HZD was a proof of concept, the sequel should be judged harsher.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
HZD was a proof of concept, the sequel should be judged harsher.
Pretty much, and it's been 5 years since it's release, other games have done climbing, combat, storytelling, exploration and boss fights better since then.
I didn't like the last game at all and thought it was pretty uninspired for the most part. The only thing swaying me is that people who thought the same seem to like this one.
88-89 is great. Wish it was 90+, but whatever no big deal personally.
The important thing for me is that this looks like an overall improvement over ZD.
yeah, we need a solid list for banned outlets. Yeah there's the big ones like Angry Joe or PewDiePie, but I still see people often post NX Gamer, ACG, and SkillUp videos here.
The important thing for me is that this looks like an overall improvement over ZD.
yeah, we need a solid list for banned outlets. Yeah there's the big ones like Angry Joe or PewDiePie, but I still see people often post NX Gamer, ACG, and SkillUp videos here.
I'd like the sense of exploration and climbing of botw put in the context of Horizon. That would be awesome.
Holy shit that's one of the worst excerpts from a review seemingly ever. I hate the term "gamey" and lmao at a decision decision done to serve the developers interests.
5 years have passed since the original, standards change.
This take of yours is in the same ballpark as what you're responding to.
I don't think you really understand what a proof of concept is in the creative sense
There were definitely varied environments in the first one. Maybe less so compared to the sequel though. From a technical standpoint ZD definitely had better graphics.
This is an extremely narrow view. RDR2 has a great sense of space and potential for exploration, Ghost of Tsushima is another good example. Some of the earlier AC titles were also pretty good in this department.
I watched almost all the video reviews and read a few written ones. Overall I felt that the GameSpot review did the best job of representing the games strengths while pointing out its flaws.
I understand reviews are very subjective, but GameSpot I felt did the best job at critically reviewing the game from a somewhat objective viewpoint and most accurately represented the game. (My subjective opinion).
I understand reviews are very subjective, but GameSpot I felt did the best job at critically reviewing the game from a somewhat objective viewpoint and most accurately represented the game. (My subjective opinion).
Infinite respawns make sense in Horizon's context and lore tough. The machines are basically the wildlife and animals of the world and have a purpose. They have some functions and they are assigned to specific territories based on their tasks. In case of a lack of operating machines, more will be built in the cauldrons and dispatched to their respective territories.
Additionally, the most satisfying thing about Horizon is hunting/fighting huge robot dinosaurs. Having a barren world without those challenging robots would be disappointing and will hurt the game replayability.
I'm in the same boat too. I already paid for mine in full but now I just don't know what to do. I need that 90MC you know.......
I'm not sure if you're aware, but that's a pretty common consensus.
I actually didn't like GoT's exploration. WAY too much of the same repeating stuff like fox dens.
Well let's be honest which reviews get lots of attention with big game releases where 88-94 range scores are in? The ones that are lower. They stick out and get more clicks and discussion. Not to say that every lower score is intentional for attention but you can't help but wonder in a world where clicks are king especially when you read some of what's in them.
GoT is the problem with exploration. Run around the map with low variety of types for power that becomes increasingly pointless and forced.
The games strength was it's combat and visuals. I don't think I've heard anyone saying how they enjoyed traveling GoT's world without it being tied to the theme / visuals
Ok ?, good for you and people that think that BOTW is the end of it all. Multiple games do exploration better than breath of the wild and you don't see fan of those games shitting on other threads every damn time.
Not only is forbidden west expanding in verticality where you can climb mostly everything you can also go under water and explore underwater ruins and such.
Let me know when link gets near a body of water and doesn't drown to death in a shallow puddle of water.
People sure have strong opinions about games they havent played in review threads lol.
Nice scores. Congrats to GG.
Nice scores. Congrats to GG.
How many goblin camps in botw are just the same thing but in slightly different environments? How many combat shrines are basically against the same robot but with increasing amounts of health? How many puzzles shrines are just variations of the same physics puzzles?
Ppl act like BotW isn't plagued by the same amounts of repetitive content that other open world games have.
I didn't say I think it's the best. I'm saying it's a very commonly said thing but you reacted like you had never heard it before.
Was gonna say. BotW was a pretty boring world to explore for me.
Open world games are inherently repetitive, there's only so much you can do to fill a sandbox. Look past the traversal mechanics and you'll find many of the same shortcomings in all but one game, RDR2.
now that we have this game out of the way, guerilla can finally work on the dream game
Horizon: Forbidden Weast
Horizon: Forbidden Weast
This is what I wanted to hear. Kinda Funny touched on it but they complained that it was too complex but didn't really explain much about it at all. It looks really interesting to me, almost like Final Fantasy Tactics with all the raised terrain and different units.
Repetitive combat scenarios are a staple of open world games, and BOTW is no exception. People praise BOTW's exploration because you can frequently come upon genuinely surprising, weird, and mysterious environments and scenarios. I don't think anybody would argue that its world is perfect or that it doesn't have a lot of the same repetition that other games do.
I wasn't into GOT's exploration because it was never surprising or particularly interesting, and it was the definition of padded. I think it's a really good game, but the exploration was probably the weakest part of it.
Just about the exact scores/impressions I was expecting: well-done, iterative sequel. Some will criticize it not evolving enough or open-world burnout. But its still a beautiful looking sequel.
I'm there, just not Day 1 bc of Elden Ring. Reviewers saying it needs some patching make that decision even easier.
I'm there, just not Day 1 bc of Elden Ring. Reviewers saying it needs some patching make that decision even easier.
Can some tell me if reviewers are yay or nay on the story? No spoilers please because that's the reason I'm avoiding reviews. Thanks in advance
It's still the highest bar when it comes to these types of 3rd person open world games and there's still nothing that's come close to it.
Mixed to nay. Not it's strongest part which is surprising considering it was the first games strengths imo.
Personally I think Xenoblade Chronicles X is still the king of exploration. BOTW pales in comparison to Mira.
How can one be aware of it? What does "consensus" even mean in a clearly subjective matter like "who does exploration best"? How would you even measure something like this? A consensus among who?
Unless you don't like BotW in which case it's really annoying watching people try to advocate that every game should move in a direction that you don't want.
They're kind of right, though.
For the record I didn't love BOTW, but it set a pretty high bar for open world exploration.