the cover of the video game it looks so silly, but once you get past the comics, there isn't much.

    4. Single player mode needs two characters on screen to interact with each other. I know that this is meant to be played with friends, but I still believe, when you play on single player mode, you ought to be able to select more than one character. You should be able to select your character, plus someone else to accompany you; otherwise, there is a lack of chemistry. It feels like you're alone. That should not be the case when this game sells the characters as a parcel deal.

    5. The heads up display is rather confusing. Why not just use a regular life meter?

    In conclusion: I hope that South Peak comes back to this game in the future, and fixes all these problems. It's a game that could really work if tweaked. It was a good effort that only needs a bit of polishing.
    Full Review »
  3. StanStill
    Feb 26, 2009
    2
    This game was horrible.
    No thought was given to the first 15 minute game experience. Camera and level design is a great example of
    This game was horrible.
    No thought was given to the first 15 minute game experience. Camera and level design is a great example of anti-vision for a 3rd person game. HUD elements are completely confusing. Combat is seemingly random and unsatisfying.

    And finally, dreadful, generic character design. This game was made by a team for themselves with no thought of the end player.
    Full Review »