I'm under embargo until 3am, our review will be posted at noon on Monday. But few complaints. Love the combat, easily the best open world moment-to-moment combat there is to date and I'll take any MGSV arguments to a throwdown any day, HZD is just so damn smooth and fun! Unfortunately, despite the awesomely different ways you can take machines down, it starts to get repetitive, to the point you'll often run away most of the time Red Dead style. This game is for the farming crowd...I'm not that guy but if you are you'll love this system, prepare to hunt and hunt and then maybe you'll tackle a story mission. Not for me.
So I'm curious about how you (or other reviewers) handle such things when reviewing a game. You seem to know/think that things like the crafting and loot system are implemented well in the game, but it's just not something you personally like in games. How do you evaluate something like this in your reviews and how does it effect the score? Do you try to judge those things as someone who likes them or does your subjective feeling prevent you to give them a thumbs up for that?