-
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
- Thread starter LuuKyK
- Start date
- Status
I went from planning GR2 being my spring break game, to Yakuza 0, to NiOh and now i'm at Horizon lol. Might change my mind again with Mass Effect.
Lots of great reviews. I have a source for getting the game early, but I chose to endure and wait for semi-imminent arrival of 4K HDR TV. This game deserves a good HDR playthrough on a Pro. 
It was dumb from day 1.
It was dumb from day 1.
I don't know, I have some issues with the review itself. A review of a review if you will.
The person did not like the game, holding that opinion should be uncontroversial. Everyone is entitled to feel a certain way. However, in the case of a professional review that goes up on teh metacritic, I think there is merit in discussing whether a particular review was 'fair or unfair' to a particular game. It's a controversial thing to declare someone's opinion 'unfair' but I think reading the review this is my conclusion.
The main takeaway I had from the criticisms are that 1. the reviewer didn't like Aloy and the story and 2. it's an open world game with open world game conventions
1. is difficult to really take issue with. Stories are very subjective. The reviewer called it c-tier sci fi, I guess I'll just have to see when I play the game myself. One criticism I thought was unfair was regarding the character of Aloy helping out others. The reviewer did not think it made sense for her to help out others given her outcast status. Uh, why is this an issue at all let alone a big issue? If you're an outcast I would imagine a longing to rejoin society. Helping people out seems like a fair method to accomplish this. This just comes off as contrived criticism.
Regarding 2. I It was claimed that the game is a boring grind because it has hunt and fetch quests. I mean come on, really? Two examples for bad side quests are given, one where you find a special weapon and another about finding someone's missing daughter and saving her from a robot alligator. Seems to be a typical set of quests that can serve to flush out the world. I'm left uncertain of what a 'good' side quest would entail and how Horizon could have meet those expectations.
As for the other criticism, that the main game is a linear arena fest, I watched many hours of streams on this game and know quite a bit. Never witnessed anything close to this. Trying to understand this criticism, my guess is that certain main quest areas are designed with a certain progression in mind like the caldrons. I don't know, taking issue with this doesn't make sense. In open world games there's always going to be handcrafted sections for points of interest. Why is this bad? You can take buzzwords and spin something any way you want. 'pointless' 'eye-rolling' 'cookie cutter' 'bland', these were some of the labels present in seemingly every other sentence.
One thing that stuck out for me is that little effort was made to present positives for the game. The game is an action rpg with an emphasis on action and nothing was spoken about regarding the action. The gameplay mechanics, the robot designs, enemy variety and encounter design, hell even the graphics which are an amazing achievement only got a single statement. How could you take the biggest part of this game and not speak to it at all in favor on shitting on standard open world side quest design? This to me is an indicator of an unfair appraisal.
As for anything else, there's really not alot to the review. It's short and says how the reviewer felt but little in the way of a justification for these feelings. The content of the review focused mainly on giving an impression on story elements from Aloy to side quests barely anything on gameplay. Unfortunately, I was left wondering if this was an attempt to garner exposure from 'my first big review' than a fair judgement of Horizon. I give the review 2.5 out of 5
Reviewing a review. I like where this thread is going! If we're going to judge a review, we should review the review itself instead of making one sentence statements. I like this post a lot!
Good postI don't know, I have some issues with the review itself. A review of a review if you will.
The person did not like the game, holding that opinion should be uncontroversial. Everyone is entitled to feel a certain way. However, in the case of a professional review that goes up on teh metacritic, I think there is merit in discussing whether a particular review was 'fair or unfair' to a particular game. It's a controversial thing to declare someone's opinion 'unfair' but I think reading the review this is my conclusion.
The main takeaway I had from the criticisms are that 1. the reviewer didn't like Aloy and the story and 2. it's an open world game with open world game conventions
1. is difficult to really take issue with. Stories are very subjective. The reviewer called it c-tier sci fi, I guess I'll just have to see when I play the game myself. One criticism I thought was unfair was regarding the character of Aloy helping out others. The reviewer did not think it made sense for her to help out others given her outcast status. Uh, why is this an issue at all let alone a big issue? If you're an outcast I would imagine a longing to rejoin society. Helping people out seems like a fair method to accomplish this. This just comes off as contrived criticism.
Regarding 2. I It was claimed that the game is a boring grind because it has hunt and fetch quests. I mean come on, really? Two examples for bad side quests are given, one where you find a special weapon and another about finding someone's missing daughter and saving her from a robot alligator. Seems to be a typical set of quests that can serve to flush out the world. I'm left uncertain of what a 'good' side quest would entail and how Horizon could have meet those expectations.
As for the other criticism, that the main game is a linear arena fest, I watched many hours of streams on this game and know quite a bit. Never witnessed anything close to this. Trying to understand this criticism, my guess is that certain main quest areas are designed with a certain progression in mind like the caldrons. I don't know, taking issue with this doesn't make sense. In open world games there's always going to be handcrafted sections for points of interest. Why is this bad? You can take buzzwords and spin something any way you want. 'pointless' 'eye-rolling' 'cookie cutter' 'bland', these were some of the labels present in seemingly every other sentence.
One thing that stuck out for me is that little effort was made to present positives for the game. The game is an action rpg with an emphasis on action and nothing was spoken about regarding the action. The gameplay mechanics, the robot designs, enemy variety and encounter design, hell even the graphics which are an amazing achievement only got a single statement. How could you take the biggest part of this game and not speak to it at all in favor on shitting on standard open world side quest design? This to me is an indicator of an unfair appraisal.
As for anything else, there's really not alot to the review. It's short and says how the reviewer felt but little in the way of a justification for these feelings. The content of the review focused mainly on giving an impression on story elements from Aloy to side quests barely anything on gameplay. Unfortunately, I was left wondering if this was an attempt to garner exposure from 'my first big review' than a fair judgement of Horizon. I give the review 2.5 out of 5
Exact what I had in mind.
But couldn't be bothered to type it out
It's a review thread
Fair enough to actually discuss review
Unknown?
Member
That was always annoying as crap, especially considering it's main rival had much less to offer. It did take a while to get going but that's to be expected.
Thank you for the lolz. Good one.
WrenchNinja
Member
I was watching the easy allies review and they were pretty meh about the story but then I read Giant Bombs review and Jeff really digs it. Will look through other reviews and see where people fall on.
joecanada
Member
yes, yes all in jest.... I was only kidding around.
Chris Metal
Member
Well Hermen liked my pic haha, I am complete
This. Same applies to Bloodborne.
Fans have zero right or ability to decide what IP means. If you don't think Bloodborne is a new IP, you're fighting against basic fundamental realities. Horizon is even more outlandish of a claim.
I'm pretty sure it's going to evolve to "PS4 has no gamez with 90+ Metacritic score" soon enough. I mean look at the drama for this game review. The emotional swings when metacritic hits 88 to 89 and back.
Blackleg-sanji1
Banned
Uncharted and Bloodborne tho
Well Hermen liked my pic haha, I am complete
Haha, that's amazing.
MarineMountie
Member
I look at it this way.
When there are 70 8/10's and above with many 9's and 10's thrown in there and you walk in with a 5/10....you probably shouldn't have even reviewed the game because its obvious that you don't like that genre. The USgamer reviewer doesn't even like AAA action RPG's, yet she still reviewed it knowing she was going to give it a low score. I call that attention seeking, and the site loses credibility with me.
gow3isben
Member
You know the more I think about it the more impressed I am with Horizon's score. Think about it. This is a post Witcher age. Open world is torturously commonplace and it still managed to break ground and impress. Congrats. If it came out a couple years ago it would be lauded as one of the GOAT games ever likely. I really think people will be disappointed with Zelda's score, not because it is a bad game, it will be amazing but because reviewers will be judging it very harshly.
Just trying to live up to joecanada's legacy. Man what an epic joke that was. I am literally showing it to all my friends right now and they are in tears cackling like hyenas. About to skype call my grandparents to tell them about it as well, just to lift their spirits since their dog died.
Just trying to live up to joecanada's legacy. Man what an epic joke that was. I am literally showing it to all my friends right now and they are in tears cackling like hyenas. About to skype call my grandparents to tell them about it as well, just to lift their spirits since their dog died.
I just realized today that USgamer is a milestone in gaming journalism lol.
The game is awesome. Even Polygon liked it, POLYGON!
Who gives a fuck about usgamer, the game is still AAA material.
Mathijs de Jonge is the best director at GG in my opinion. Liked his work with Killzone 2 and 3.
but it does so that wouldn't make any sense.
but it does so that wouldn't make any sense.
Well Hermen liked my pic haha, I am complete
Lol. Nice!
Now ask him about new game +
I don't know, I have some issues with the review itself. A review of a review if you will.
The person did not like the game, holding that opinion should be uncontroversial. Everyone is entitled to feel a certain way. However, in the case of a professional review that goes up on teh metacritic, I think there is merit in discussing whether a particular review was 'fair or unfair' to a particular game. It's a controversial thing to declare someone's opinion 'unfair' but I think reading the review this is my conclusion.
The main takeaway I had from the criticisms are that 1. the reviewer didn't like Aloy and the story and 2. it's an open world game with open world game conventions
1. is difficult to really take issue with. Stories are very subjective. The reviewer called it c-tier sci fi, I guess I'll just have to see when I play the game myself. One criticism I thought was unfair was regarding the character of Aloy helping out others. The reviewer did not think it made sense for her to help out others given her outcast status. Uh, why is this an issue at all let alone a big issue? If you're an outcast I would imagine a longing to rejoin society. Helping people out seems like a fair method to accomplish this. This just comes off as contrived criticism.
Regarding 2. I It was claimed that the game is a boring grind because it has hunt and fetch quests. I mean come on, really? Two examples for bad side quests are given, one where you find a special weapon and another about finding someone's missing daughter and saving her from a robot alligator. Seems to be a typical set of quests that can serve to flush out the world. I'm left uncertain of what a 'good' side quest would entail and how Horizon could have meet those expectations.
As for the other criticism, that the main game is a linear arena fest, I watched many hours of streams on this game and know quite a bit. Never witnessed anything close to this. Trying to understand this criticism, my guess is that certain main quest areas are designed with a certain progression in mind like the caldrons. I don't know, taking issue with this doesn't make sense. In open world games there's always going to be handcrafted sections for points of interest. Why is this bad? You can take buzzwords and spin something any way you want. 'pointless' 'eye-rolling' 'cookie cutter' 'bland', these were some of the labels present in seemingly every other sentence.
One thing that stuck out for me is that little effort was made to present positives for the game. The game is an action rpg with an emphasis on action and nothing was spoken about regarding the action. The gameplay mechanics, the robot designs, enemy variety and encounter design, hell even the graphics which are an amazing achievement only got a single statement. How could you take the biggest part of this game and not speak to it at all in favor on shitting on standard open world side quest design? This to me is an indicator of an unfair appraisal.
As for anything else, there's really not alot to the review. It's short and says how the reviewer felt but little in the way of a justification for these feelings. The content of the review focused mainly on giving an impression on story elements from Aloy to side quests barely anything on gameplay. Unfortunately, I was left wondering if this was an attempt to garner exposure from 'my first big review' than a fair judgement of Horizon. I give the review 2.5 out of 5
I don't see a problem with someone not in the target audience reviewing the game. If someone to whom gameplay is not most important reviews a game focused on gameplay - great! There is now a wider variety of feedback for consumers to browse before buying. Frankly I would like to see more reviews from people who don't like video games at all.
Pretty amazing that the most negative review of this game is just that it's disappointing, not that it's bad. GG really knocked this out of the park. It's great to have a new Sony IP in THIS genre. Makes me excited for what's next for Horizon! I'm hoping for a story expansion. Why not capitilize on something like that? It's pretty much an open world RPG given these days.
demogorgon
Banned
I don't know, I have some issues with the review itself. A review of a review if you will.
The person did not like the game, holding that opinion should be uncontroversial. Everyone is entitled to feel a certain way. However, in the case of a professional review that goes up on teh metacritic, I think there is merit in discussing whether a particular review was 'fair or unfair' to a particular game. It's a controversial thing to declare someone's opinion 'unfair' but I think reading the review this is my conclusion.
The main takeaway I had from the criticisms are that 1. the reviewer didn't like Aloy and the story and 2. it's an open world game with open world game conventions
1. is difficult to really take issue with. Stories are very subjective. The reviewer called it c-tier sci fi, I guess I'll just have to see when I play the game myself. One criticism I thought was unfair was regarding the character of Aloy helping out others. The reviewer did not think it made sense for her to help out others given her outcast status. Uh, why is this an issue at all let alone a big issue? If you're an outcast I would imagine a longing to rejoin society. Helping people out seems like a fair method to accomplish this. This just comes off as contrived criticism.
Regarding 2. I It was claimed that the game is a boring grind because it has hunt and fetch quests. I mean come on, really? Two examples for bad side quests are given, one where you find a special weapon and another about finding someone's missing daughter and saving her from a robot alligator. Seems to be a typical set of quests that can serve to flush out the world. I'm left uncertain of what a 'good' side quest would entail and how Horizon could have meet those expectations.
As for the other criticism, that the main game is a linear arena fest, I watched many hours of streams on this game and know quite a bit. Never witnessed anything close to this. Trying to understand this criticism, my guess is that certain main quest areas are designed with a certain progression in mind like the caldrons. I don't know, taking issue with this doesn't make sense. In open world games there's always going to be handcrafted sections for points of interest. Why is this bad? You can take buzzwords and spin something any way you want. 'pointless' 'eye-rolling' 'cookie cutter' 'bland', these were some of the labels present in seemingly every other sentence.
One thing that stuck out for me is that little effort was made to present positives for the game. The game is an action rpg with an emphasis on action and nothing was spoken about regarding the action. The gameplay mechanics, the robot designs, enemy variety and encounter design, hell even the graphics which are an amazing achievement only got a single statement. How could you take the biggest part of this game and not speak to it at all in favor on shitting on standard open world side quest design? This to me is an indicator of an unfair appraisal.
As for anything else, there's really not alot to the review. It's short and says how the reviewer felt but little in the way of a justification for these feelings. The content of the review focused mainly on giving an impression on story elements from Aloy to side quests barely anything on gameplay. Unfortunately, I was left wondering if this was an attempt to garner exposure from 'my first big review' than a fair judgement of Horizon. I give the review 2.5 out of 5
I know I'm in the minority, but honestly i could care less about if the story sucks. I think story is way overrated by reviewers as far as importance. I think a good story makes an already good game better but a bad game can't be carried by a good story. A good game however isn't hurt by a bad story. As long as the game play is good I wouldn't care of the story was terrible.
TetraGenesis
Member
Here's the thing, gow3isben:
I see the point you're making. Your reasoning is totally valid. The problem is the language. Bloodborne is fundamentally a new Intellectual Property.
It doesn't matter how similar or dissimilar a studio or creative team's product is to their previous one, if it is not explicitly part of the same property then it simply... isn't. There is a fine but clear distinction between spiritual successors and entries in a franchise. Final Fantasy XV and the original Final Fantasy couldn't be more different (well, I suppose they could but you get my point). They even expressly take place in entirely unique worlds. However, they are still part of a shared IP.
Simply put: Bloodborne is a spiritual successor to Dark Souls as Dark Souls is to Demon's Souls, however they are each entirely separate IPs. Regardless of what elements the developers choose to carry over.
I see the point you're making. Your reasoning is totally valid. The problem is the language. Bloodborne is fundamentally a new Intellectual Property.
It doesn't matter how similar or dissimilar a studio or creative team's product is to their previous one, if it is not explicitly part of the same property then it simply... isn't. There is a fine but clear distinction between spiritual successors and entries in a franchise. Final Fantasy XV and the original Final Fantasy couldn't be more different (well, I suppose they could but you get my point). They even expressly take place in entirely unique worlds. However, they are still part of a shared IP.
Simply put: Bloodborne is a spiritual successor to Dark Souls as Dark Souls is to Demon's Souls, however they are each entirely separate IPs. Regardless of what elements the developers choose to carry over.
I am beyond thrilled for Guerrilla Games. So glad this game is amazing and I eagerly await launch day.
... Now I just need to decide which version of the game to get (I may just import from the UK to get the steelbook and goodies sans the oversized statue. Boggles my mind they didn't have this option states-wide).
New IP vs a game series established decades ago.
yawn human enemies vs awesome robots
Easy choice
Well Hermen liked my pic haha, I am complete
That's awesome haha.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Even Killzone 3 was pretty good IMO. It also had split-screen. Fuck yea.
Why are we still having this argument about Bloodborne? I thought we covered this when people compared Street Fighter to Dark Stalkers and Resident Evil to Dino Crisis. Bloodborne is as much a DIFFERENT IP from Dark Souls as those games are, despite having a lot of similarities at the foundation.
Hold on. Someone said Horizon isn't new IP? This thread is crazier than I thought.
Agreed. Reviewers having more varied backgrounds is a good thing.
demosthenes
Member
The Emperor
Member
US gamer let us hope!!
facetheslayer92
Member
Horizon threads tend to attract the crazies.
Viruz
Member
gow3isben
Member
Nicely said but I already acknowledged that. I was using IP slightly out of context.
Barry Burton
Member
Man I wish this wasn't coming out the same week as Zelda.
Very glad it seems to be living up to expectations, though. This should make for a great summer game for me. It will definitely still be my first 4KTV game, that is for sure!
Very glad it seems to be living up to expectations, though. This should make for a great summer game for me. It will definitely still be my first 4KTV game, that is for sure!
It's not just about target audience.
Take a look at the engadget review.
She clearly wasn't the target audience but she pretty much ended up liking the game.
But from this reviewer here, like his post pointed out tho she has legit reasons and complaints, it's like the reviewer was just flat out tired of the game/genre and only blurry briefly pointing out good points of the game. Sure the game borrows alot from its genre (who doesn't really) but an "identity crisis"?? Seriously??.
It's still her opinion but reading that review just makes the game sound like a mesh of things and almost gets nothing right but pretty graphics and man cave
FinaruDensetsu
Member
No it's not. By pretty much every metric in the real world, it's not.
First of all, it's common knowledge that nobody in the game industry really uses the 1-5 scale on a 10 scale. I'm actually someone that believes they should use the entire scale, but the way publishers reward based on metacritic scores paired with the precedent of scores already set, it's just not going to happen. If reviewers on the whole actually started using the full scale, publishers would need to start rewarding a 70 like they reward what's currently a 90.
Second, if you look outside the gaming industry, 50 in movie reviews would translate to rotten on rotten tomatoes and a movie with that score would be considered a very shitty movie.
Third, in academic grading, a 50% a solid F. You fail the class for that grade as if you never even showed up or took the tests.
Like I said 5/10 means the game is borderline broken in my opinion. Obviously the reviewer who gave the score doesn't feel that way since she didn't say the game was broken.
Omnistalgic
Member
Horizon and this thread delivered...
Bravo to everyone involved
Bravo to everyone involved
gow3isben
Member
Well people who are apologists from the other consoles can't say that if they look back at their catalog of games, would be to hypocrite.
DangerMouse
Member
Well Hermen liked my pic haha, I am complete
Haha that's great.
Lots of great reviews. I have a source for getting the game early, but I chose to endure and wait for semi-imminent arrival of 4K HDR TV. This game deserves a good HDR playthrough on a Pro.
Yeah, they should eventually do a Pro bundle for this game too. The visuals and detail GG pulled off look incredible every time we see footage. Looking forward to getting my copy too and finally getting it to see it directly on my TV and not just over youtube etc.
Can Crusher
Banned
I don't get it, some people are bitter this is good?
NathanDiego
Member
Yes, I noticed that too.
GIANKRATOS
Member
Well Hermen liked my pic haha, I am complete
Lol!
where are you seeing that?
Well that's how the reviewer felt while playing. A few buyers will probably end up feeling that way too. Who cares?
- Status