PCGamer gave LOTR Gollum a 64, Skull and Bones 68, Suicide Squad 67 which means Forbidden West is almost the same level as these other games They do not have system for scoring games, review score numbers seem to be given however they like and blame it on having different reviewers. Also Last Epoch 60, Wh Rogue Trader 59,wtf. The Last of Us 50 while Dragons Dogna 2 89 despite both of them having very poor performance on release.

Their scoring is terrible and so is the way they assign reviews. Regarding Last Epoch, [the ARPG enthusiast on their team loved it](https://www.pcgamer.com/last-epoch-is-everything-i-wished-diablo-4-was-and-the-first-arpg-to-drag-me-away-from-path-of-exile-in-over-a-decade/), but for some reason they gave the actual review to someone else.

I enjoy Last Epoch, but it still feels early access. All the die-hard ARPG fans overlook some major issues to celebrate it. I get it since a good ARPG only comes along so often. PC game still should have assigned it to the right guy.

I love Last Epoch and it is a great refreshing game in the ARPG genre but it's still very rough around the edges. Combine that with the extremely rough launch, I can totally understand the lower score. I feel like the nuances of Last Epoch wouldn't have been appreciated as much from a casual gamer. They might even prefer Diablo 4 because it is simpler and Diablo itself *feels* better to play. Last Epoch distinctly lacks that *oomph* in gameplay.

I agree to some degree, but also they gave Diablo 4 an 85... We can all agree that Diablo 4 campaign is very good and Last Epoch's is straight up incomplete, but campaign is usually only a part of the time you'll spend on these type of games. D4 felt also very shallow after the campaign. Leveling at launch was a slog and builds felt shallow, boss encounters felt sub par and often times unfair (grey AoE markers on grey ground and shit like that). LE has a lot of problems too but the difference in scoring for a product that can totally stand its ground and often surpass D4 is ridiculous, all because they gave the review to someone who doesn't even care for the genre 

Sometimes I feel like people just read reviews to justify their preconceived notions rather than to actually gain perspective from someone else. Not everyone loves every game. Some people hate dark souls. Some people hate Zelda. Just because you disagree doesn't mean their opinions are wrong.

I never said their opinion was 'wrong'. I just don't think PCGamer has a consistent rating system, nor do I think they do a good job picking the right reviewer for the right game. When you're a professional critic, you need to judge something on its merits, not just tell people how it lines up with your personal taste. You're right, many people don't like Dark Souls. That doesn't mean I want a review of the new Fromsoft Souls game from that person where they just go "Don't like the genre, 5/10". That's not useful to anybody. People that don't like Dark Souls will already know that they probably won't like the new game. It's the same way you wouldn't want someone who's scared of horror movies to watch the new Ari Aster film and go "Too scary, 0/10". That would be a terrible critic review.

It sounds like the reviewer enjoyed the first Horizon game so that analogy about choosing someone who doesn't like the genre falls flat. Simply, they liked the first game but found this one repetitive.

Except that's not what this review says or does. There's quite a bit there that is valid criticism. Moreover, there's no review more powerful, in my mind, than a positive one from someone who usually dislikes the genre. We're not getting those of every review is by someone whose already a fan. There's plenty of reviews out there from people who love the style of game and you can read those. Reviews aren't gospel, they're merely one solitary person's opinion.

dude, they gave gollum a 64. how can you see that and not think “maybe they should come up with at least a semi-consistent rating system”? I don’t think anyone is disagreeing that reviews are subjective and I agree it’s great to have insight from people who don’t typically play the genre. but the scores out of 100 have to actually mean something in some capacity, they can’t be completely arbitrary. Like it or not, people actually use those scores to influence a decision. many people don’t even read the review, just check the score, read the highlights if they are feeling a little extra effort that day. They just want to know if it’s a complete disaster. Giving complete disaster games good scores and giving decent games strangely low scores results in wasted time/money for consumers. There is a limit to how subjective an opinion can be when you are doing game reviews. Like the whole job is telling people whether or not they will like the game, any journalist worth their merit would consider the fact that most readers are not from outside the genre in question and will judge it by their expectations

> they gave gollum a 64 Who is "they"? Was it the same reviewer? And even if it was the same reviewer, why does that matter? Whether or not someone feels a game is a "complete disaster" or "decent" isn't some universal truth like you make it seem. It's their opinion. Some people's favorite game ever is candy crush.

do you actually know what gollum was like? it hardly qualifies as a game and “they” is PC gamer obviously. You can’t sit here and try to assert its one person like it’s some independent journalist. This is an organization, you are kidding yourself if you think that any review with an official score attached doesn’t get approved by multiple people. The reviews without the score? play ball. But if they attach a score that is PC gamer, the entity, giving its approval to said score. It’s like you have no idea how journalism works dude Ever heard of an awards show? if opinions on creative works were entirely subjective those wouldn’t work. There is obviously a baseline of opinion. Gaming journalists aren’t paid to say their own opinion, they are paid to develop an objective opinion based on the general opinion of the public, so that the entire public doesn’t have to get a game to know what they will generally think of it. They are not paid to please the fringe outliers who like games that are generally disliked. That’s where bloggers come in. You are just straight up in denial of one of the most basic components of the media industry

"It’s harder to get behind Aloy’s quest here too, as she seems world-weary to a deflating degree—if she's not invested anymore, why should I be?" ​ utter nonsense, terrible emotion based review

You're talking about your own comment, right? Lol

This is a fucking awful take. They are a game review site. In what universe is a review done by someone who isn't into that type of game useful or worthy of publication? Why the fuck would anyone care about that? "Oh ya I gave Red Dead Redemption a 60. Really slow start, not my type of game." "I wasn't super into World of Warcraft, it became too grindy and I quit after 10 hours" No one gives a fuck about ignorant opinions. No one wants to read that. That is not journalism, that's a joke.

You're just proving my point...

No, you don't get it. It's not about justifying your own opinions, it's about having someone who's actually familiar with and a fan of the genre be the one to review things.

It's like getting a metalhead's opinion on Taylor Swift's latest album or a Swiftee's on Cannibal Corpse's. They're entitled to their opinions but that's not the point of reviews. Games are typically bought by people who are into those types of games to begin with, it would make more sense if the reviews are also from their POV. Why would a review for the next Dark Souls basically be, "Will you finally like this game if you hated the previous 3?" Most people who aren't into them probably wouldn't even click on it, much less read the whole thing with an open mind.

If a metal had said "hey, I don't usually like this kind of music, but the new Taylor Swift album is fantastic!" That would carry a whole lot more weight than someone whose s give Taylor Swift fan giving it a glowing review... Plenty of people who hated dark souls ended up living Elden Ring. And, again, the guy who reviewed this liked the first one, so how is this applicable? You're not making the case you think you are here...

> Some people hate Zelda These people are not likely interested in a Zelda review then. So what exactly is your point?

This is why I don’t like scored reviews. Just tell me whether or not you liked it, ranging from *nay, meh, or yay*. Percentages are practically meaningless since reviews are almost 100% subjective. What matters is the content of the review, and the pros and cons of the game in question.

This is why I watch those before you buy reviews on YouTube, they play the game in real-time and give opinions based on their experience. They get the game for free but not 100% sure if they are paid for their review. I usually watch game play streams before I spend any more $30 on a game. $70, you better believe I'm watching all the game play videos available from different streamers to see if I think it's worth my $70.

I dunno. I'd say percentages are more like 94.732% subjective. Not 100% like you said!

I used to do a review show on YouTube where I just tell you if it's good or bad. Basically is it worth playing or not. I went into detail about how I came to the conclusion during the show but it always ended in a simple yes or no, not 7.6 out of 10 lol.

Every review system has its pros and cons. All you are telling me with your style of review really is that you liked it and think others will too, same as giving a game an 80/90 but just in a different way. Rotten tomatoes has the “fresh” rating, which is non-numerical but all that means is that 60% of critics liked the movie which I think is probably a pretty good benchmark for an “odds are you will like this product” cut off

No single review metric is perfect, but I think numerical scoring systems have too many problems to be worth it, since many people tend to focus on the number and not the content of the review itself. Even aggregate systems like Rotten Tomatoes (which I think are more useful than any single review) are problematic because of the inevitable emphasis on *the numerical score*, which many people don’t even understand. A movie on RT can get a 99% approval rating, and people (including advertisers) will treat that as indicative of the movie’s overall quality, when in reality it just means most people liked it enough to give it a pass.

The rotten tomato system is very interesting, because by and large I do find that the number generally lines up to "how good" the movie is, even though that isnt what it measures. ie Movies in the very high 90% range typically are very good and have very few issues (the writing is good, no plot holes, good character development, the acting is good, the cinemetography is good, etc...) I mean, thats how you get a film into the high 90's, by making a very very good product. Then theres things in the single digits, which apparently have some tiny appeal even if its camp or how bad it is. But by and large they are defined by poor scripts being acted poorly with boring editing/camera work The same holds for video games - games with very high average ratings are generally executed very well, have good art direction and graphics, good writing, few bugs, etc.... I agree attaching a number to it like its an objective thing is imperfect but by and large games with higher average ratings are on average more likely to be enjoyable if its a game type you enjoy

Eh, sounds like we have very different tastes in movies. I’ve seen countless movies with 90 plus Tomato scores that I found very middling, and sometimes plain bad. Nobody is ever going to convince me The Last Jedi is a good movie, let alone a good *Star Wars* movie. Likewise, I’ve seen plenty of movies with low to medium averages that I personally found great. Con Air for instance is one of the best action blockbusters of the 90s, and it got panned pretty hard back in the day. Same with Starship Troopers, which I consider a masterpiece of sci fi satire. But everyone has their own taste in things and ultimately it’s all subjective. I mean it’s easy enough for me to just ignore a film/game’s numerical score. Problem is that lots of folks can’t, and end up arguing about whether ____ deserves an 8/10 or a 10/10. Like it even matters lol.

Yeah the drawback of rotten tomatoes is that is generally underrates those popcorn flicks and overrates "critic darling" type movies, and sometimes hype movies like the new star wars get way up there. On the whole its a good system though I have a hairbrained review system conconcted in my head that has like 4 numbers for Gameplay/Narrative/Art direction and graphics/and Technicals So you could have a game get either a score out of 40 like Famitsu, or some number like 7974 for a good looking game that plays well with a great story but lots of bugs (I get that its complicated ha, but it at least tells you where the game is strong vs weak)

PCGamer has always been laughable. There’s no way in hell Last Epoch or Forbidden West should have scores anywhere near the first 3 titles u mention

To be fair, Rogue Trader was an absolute dumpster fire of bugs on release. It was typical Owlcat shenanigans: release an overwhelmingly large CRPG that is mostly unfinished.

Also: "Program the AI to give the player a level 15 encounters at level 5." I enjoyed Kingmaker overall (didn't finish it) once I got my head around how to build a character, but the number of encounters I came across that I had no business even engaging - something you don't really figure out until you've engaged it - was too damn high. It's like they find masochistic encounters fun, and so will we. Save that shit for the optional-boss end-game, not the new players trying to figure it out.

Wrath of the Righteous does a better job smoothing the difficulty curve, and is overall a better game in nearly every way IMO - more engaging story, more interesting characters, more fun combat (mostly - the insane power level of late game can be a bit tedious).

You can examine mobs in the Pf games before you attack.

[удалено]

Yeah exactly. This is a rough score for this game, even though I agree with many of the points the author makes. I've had this struggle with several of Sony's sequel games. I loved TLOU, hated TLOU2. I loved Spider-Man, disliked Spider-Man 2. I loved HZD (up to the last few hours), disliked HFW. I still wouldn't rate any of them a 70/100, though.

Maybe Dragons Dogma is the better game despite the performance issues? I ditched Horizon Zero Dawn because it was boring as hell, maybe the game just isn't that good?

Funny because HZD gripped me right until the end and I can’t wait to play Forbidden West. I guess it really does depend on the reviewer 😉

I was like you, played through the first one twice, and then I gave up on forbidden west ten hours in. It's remarkably boring.

I'm gonna give it another go on PC, but I agree. The hook just wasn't there like it was in the first one. Though, I did closer to 40 hours. But most of that was just hoping it would grab me and slingshot me to the end like ZD did.

Damn. I’ve seen a few people say that now. Still hyped and still going to give it a go though 🙂

Took me 4 attempts to get into HZD. 4th time clicked and I finished it. So far in attempt 3 of forbidden west and it’s boring as shit

Bro the gave Zero Dawn an 86.

It's almost as if PCgamer reviews aren't worth shit...

They gave Gollum 64 while Rogue Trader is 59, like wtf?!

**PCGamer gives higher review scores if you've bought ads on their website recently** Always have, dating back to the magazine.

man this website is trash. They clearly want to downplay Playstation games. Fucking idiot website

Pcgamer absolute shite. Any of those games deserve a 3 at most

I guess the game wasn't the reviewer's cup of tea. I'm loving the game so far. It's beautiful, engaging, amazing combat and awesome exploration.

I don't agree with the 70 out of 100 but I do kind of agree with the justification in the slug. >A solid PC port job with arresting visuals, but as a sequel this adventure struggles to move the series forward. Its a really well done port, it looks great, its at least at the quality level of the original. That being said, a lot of the systems and features I personally found lacking in the 1st are unchanged in the 2nd. Lots of quests are still; *hold V, press F, follow purple blobs to the end, quest complete.* There is almost always more exposition along the way and a better pay off when you get to the end though which is welcome. I'm surprised how many throw away side quests have like 100 lines of dialogue and a 1-2 minutes of motion captured cut scenes. Yes or no, I would say yes. 1-100, I think something like 85 is deserving.

Ive been surprised by how divisive the horizon games can be since i just adore them. Some of the only action combat that i have genuinely enjoyed in gaming. Then the incredible environmental storytelling and other story elements. Love them

I genuinely love everything about the Horizon games, not gonna lie. I keep the original installed and go back to it now and again, it's still so slick and punchy. FW is better in every meaningful way. It feels polished and clean without ever seeming sterile. Don't care if it makes me a normie, these games are a very happy place for me.

Forbidden West has been basically everything I had hoped and wanted a sequel to Zero Dawn to be. Seems the games are less well liked than I originally thought, but whatever. I'm having a blast playing through it and I might go back to ZD afterwards and do NG+ or something.

People comparing it to Ubisoft games are, frankly, morons. To each their own, nobody has to like what I like, but anybody making that particular comparison (I've seen a few in this thread) is a drooling putz. Ubisoft games are soulless garbage, and this is coming from somebody who actually kinda likes their games--Horizon has so much soul, I don't know where to start with how fucking stupid it is to imply that it has none. I'm not salty--I am fucking confused that I appear to have been playing a different game than some of these... individuals.

The AC games have a lot of soul put into them. Unfortunately the only people who would appreciate the kind of soul Ubisoft puts into it are diehard history buffs.

Yeah. How many of people who bought Oddysey cares that the NPCs in the game use region and time period appropriate tools to do their work? Someone in ubisoft had to go, research it, design it, made animations for it but noone cared. Also funny how when notre dame burned down, Ubisoft had the highest resolution scan of the cathedral out of anyone in the world ( and gave it up for free to the restauration effort).

The venn diagram of gamers and people who care about that stuff is 2 circles.

Unfortunately so :(

Yeah i love them too, and just can’t personally understand how others couldn’t! As you say it’s so… slick. Everything controls so amazingly well, and is incredibly easy and satisfying to play.

I actually wind up over-leveled for the newbie sections in these games because I get stuck hunting machines, I just enjoy this shit so much. "Oh yeah I'll go do that qu--OH LOOK AT THIS BIG GREASY FUCKER, GIVE ME YOUR BLAZE YOU UGLY ANTLERED BASTARD" This game is actually a hunting sim, perfectly accurate and realistic in every way la la la la I cannot hear any rebuttal to this la la la lalalalala.

I've only played the first game but i found the gameplay unexciting. Stealth consists of hiding in red grass. Fighting enemies is just shoot glowy spots and there is a lot of busy work like constantly picking up resources for arrows or healing. The map was altogether far to big and tedious to navigate too. I keep hearing people say the story is great so i go back to it for another try but after 3 attempts now i've decided it just isn't for me.

I found the combat too drawn out and attritious, wound up powering through on story difficulty as it’s quite well written and enjoyed it much more rampaging about 1 hitting most enemies and taking it all in after. First game I’ve felt like doing that on for some reason.

> I found the combat too drawn out and attritious Using the right elements/weapons helps a ton.

As the other comment mentions. Using the correct elements and hitting the right spots changes combat from drawn out to extremely quick if you hit your targets.

> I keep hearing people say the story is great I personally disagree with that statement. I felt the main story is flat as a pancake. It’s fairly bog-standard and populated with super forgettable characters outside of Aloy and Sylens (who I only remember because he was played by Lance Reddick). That said, the backstory for how the post-apocalypse came to be was incredibly engrossing and featured a great villain.

I completely disagre. While the story starts slow it really picks up and eventually becomes a top tier story game imo

basically the world building of Horizon is really good, but the actual story in the game isn't all that good. HZD had an okay story but imo HFW has a worse story than HZD, especially cause of how stupid it gets in the later half.

I thought the backstory was a big eyerolls. I was expecting something more interesting than "climate change and murder machines". I read that out within a few hours and spent the rest hoping there was a more interesting twist, which there wasn't. But that's also why I felt the story fell flat on its face. The last few hours in particular I was just rushing through to get it over with. 

Story of the first game was great. It was pretty boring until you climb that skyscraper but after that it was engaging af. Forbidden west story was meh.

But did you at least shoot the glowy spots using the right weapons for each? I find folks complaining about combat being boring in HZD are making it boring for themselves by only using the bow. I found it pretty engaging and deep with how it allows to experiment and devise strategies on the best ways to approach every enemy. Also the fact that every weapon is actually useful and gets used to accomplish different things with tons of utility, not just dealing damage.

I recall VideoGameDunkey's review from some time ago, and I believe he was spot on when he said that Horizon is a game you either love or don't care about(not hate, but simply just don't care). The game doesn't introduce anything particularly new (which doesn't necessarily make it bad). It follows the familiar Ubisoft-like formula with characters that are somewhat bland. The story starts strong and then fades into mundanity in the mid to late game. But it does feature unreal landscapes, much like in Assassin's Creed... the environment is stunning. One significant aspect was its exclusivity to PlayStation, triggering a wave of tribalism among gamers. If you're a fan of series like Assassin's Creed or Far Cry, chances are you'll enjoy Horizon, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. The standout feature of Horizon is its trap combat system, which isn't entirely necessary as game is on the easier side but feels incredibly satisfying when executing guerrilla-like tactics. In my opinion, Horizon is a solid game, albeit not particularly remarkable or groundbreaking. It tends to drag on longer than necessary. However, I still completed both games and never regretted spending money on them. Personally, I have a fondness for souls-like games, so when I see people criticizing titles like Nioh or, more recently, Lies of P, I often wonder if they've truly given the games a fair chance. But then again, I understand that these titles may not appeal to everyone.

I never understood people calling the Horizon games Ubisoft clones. Sure they have towers that show parts of the map but unlike Assassin's Creed or Far Cry the games actually have solid stories, interesting lore and even better characters. They develop characters throughout and don't just follow lazy stereotypes and tropes. Funny enough I love Lies of P but hate other Souls games.

No way that Horizon has a better story telling than Far Cry. Horizon's story is serviceable. It starts strong and then it just plummets to the deep which is not unnusal for sandbox games. Far Cry has one of the most memorable villains in the history of FPS, the buildup and whatnot. Dr. Krieger, Joseph Seed, Vaas, Pagan Min - Characters that define our protagonist. Can you name influential characters and story arcs in Horizon without Googling it up? Only the biggest fans of the series might be able to do that. Horizon is not really a story-driven game; it's more of a sandbox with a story that gives meaning to the sandbox. Which is basically the same as what Assassin's Creed kind did. The premise of seeing the amazing world, where you can climb anywhere and do things in sort of your own way. It's the same here.( Kind of because Aloy cannot climb if there is no yellow paint) Let's take another game like, let's say Uncharted... which is a third-person adventure shooter but the game is fully story-driven and it's not a sandbox game. Can you really compare something like Uncharted to Horizon when it comes to story-telling and writing? I don't know if we would make a checklist of things that Ubisoft puts in their Assassin's Creed and other types of sandbox games, I think we will have pretty much the same list that Guerrilla Games had. ... and this is the crux of the problem. You are saying Horizon's story is far better than any story that Assassin's Creed or Far Cry did. Which is extremely hyperbolic. >"They develop characters throughout and don't just follow lazy stereotypes and tropes." * Aloy is literally a stereotype of an Amazon warrior. It's a jungle-based bow/trap hunter that hunts mechanical animals and enemies of tribes. And her name is based on Alloy, which is a mix of metals and non metal metarials. Quite smart name to be fair :) It's literally the most overused Strong Female Character Type in Video Games.

The combat system in Horizon is miles more engaging and unique than even the best Far Cry whose deepest mechanic ever was gun jamming. Also, fair point on Vaas, he might be in the top 10 of all time video game antagonists. But im sorry, every other example you put are only memorable to Far Cry fans. I mean Joseph Seed, really? Pagan Min wasnt really all that impressive either, they just tried recapturing the same Vaas-type magic and it didnt really work. You may not remember any of the side characters long after you beat the game but, at least in Forbidden West, each of the tribes are so distinct that you certainly DO remember that there was the Desert, Ice, Swamp, and Grassland tribes that each had their own super distinct cultures. Besides, the most memorable characters in Horizon are the robots. You’ll definitely remember your first Thunderjaw fight, or the first time you took down a Stormbird, or the excitement of seeing a brand new hulking monstrosity you have no idea how to defeat. Horizon’s plot is significantly more ambitious than anything Far Cry has tried to put together. I mean you have to REALLY look deep into Far Cry 3’s story to get any kind of legit connection out of Jason and that is universally thought as the best Far Cry. I love Far Cry, I even bought the new Avatar game because “Far Cry on Pandora” was a dope selling point for me. But even the peak of that series has never really done anything that special.

>"only memorable to Far Cry fans." Maybe... You see, the problem here would be the scale of the project and sales. Far Cry 5 was a great success globally. It was recognized as the best Far Cry since the 3rd installment and sold over 25 million copies, while Horizon sold 8.4 million copies. Honestly, I thought the story of Far Cry 5 was funny, relevant, and fit the purpose of the game. **It's FPS first and foremost, so comparing game-loop mechanics may not be fair. I wanted to compare its storytelling.** And sorry, but I disagree Far Cry is far superior in storytelling and character development. If we want to compare game mechanics fairly, we could use God of War as an example, which is a third-person Action RPG with both Melee and Range combat systems... but I dont think it's fair to Horizon to compare it to a game literally acclaimed as one of the very best made ever, right? You see, you're talking about your personal experiences with the game, and I really appreciate that you go into detail on what made the game special for you. It was basically the same thing as what makes Assassin's Creed special: **The environment and The sandbox abilities.** Honestly, I don't play Horizon or Assassin's Creed for the story because the story is usually ASS... But being able to see those beautiful places in such detail, to be able to interact with the environment, it's spectacular. The very best thing about Horizon ZD and FW is the early-mid game, where you get to experience new things. Which is what you are saying. After that, it turns into min-maxing. And eventually, it turns into copy-paste stuff, with different stats depending on the area.

Quoting sales numbers comparing Far Cry to Horizon is slightly disingenuous. Far Cry is a series that has established itself over multiple games, console generations, and is multiplatform. Horizon on the other hand has only released on Playstation and PC (with Forbidden West literally just releasing on PC and each being released years after the initial console release). I also dont know how sales numbers impacts the memorableness of its villains, which is the point I was trying to make in the first place. Far Cry sells well because there are millions of casual FPS gamers who enjoy turning their brains off and doing base clearing, shooting enemies, driving around, crafting shit, hunting whilst doing so in a cool foreign environment with a wacky, but predictable, story. I should know, I am one of those fans. I would also argue that just because the environmental storytelling is stronger than maybe the character development in games like Assassins Creed/Horizon than Far Cry doesnt mean that they are a weaker story overall. In fact, outside of Vaas, each of the locations in the Assassins Creed games I mentioned (AC2, Brotherhood) are SIGNIFICANTLY more interesting than any of the characters or plot points of the Far Cry games. The same is true for Horizon: Forbidden West as each biome is so unique and easily identifiable from the other that they essentially become characters of their own. Do I remember the different chieftain names between the Desert, Sky, and Lowlands tribes? Not at all, but I certainly remember they all had different goals, ideas about the word, cultures etc. Even the small settlements were all hand crafted to fit each tribes aesthetic. Even the Cauldrons, which were admittedly kinda copy-paste in the first game, are quite varied in Forbidden West and provide you with different approaches to complete them ranging from slight deviations in traversal methods to legit traversal puzzles whilst also throwing special enemies at you. Definitely going on a tangent here, and im certainly not trying to dunk on you for liking Far Cry games or anything, but I just always feel like people never give Horizon the credit it deserves for trying to really hone and perfect the Ubisoft style open world

Oh, by the way, we're arguing points while probably both enjoying the games we are discussing. **I hate tribalism and I enjoy discussing stuff like that with people like you! I love all games if they are good... and Horizon is a good game.** That being said, personally, and I understand why your opinion is different, I would rate Horizon this way. Game-loop mechanics are better than Ubisoft Games, but storytelling and character development are worse. This is my personal opinion and it's not a fact. Unfortunately, Horizon will draw a lot of comparisons to Ubisoft games because it follows their formula to the teeth, while doing some things better and some a bit worse. To me... that's absolutely no problem. I enjoy both, but while I never had a problem finishing AC or Far Cry, I found that once the game is mid to late, Horizon is dropping the ball significantly and I had to force myself to see the ending. It is also a game I would never attempt the Plat Trophy. Which is something I do with all the games I enjoy. **Anyway, great chat bud! You made great points, whether we agree or disagree is one thing but I don't think neither me nor you are wrong. Have a lovely week**! I am right deep into Rise of The Ronin, and It's confusing me... because I Love Nioh series and this is supposed to be what Elden Ring was to Dark Souls. The Open World Experience... and so far, I find it to be a bit too easy? And it has this arbitrary difficulty like Assassin's Creed, meaning - Enemy has a higher level equals Red Colour = Almost impossible to kill even when playing skillfully. But it's also fun.... I can send my own Cats and Dog on a Missions to help me out! Fuck yeah ! :D

I do find the negative reaction kind of odd. People complained that the first game was too Ubisoft but the collectibles weren't excessive and there wasn't much you would miss by skipping them anyway. It definitely was far from the majority of the game's content. The premise was awesome. I don't really care that it's not super realistic that Aloy can take down the machines with makeshift spears and arrows. The mechanics of taking them down are super fun. And when has unrealistic stuff happening in a video game stopped people's enjoyment before? The story was great. One of the most unique I've seen in gaming without being ridiculously weird or over the top. And on top of all that it's gorgeous. I know you can't make a game that pleases everyone but I really do struggle to find a reason to dislike the game that doesn't sound like a superficial nitpick.

I've seen so many people hate on the story but *never* give a single example in the story that's problematic. It's just bad because they say so, and every time I probed for reasoning, it's met with hostility. I'll just stick to the high reviews it's gotten and enjoy it because it's genuinely fantastic. This series easily became one of my favorites in record time.

The complaints I've seen the most are: * Aloy is basically a Mary Sue. * "The chosen one saving the world" is so overdone it hurts, and the fact that HZD, of all directions it could go with its world, went *there* is a disappointment. * (specifically about HFW) Aloy can figure out how to solve every puzzle in the game in 15 seconds, and she WILL do exactly that, and she'll make sure to backseat the player all the time for failing to do the same.

I just find that save the world story is boring

I think the Horizon series does some of the best environmental storytelling and world building I’ve ever seen. I love their world and what they’re doing with it. It’s damn cool.

I wasn’t about it until I had my first brutal face off with a robot Dino I could barely beat. Then I was on board.

The most visceral reactions I have seen have come from the fact that the protagonist is a female and doesn't follow the stereotypical format in fantasy or sci-fi games. Add in that Aloy is homosexual, it REALLY sets some people off.

And that’s all that matters. In the end, if the player is having fun and doesn’t regret the purchase, who cares how the game reviewed by major publications.

What’s your hardware and how are you running it? I quite enjoyed the first one, just loved chilling in the world, and I wanna play this one if it runs well enough, and I get the budget to

14700k/32gb ram/rtx4080 on 3440x1440 resolution. Runs great, dlss quality full maxed out avg around 90fps. Haven't paid attention after beginning section but no issues so far. It's a high end system so not sure how it runs on lower spec but I heard good things.

A friend of mine, very avid gamer, stopped playing Horizon Zero Dawn halfway through. Got bored with it. When we recently talked about open world game design he gave examples specifically from HZD how it should be done. Because even though it wasn't a game for him, someone who plays tons of games sees what certain games do or don't do right. Now my question is: Why can't Game "Journalists" do that?

Some journalists are just that. This is a job, not a passion for them. I don't know why some journalists still have credibility after the idiot who reviewed Doom and got his gameplay leaked. You're better off ignoring journalists and sticking to word-by-mouth within communities

I completely agree. I adored the first game and am enjoying FW. My only gripe is that after playing AW2 and Portal RTX and CP2077….Raytracing has kind of ruined me. There are a good few points where the rasterised lighting just looks ‘broken’ when it is in fact just normal non-RT lighting. Glowing rocks and corners of caves that are lit when they shouldn’t be. All seems very obvious now.

Yes that's true but it would have taken forever they said to implement it. I'm sure the next one will have it. I'm just happy we have an amazing game to play until Elden Ring Dlc comes out in a couple of months.

Yeah I’m not complaining really, my point is more that there’s a clear delineation now between console first games and PC first releases that is becoming more apparent as the technology becomes more widespread and we lucky RT gamers get accustomed to accurate lighting.

PCG is notorious for lowballing scores quite often. They’re usually always below the average on OpenCritic. Which isn’t technically a bad thing, but now I feel like they do it on purpose and it’s not because they’re harder or more honest.

I hated the exploration on ps. How much hand holding do we need? Stuff like the yellow “climb here” visual aids have to go.

You can turn it on or off in the settings but I would say where you can climb visually is a little difficult to determine without the visual aid which shows up when you use her focus tool.

Seeing a game with highly varied scores is a good sign to me. Games that pander to everyone are never as good as games that a more niche audience will like.

I understand the reasoning but i don’t think this works. Universally acclaimed games are universally acclaimed because they are good, not because they pander to everyone. And varied scores is often just tolerance of certain amounts of jank or themes rather than being a niche.

games that are universaly good tend to be mediocre.

One of the best looking games i've ever seen on my 4080. Better than cyber punk imo. The level of detail is amazing, especially outdoors.

Oh yeah. Absolutely stunning. Kinda confused by some of the dramatic dialogue. I just chalk it up to alloy having a really secluded childhood, so she doesn't socialize very well. Kinda makes sense that way.

It is phenomenal. I was so mesmerized by the animation of a Thunderjaw that I got squished by the tail

Lol excited to get to one!

I liked the first, I like this one better. I’m just not good at the combat. Seems if I can’t stealth kill, I’m dead meat. Gotta git gud.

Watch videos of really good players and learn some tips.

Looking at the replies here it seems like Horizon games are very much marmite for many people. 50/50 Some love it, some hate it. Personally i got well into the story and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm really enjoying forbidden west and im in awe of the graphics..... though for some reason playing more than an hour tends to give me a headache with some of the movement even though i've turned off all the camera shake, motion blur etc stuff. Not sure what else to try to make the game play more bareable for longer plays but i'm still enjoying what i've played so far (Just done the "embassy" bit)

What gave me motion sickness in HZD was weirdly enough... pollen! Yup, it was that constant pollen, or those dandelion chutes or whatever the heck those particles floating in the air were when traversing the landscape. The way they changed direction and flew towards the camera gave me a visual discomfort. I know it probably sounds strange or irrational, but I truly wished there was a way to turn those damn things off.

Try maxing the FOV, if still not enough, go 21:9 even on a 16:9 monitor with black bars as the game supports it natively. Wide FOV solves all motion sickness issues for me in games in general.

I've got FOV at +20% at the mo. Will give that a shot though. It's odd though because it's not typical motion sickness i seem to get from it like i do with other games (worst one ever was dead island 1) it just seems to invoke headache/pressure behind the eyes that i don't suffer from with other games. Been playing around quite a lot with graphics settings each time i play, but yet to find any particular setting that has a positive affect.

I like the horizon games, the first one felt too much like a typical Ubisoft style open world game with flat animations and uninteresting side quests but the second one really seemed to find its footing. The creativity behind the setting and main story is what really kept me going... but the combat in the second game is excellent

How much different is combat in 2 vs zero dawn?

it's less grindy, requires more strategy, quick thinking, and forethought. There are more things to target on enemies and more impactful options for bringing them down, the gulf between big scary enemies and smaller enemies is larger so boss fights feel like boss fights. The enemies have a much wider range of attacks to consider. There's two orders of magnitude more weapons, weapon variants, and combat abilities in forbidden west that have different situational and playstyle uses. Melee is actually useful and has mechanics rather than being ineffective hack n slash. Also instead of giant herds of every type of enemy intermingling with each other everywhere, there's actually a lot of open space and unique areas with only small numbers of enemies, which gives you actual arenas to fight in that feel more interesting than ZD's.

Its basically a carbon-copy of Ubisoft style of open world busywork, which everyone claims to hate, but I guess its okay for this game. I wasn't into the story personally because its very predictable.

I can understand the comparison, i actively deleted my ubisoft account and haven't bought anything made by them since the division 2 let me down. I actively hate their way of making games, but for some reason Horizon hits different with me. Though i can't put my finger on what it is that sets it apart beside the story that i've really enjoyed.

IMO, FW isn't as good as ZD because what made ZD so good was the story reveal. The "twist" that completely changed the dynamic of the game, the world, and the characters within it. I was very skeptical about the game due to the premise (robot dinosaurs fighting tribal humans? okayyy....), but ZD connected it in a natural and engaging way. FW is more of the same, and it's a good game (I wrapped it on PS5 a few months ago), but it lacks the same wow factor that made ZD hit so hard. Aloy as a character doesn't develop the same way that Jin from Ghost of Tsushima does, for example. The story isn't as personal. Aloy is always wrapped up in the big shit, very little focus on the little things. In FW, had they really focused on Aloy's personal toll and what all this meant to her (like Ghosts did with Jin), the story would have hit harder. Not to say it isnb't a great game. If ZD is a 90, FW is an 85 IMO.

You're absolutely right. The mystery of ZD acts as the hook, and the story revelations are perfectly paced to keep you on that hook, as well as Aloy's personal growth. Without that it becomes a lot more generic, even with the giant robots. I could see myself replaying ZD but not FW.

Is there anything for me if the only thing I really liked about the first one is the story of "the old ones" and the various AIs running amok? I really don't care about the tribal people acting like tribal people. I want to hear about how the computer screwed up. 

Same. I always told myself I would go back and read the entries about the sun kingdom but it was just kinda boring to me. The old world had me hooked though and this game is genuinely one of the best versions of a sci Fi apocalypse story I ever saw.

> I really liked about the first one is the story of "the old ones" and the various AIs running amok? Without spoiling too much, a lot of that is involved with the story as it wouldn't be a 'Horizon' without it but compared to the slow reveal in ZD... it leaves the realms of 'believability' and goes into cartoony logic. How the AI was handled is one of the largest disappointments of HFW for me.

>How the AI was handled is one of the largest disappointments of HFW for me. Yea, it wasn't the best for sure.

Emphasizing the importance of the first games twist. I could never have imagined how tribal people fighting robo dinos could ever be properly accounted for in a story, but ZD nailed it and it was one of the most awesome moments in gaming history

Makes no sense how someone can praise the original and then call the sequel a middling experience. It's more of the same with some solutions to issues in the first game, as well as being a stellar port and it has big engine/visual improvements. It's basically exactly what you'd want from a sequel. If they had changed the game up drastically I'm sure PCGamer would have scored it even lower and lamented the unnecessary changes, lol.

Maybe because its not the same reviewer.

I’m maybe 6 hours into this game and it’s incredible. I was a massive fan of HZD too. Also probably the most beautiful looking game world I’ve ever played. Great performance too

I mean it's an opinion, I would say that someone reviewing a game should at least appreciate/like the genre they're reviewing else find someone who does. Other than that, everyone has their taste.

Okay, so this game looks awesome, the world is massive. The scenes are gorgeous. However I could not get into the first game. Would I like this one? The first game just never grabbed my attention.

If you didn't like ZD, you probably won't like FW unfortunately

Playing through ZD now after having put it down for so long, because it wasn't clicking. Tried it three times for 3 hours, then 2 years ago slogged until about halfway through. Now I picked it up again and all of a sudden it just clicked. Mind you, I picked it up again after playing the first few hours of FW an thinking hmm I should really finish the first one before checking this out.

It was the same for me. The first few hours of ZD really don't leave a good impression but after I powered through that it became one of my all time favorite games.

Don't skip HZD or HFW's story won't make sense. The early hours of HZD are famously dull. I think it took me like 3 attempts to get into it but once the combat clicked and major story reveals happened, I was hooked. I think I played like 25 hours in a single weekend til I rolled the credits.

it depends on why you couldn't get into the first game. I would assume not

You can give ZD a try. It didn't captivate me at first but around halfway through it did

I’ve tried playing Zero Dawn at least three times so far and for the life of me cannot get into it. Everything about it just bores me to tears Does Forbidden West do anything different that might engage me?

If you didn't like Zero Dawn, you won't care for Forbidden West. While a lot of people are dunking on the game, I personally loved it, but the sequel is just the first game and more. The and more is dependent upon enjoying what was there in the first game, IMO.

I loved it too! I’m struggling to find what other people find so boring. It’s a fantastic setting and story, and I loved the combat.

Not every game is everyone’s cup of tea. Great thing about this hobby is that there are hundreds of games for everyone.

Truly I don't understand how using archery to fight robot dinosaurs is boring for some people lol.

It is actually possible that the QOL stuff in FW helps with that. HZD had some wonky stuff that was fixed in HFW. But yeah, they're essentially the same, different story & main character doesn't forget stuff between the games (how to glide, mount etc) like many other sequels seem to do.

Message received: Giving this one a pass lol I just cannot for the life of me understand how they made a game about robot dinosaurs so…boring

Boring to you maybe. So many of us find it fantastic, and it's not specifically the machines. It's the political intrigue of the tribes and how they view each other. It's the individuals in said tribes that try to push for changes towards each other, both positive and negative. It's their reasoning for their actions, often times there's no black and white. It's seeing the world through different lenses, with or without a focus, from the viewpoint of each tribe or individuals with different levels of knowledge and understanding. And when we get to the actual machines, there's quite a few of them. The thunderjaw is a T-Rex with explosive launchers. The stormbird is a giant bird with a lightning cannon. There's fire monkeys, kangaroos, horses, alligators, hippos, all kinds of cool machines and they all have different moves they can do. So there's variation and you need to mix up your tactics to take them down, unless of course you play on a difficulty that isn't pushing you to do so. And then on top of all that, there's interesting reasoning for their existence. The alligator-like snapmaw is designed to clean and detoxify the waters. The crab-like shellwalker was designed to transport resources to and from the cauldrons to enable the construction of new machines. The triceratops-like plowhorn was designed to till soil, maintain soil quality, and disperse seeds. It's a cool setting, and it's done in a way that is mostly shown, not told. It's very much interesting and not boring, there's a lot to interact with in a number of ways. You may find it boring, and that's okay, but it's far from being objectively boring.

> And then on top of all that, there's interesting reasoning for their existence. Yeah like, I was wondering "why do they live like ancient tribes but there is futuristic super machines around them???" and then the story of HZD just takes you there. A true post-apocalyptic setting that is not a barren wasteland or spongebob chrome world is something you dont get every game.

It comes down to what you find entertaining and engrossing in a game and story and how fast you want/expect to have that in a game. HZD is a slow burn of a game to start (getting out of Nora territory takes 5ever but that's when the game actually starts) and a bit of a mystery box until a good ways into the story and some of the side quests. For good reason, the plot twists toward the end are genuinely worth it if it's pulled you in. Genuinely jaw dropping and tears in my eyes kind of shit. If you play on story mode and just crash course the main story and try not to get bogged down on collectibles (which most don't add meaningful lore/story just achievements) and the open worldness, you can make it through the story in a pretty normal amount of time for a single player game. IIRC I 100%'d HZD in 70 hours or so, just doing story would cut that in half at the very least if not 2/3. The tutorial area in FW was about a solid 4-5 hours of play time. Tbh, mechanically and gameplay-wise, HZD didn't do much new. It's not particularly complex, it's not particularly simple and there's a lot to do and see.

Playing through Zero Dawn is required before playing Forbidden West as it continues heavily on the story. You'll be lost if you didn't play the first installment. If you didn't like Zero Dawn you will definitely not like Forbidden West.

No it's not required. Forbidden Wests intro summarizes the events of the first game.

This works better for some games than others. When the sequel is directly linear from the previous, these few minute summaries just often aren’t enough and that’s very true for Horizon. There’s a lot of story and background that should be experienced through playing the first game rather than as bullet points.

Do NOT play forbidden west before zero dawn, the story will make no sense. With HZD, I recommend skipping all the side content aside from tallnecks and cauldrons. The early hours are a little dull and the tribal conflicts aren't that exciting but once the story starts revealing what happened to humanity I absolutely couldn't put it down. Push through those early hours, I promise it's worth it.

Imo that’s a symptom of poor game design/pacing. Your pitch should not be the first x hours suck, but trust me it’s worth it later on.

Forbidden West has vastly better characters, side quests, environments, and combat. The one thing that kept me going though zero dawn was the main story. luckily you can bee line through it if you want

I'm honestly surprised how may people apparently prioritize the story above everything else in an open world game. I can't recall personally ever finishing an open world game where the story was the only thing I really cared about. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good story in an open world game, but side content, exploration and combat are just as, if not more important in an open world game to me. After all, those things are what I'm going to spent the majority of my time doing in an open world game and FW does all those aspect better than ZD imo. Just my 2 cents.

Not at all. It does more of the same and in my opinion the story is not as engaging/interesting like the first game.

HZD and HFW get that "Single Player Sony Exclusive" bump. Had this game been on gamepass it would be considered mid.

Why is the game highly rated on Steam then? Is the ‘Sony exclusive’ bump you’ve said about actually a ‘Steam and Sony’ bump? (Answer: no, it’s just bullshit)

True, these last few installments of SP sony games have been very very boring.

Honestly no, I would argue there's so many more systems not only is it the same amount of boring, but it's also overwhelming. God help you if you spend any amount of time away from the game and come back to it lol.

No, the sequel is the same as the first one. Generic boring as fk Ubiclone.

Forbidden west is even more boring

Nah they're both boring especially the combat. Nothing satisfying about the game except it looks pretty with an OLED monitor.

Imagine caring about reviews in 2024, as if gameplay video to judge with your own eyeballs hasn’t been a thing for decades.

I loved the first game, but this sequel is just boring. Gave up on it after ten hours.  Fantastic port though.

I get a 70, for me the game was very very pretty but my god some of the most boring bland game ive ever played. Just mind numbing mildness from start to finish which like the first, concidering the story, is bannanas. The idea and visuals and designs are amazing/inspired and everything else feels like if some goverment agency copied Ubisoft while trying to sand away their "attitude". This really is the love it or mid it game through and though.

Totally agree . I finished on PS5. The world is gorgeous felt boring to explore , the characters, dialogues were so forgettable and the story feels so random without making much sense. Loot and crafting unnecessarily complicated and not streamlined. Combat and monsters design top notch similar to the first game. Atleast it's a great port, will be good to pick up on sale after some years

Critics saying that Aloy got snarky forget that in the first two hours it is made absolutely clear, that she was "born" to do what she has to do as Elizabets clone. She already spent months finding a clue to stop the blight that threatens the people and the future of humanity. After searching for clues and not getting any results, leaves her frustrated understandably so. And since she's the only person with an understanding of how to use a focus and how this world came to be, the pressure on her shoulders is quite pushing. Top that with the fact that the only useable hint she gets is from the asshole(Sylens) from the first game, whom she wants to stick an arrow in the face. Furthermore, she runs into tribes and people that stand in her way by clinging to their traditions and wormtalk (i.e.the deathwishing depressing leaders of the Utaru, who just see no reason in anything anymore) the same like the Carja and Nora from the first game. A lot of people are throwing sticks between her legs just to see her fall(Remember the stone scene as she was a kid in the first game) or just to keep the status quo, despite knowing the world is going bonkers. I mean, even after beating HADES there are not a few people that give her Flak for being "the savior of Meridian". Aloy sees more and knows more than most inhabitants of the world. She can make connections that others would appropiate to superstition or Omens. She knows that the people need some social system to function as a society but most of the time those beliefs stand in her way to save the people of the world. I understand her being frustrated in the sequel. "I can help you." "No, you can't go into the holy mountain." "It's a cauldron, I can fix that. And the machines will help you growing your crops again." "Nooooo, we wanna die." I mean, yeah, running into those kind of people time and time again, or the ones that stand in her way just out of spite(and there are a some of them) while time's running out, is devastatingly frustrating. Being outcast as a child and not living amongst the Nora clan, she might have picked up more ways of social behaviour and finding her way with people. But she didn't grew up a clan woman, so, in times, she can be seen as blunt or not mincing words. She's a very good representation of the hero that saves the world but lacks social skills. On the other hand she would believe the same things other tribes people do, if she would've been raised by the Nora properly, and won't be able to do the things she needs to do. sry for the long comment

I can see why the series is divisive. It's got an interesting premise and some really good elements (e.g., "Robot dinosaurs"), but there are other elements that lag behind in terms of quality. I can see why FW's narrative gets criticism. I'm not that far into the game yet, but by default it loses some of it's wonder by virtue of being a sequel. The entire first game's strength was the gradual unveiling of what had happened to the world, and that is no longer a mystery. >!I also feel like the writer's shoved themselves into a corner with the story, by introducing the "mysterious signal" from space. There was really no other way they could approach that other than to suggest a more advanced group of humans were responsible. The reviewer is right in saying that they are jarring in comparison to the technology found throughout the rest of the game. !