• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Horizon: Zero Dawn | Review Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tigress

Member
z4chc3na said:
If I pre order through Amazon tomorrow will I still get it by Tuesday?
Click to expand...

Don't think so. Or at least they won't gaurantee it. I tried last night (or rather vaguely looked) when I realized i could still cancel my collector's and go for a regular version. THey were no longer promising launch day (which probably meant they would ship it out Tuesday). I'm on prime too.
 
S

Salty Rice

Member
My DLC code from the limited edition doesnt work.

Could it be that its still locked until release day? Has someone the same experience who got it early?
 
C

ClearData

Member
Twilight Princess said:
Are we going to reach 89? I want the score to be as high as possible for the most sequals.
Click to expand...

Some posters here felt a 89 would be assured once Edge's 9 is added to the meta score. There are also some small outlets who could add or subtract to the rating as their reviews come in. I think one poster stated that Horizon would need 10 additional perfect scores to reach 90. I'm not sure how accurate all this is I am just passing along what I saw.
 
L

Lady Gaia

Member
ClearData said:
Some posters here felt a 89 would be assured once Edge's 9 is added to the meta score.
Click to expand...

Unless some counterbalancing scores go in at the same time, I agree that 89 is a lock with Edge. It only has to move two or three slots up the all-time list at this point to make it, so it's already extremely close and Edge is heavily weighted. I have a much harder time seeing it get all the way to 90. That's probably out of reach for good at this point.
 
autoduelist

autoduelist

Member
More_Badass said:
So if I play a game/see a movie/watch a tv show/read a book and I dont like it, regardless of how well-put-together it is, I should give it a good rating anyway? Because other people agree it's great?
Click to expand...

No, you're missing the point. A review is for the audience, it's not to stroke the ego of the reviewer. That is, it's more important to provide a solid and useful resource for potential buyers than it is to scream from the rooftop that everybody else is wrong.

So, if a reviewer can tell a product is quality, but hates it, then they should consider passing it along to someone else to review. Obviously, it's okay to hate something, and it's okay to say that. But even in hating something, a reviewer owes it to their audience to be intellectually honest about it's overall quality.

For example:

"I want this to be a great game... I can feel the polish, and it's a technical marvel. It's beautiful from beginning to end. I know many people will love this game, and many will consider it a masterpiece. But... I just couldn't connect with it. For all its polish, it felt soulless to me, just a bit empty inside. I didn't like the characters, and didn't understand their motivations, and the story rang false. Which is a shame, because I know there is a great game in there somewhere, but I just couldn't find it. Whether that's my mistake, or that of the developers, will be up to others to decide. I feel uncomfortable giving this game a numeric review, because any number I assigned it would feel wrong... the games obvious merits earn a score I just don't feel comfortable giving it, because at the end of the day, I hated it."

That is an honest review [of an imaginary game]. It shreds the game without lying about it, or ignoring it's clear good points. Personally, I'd say that reviewer should have passed the game along to another reviewer.

Like I said, I hate platformers. But that doesn't mean I'd give them all a 1/10 even if I hate them. What good does that do anybody? I realize we live in 2016 where people love to scream vulgarities into cameras and post it on youtube, but ultimately, a good reviewer is there as a resource.

Sure, you can oversimplify the issue and twist my words and pretend I'm saying reviewers should lie if they hate the game, but clearly, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying a reviewer should have the intellectual integrity to recognize that even a game they absolutely hate can be good, and vice versa - even a game they love can be janky and broken. And they need to ensure their reviews reflect that intellectual honesty. It's okay to hate a game everyone else loves, and it's okay to say that. But that doesn't make it a 1/10 game... it just means you didn't like it. There's a difference.

A reviewer can only be giving their own opinion, of course, but they should be looking out for their audience when they do so. It's no different from film. Genre films [say, horror], are best reviewed by those already familiar with the genre who love horror films. That creates useful reviews for the potential audience [horror film lovers]. Having the New York Times trash some genre horror flick because the reviewer doesn't like horror films doesn't really do anything but waste everyone's time. Likewise, if someone hates open world games, or hates [fill in the blank], maybe they shouldn't be reviewing them in the first place if they can't separate their own dislikes from their audience's.
 
T

Tigress

Member
autoduelist said:
No, you're missing the point. A review is for the audience, it's not to stroke the ego of the reviewer. That is, it's more important to provide a solid and useful resource for potential buyers than it is to scream from the rooftop that everybody else is wrong.

So, if a reviewer can tell a product is quality, but hates it, then they should consider passing it along to someone else to review. Obviously, it's okay to hate something, and it's okay to say that. But even in hating something, a reviewer owes it to their audience to be intellectually honest about it's overall quality.

For example:

"I want this to be a great game... I can feel the polish, and it's a technical marvel. It's beautiful from beginning to end. I know many people will love this game, and many will consider it a masterpiece. But... I just couldn't connect with it. For all its polish, it felt soulless to me, just a bit empty inside. I didn't like the characters, and didn't understand their motivations, and the story rang false. Which is a shame, because I know there is a great game in there somewhere, but I just couldn't find it. Whether that's my mistake, or that of the developers, will be up to others to decide. I feel uncomfortable giving this game a numeric review, because any number I assigned it would feel wrong... the games obvious merits earn a score I just don't feel comfortable giving it, because at the end of the day, I hated it."

That is an honest review [of an imaginary game]. It shreds the game without lying about it, or ignoring it's clear good points. Personally, I'd say that reviewer should have passed the game along to another reviewer.

Like I said, I hate platformers. But that doesn't mean I'd give them all a 1/10 even if I hate them. What good does that do anybody? I realize we live in 2016 where people love to scream vulgarities into cameras and post it on youtube, but ultimately, a good reviewer is there as a resource.

Sure, you can oversimplify the issue and twist my words and pretend I'm saying reviewers should lie if they hate the game, but clearly, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying a reviewer should have the intellectual integrity to recognize that even a game they absolutely hate can be good, and vice versa - even a game they love can be janky and broken. And they need to ensure their reviews reflect that intellectual honesty. It's okay to hate a game everyone else loves, and it's okay to say that. But that doesn't make it a 1/10 game... it just means you didn't like it. There's a difference.
Click to expand...

I don't think a reviewer has to agree it is a quality game (just cause the majority does doesn't mean the reviewer isn't seeing flaws. Maybe the majority likes the game so much they miss the flaws and the reviewer cares more about those than the majority does). I think though they do have to be able to be coherent in explaining why the game did not resonate for them though (same though for if the game did resonate).

That doesn't mean you have to agree with them. But even if you disagree, you can read their reasoning and decide if that is the same for you. For example maybe they want more "filler" content and think a game should have more to do (and yes I know a lot of people will disagree with this, I picked it because of that ;) ). If they write their reasoning out in why they think it's too short or why they didn't like it or is too expensive, you can look at their reasoning and see that one you don't are about that "negative" (and in fact don't see it as one at all) and that 2. it might actually be a positive for you (especially if they go into detail on what it lacks and what it does have). I mean a lot of what people want/think is good in a game is subjective. So what you want in a review is to see why the reviewer thought so so you can see if they are looking for the same thing in a game that you are.

You don't have to agree with a reviewer to be able to tell from the review if you like the game if the reviewer does a good job of explaining why they liked or disliked a game. A good review doesn't agree with others, it explains why it thought of the game the way it did.

And i agree with some one much earlier in this thread who thinks a reviewer should go in without knowing what others thought of the game. The point is to get his opinion. And knowing what other people wrote will taint that (we're social animals and prone to being influenced by what others say).
 
S

STEaMkb

Member
It took them until February before they finally added Edge's 9/10 for The Last Guardian. It depends how quickly they get their hands on the magazine in order to verify the review score.
 
B

Bubble Walrus

Member
I'd be all over this game if it wasn't Switch/ Zelda week. There's just no point in me starting it before Zelda... It does look so good though. Will buy it in a few months for sure.
 
T

TheRealTalker

Banned
JehutyRunner said:
Because it was legit one of the best FPS games of the last generation. At least the first-half of its campaign was brilliant (the second half was good, but the first-half was top-tier excellence) and its multiplayer was actually pretty good.
Click to expand...

Also Radec



tumblr_n0b1o8P5Eo1rzaefho1_500.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered | Review Thread
Analysis Review 4 5 6 7 8
379
22K
kruis replied
Lego Horizon recasts Sylens, previously played by the late Lance Reddick
News
32
2K
Woopah replied
Horizon Online could be coming 1H 2025...
2 3
133
5K
Fabieter replied
Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered: A deep dive into its enhancements
News 2 3 4
189
11K
saintjules replied
Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered forces PSN login for PC users if they decide to upgrade
Platform 2 3 4
174
8K
awwr999999 replied
Top Bottom