Horizon Zero Dawn leaked review?

[CritialGaming]

It is interesting that the review embargo is so early for this game. Which is a good sign, and usually means that the publisher is confident that the game is good. Frankly it has always looked good, despite some questionable things I saw in gameplay videos. I look forward to getting the game on release and putting my own thoughts to it. Sadly I'll clearly be way behind review embargo when I finally get to touch it, still user reviews are often just as valid, and sometimes less gushy.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Was going to post that review link, ninja'd by nat's first pubic hair. I don't see why people such as Batman, Bond and Geralt can get by as strong, unchallenged unflawed protagonists, but females are instead some conspiracy infiltration to taint the medium of everything for everyone. Curious double standard seems to pop up every time.

You can't win writing a female in this day and age. Someone will always ***** about something and it's always annoying when it happens. Honest I understand why developers just don't listen to people most of the time. Most of the time it's nothing but mindless bitching.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It is interesting that the review embargo is so early for this game. Which is a good sign, and usually means that the publisher is confident that the game is good. Frankly it has always looked good, despite some questionable things I saw in gameplay videos. I look forward to getting the game on release and putting my own thoughts to it. Sadly I'll clearly be way behind review embargo when I finally get to touch it, still user reviews are often just as valid, and sometimes less gushy.

Honestly these really early reviews kinda piss me off. Youtube is plastered in Horizon reviews and I still need to wait 9 days till it gets released. I could sort of understand if the release was different from region to region, but I think even America still needs to wait atleast a week. What's the point in getting these reviews up so early when nobody that isn't in games journalism can even play it yet? You're getting people all hyped to go out and buy it, and then they can't for the next week.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Wasn't Killzone 2 reviewed like almost a month before release? lol I seem to remember the whole process of that game's launch...jeez, you'd think they were launching a space shuttle.

 

[CritialGaming]

It is interesting that the review embargo is so early for this game. Which is a good sign, and usually means that the publisher is confident that the game is good. Frankly it has always looked good, despite some questionable things I saw in gameplay videos. I look forward to getting the game on release and putting my own thoughts to it. Sadly I'll clearly be way behind review embargo when I finally get to touch it, still user reviews are often just as valid, and sometimes less gushy.

Honestly these really early reviews kinda piss me off. Youtube is plastered in Horizon reviews and I still need to wait 9 days till it gets released. I could sort of understand if the release was different from region to region, but I think even America still needs to wait atleast a week. What's the point in getting these reviews up so early when nobody that isn't in games journalism can even play it yet? You're getting people all hyped to go out and buy it, and then they can't for the next week.

Well because it builds hype for it. Now you not only know the game is good, the game is once again fresh in your mind a week before release so you will be eager to buy it. Hell Gamestop is probably happy because they are all about the pre-orders and since the reviews all say the game is good, it helps justify the pre-ordering culture. You might have to wait to play it, but you can buy it now. Plus if you pre-order on amazon you might end up getting the game early because sometimes they deliver ahead of street date.

Don't pre-order it. Just wait and buy it later. If the review hype bothers you, don't read them until it is closer to being on store shelves, as hard as it might be due to the flood of reviewing coming out.

 

[Zhukov]

You have access to review copy? Reveal me all your secrets!! The game doesn't come out till the 28th I thought.

Not quite, but I have access to someone who receives review copies of games. He also gets his hands on demonstration builds from time to time.

So every now and again I get to try out a game early. The downside being that I'll only get a few hours of random gameplay and on someone else's save file. (Seriously, playing with other people's character builds is the fucking worst. I swear he picks his skills by flipping a coin.)

 

[Casual Shinji]

Well because it builds hype for it. Now you not only know the game is good, the game is once again fresh in your mind a week before release so you will be eager to buy it. Hell Gamestop is probably happy because they are all about the pre-orders and since the reviews all say the game is good, it helps justify the pre-ordering culture. You might have to wait to play it, but you can buy it now. Plus if you pre-order on amazon you might end up getting the game early because sometimes they deliver ahead of street date.

Don't pre-order it. Just wait and buy it later. If the review hype bothers you, don't read them until it is closer to being on store shelves, as hard as it might be due to the flood of reviewing coming out.

There's plenty of promotional material that builds pre-release hype though. The purpose of a review is for the average consumer to make a decision on whether or not they want to consume something. And that's a bit aggravating when the product in question isn't even out yet. Two days before release, okay, but a whole week? That just ticks me off. I mean, if it's fit for review then just release it.

 

[CritialGaming]

Well because it builds hype for it. Now you not only know the game is good, the game is once again fresh in your mind a week before release so you will be eager to buy it. Hell Gamestop is probably happy because they are all about the pre-orders and since the reviews all say the game is good, it helps justify the pre-ordering culture. You might have to wait to play it, but you can buy it now. Plus if you pre-order on amazon you might end up getting the game early because sometimes they deliver ahead of street date.

Don't pre-order it. Just wait and buy it later. If the review hype bothers you, don't read them until it is closer to being on store shelves, as hard as it might be due to the flood of reviewing coming out.

There's plenty of promotional material that builds pre-release hype though. The purpose of a review is for the average consumer to make a decision on whether or not they want to consume something. And that's a bit aggravating when the product in question isn't even out yet. Two days before release, okay, but a whole week? That just ticks me off. I mean, if it's fit for review then just release it.

That's a valid argument really. However promotional material doesn't have the same impact as people actually coming out and saying "Yes the hype is real, the game is legit good it is totally worth the hype behind it". Aliens Colonial Marines had promotional material, and that game was the Atari's E.T. of the modern era (Dogshit, if you don't get that reference). So there is a difference.

Yeah the reviews are a little on the early side, but again I think it is to try and promote pre-ordering over anything else. And since reviews get the most clicks immediately after embargo goes up, everyone has to release their reviews within a few hours of each or risk the review getting left behind for the most part.

It's all business tactics really. Just sit tight and it'll be next Tuesday before you know it. In the meantime, play Nioh because that game is fucking amazing and it's out now!

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

The only review I've seen give Horizon a bad score is USgamer, with a 2.5/5

(Link: http://www.usgamer.net/articles/horizon-zero-dawn-review)

Horizon Zero Dawn is disappointing. It has a story that I struggled to care about (complete with massive expository dumps-yay), a bland protagonist, and overtly repetitive and constraining missions that worked against its open world sensibilities. When Horizon Zero Dawn hit its rare strides-from its gloomy Cauldrons to traveling across its sprawling vistas-it only made me wish the rest of the game were as worthwhile.

This review basically confirmed that I'm getting this game. Repetitive and boring side-quests are my fuckin' bread n' butter!

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Not quite, but I have access to someone who receives review copies of games. He also gets his hands on demonstration builds from time to time.

So every now and again I get to try out a game early. The downside being that I'll only get a few hours of random gameplay and on someone else's save file. (Seriously, playing with other people's character builds is the fucking worst. I swear he picks his skills by flipping a coin.)

Ah, that does sound pretty handy and interesting, aside the whole jumping-into-an-unknown-build part. Perhaps it is all part of a discrete and elaborate test of your skills.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

The only review I've seen give Horizon a bad score is USgamer, with a 2.5/5

(Link: http://www.usgamer.net/articles/horizon-zero-dawn-review)

Horizon Zero Dawn is disappointing. It has a story that I struggled to care about (complete with massive expository dumps-yay), a bland protagonist, and overtly repetitive and constraining missions that worked against its open world sensibilities. When Horizon Zero Dawn hit its rare strides-from its gloomy Cauldrons to traveling across its sprawling vistas-it only made me wish the rest of the game were as worthwhile.

This review basically confirmed that I'm getting this game. Repetitive and boring side-quests are my fuckin' bread n' butter!

I did chuckle a little upon seeing that summary hovering nonchalantly at the bottom of metacritic after scrolling through a lengthy list of 90s. Not entirely sure why though, probably resurfaced a memory of some tired gag unexpectedly.

 

[CritialGaming]

Destructoid didn't exactly praise heavenly blowjobs for the game either. https://www.destructoid.com/review-horizon-zero-dawn-416881.phtml

Frankly I am glad to see a few not-so-hot reviews for the game because that means that it was really reviewed. I always come away a little iffy on games that universally get 80%+ reviews because it's too uniform and it means that the game has no character. These slightly below average reviews mean that there is character to the game, and individual tastes will take away different things and view the game differently.

Inb4 someone tells me that is always the case. User reviews do that, but the problem with user reviews is that they are much more susceptible to fanboy hype or hate. While there are surely good user reviewers out there, I find them hard to spot in the midst of Metacritic user reviews or what have you.

That's why I try to read at least four reviews of a game, usually 1 good, 1 bad, and 2 in between in order to get a full picture of what is good and bad about any given title.

 

[Catfood220]

Here is a review from Gamecentral, it gives a high score but it isn't as gushy as the first review in this thread and Jim Sterlings review.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/20/horizon-zero-dawn-review-mechanical-animals-6459856/

It is pretty much as I expected, a solid 8 out of ten.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Well because it builds hype for it. Now you not only know the game is good, the game is once again fresh in your mind a week before release so you will be eager to buy it. Hell Gamestop is probably happy because they are all about the pre-orders and since the reviews all say the game is good, it helps justify the pre-ordering culture. You might have to wait to play it, but you can buy it now. Plus if you pre-order on amazon you might end up getting the game early because sometimes they deliver ahead of street date.

Don't pre-order it. Just wait and buy it later. If the review hype bothers you, don't read them until it is closer to being on store shelves, as hard as it might be due to the flood of reviewing coming out.

There's plenty of promotional material that builds pre-release hype though. The purpose of a review is for the average consumer to make a decision on whether or not they want to consume something. And that's a bit aggravating when the product in question isn't even out yet. Two days before release, okay, but a whole week? That just ticks me off. I mean, if it's fit for review then just release it.

The problem is people seem to wait for reviews almost as much (if not more in some twisted cases) as the games themselves. Sure, they probably have more than enough sitting in stores already, but the business logistics/marketing side of things of course take prevalence.

In any case it doesn't bother me. I still have plenty else to do in the meantime, and my amazon package will be waiting there for me to bust open when the time is right.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

The only review I've seen give Horizon a bad score is USgamer, with a 2.5/5

(Link: http://www.usgamer.net/articles/horizon-zero-dawn-review)

Horizon Zero Dawn is disappointing. It has a story that I struggled to care about (complete with massive expository dumps-yay), a bland protagonist, and overtly repetitive and constraining missions that worked against its open world sensibilities. When Horizon Zero Dawn hit its rare strides-from its gloomy Cauldrons to traveling across its sprawling vistas-it only made me wish the rest of the game were as worthwhile.

This review basically confirmed that I'm getting this game. Repetitive and boring side-quests are my fuckin' bread n' butter!

I did chuckle a little upon seeing that summary hovering nonchalantly at the bottom of metacritic after scrolling through a lengthy list of 90s. Not entirely sure why though, probably resurfaced a memory of some tired gag unexpectedly.

The thing about those types of reviews though is they're usually from no-name places trying to stand out if nothing else, with little in the way of critically objective insight to offer. One must wonder how they establish their critique parameters...maybe they just really value good voice acting and well-paced mission structure above all else.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

What I took away from the Destructoid review is that it's awesome until the obligatory story butts in to say, "Hey, over here...I'm the main part of the game so let's you stop what you're doing and tag along with me for a while. It'll be fun, I swear!"

The fact that it's a fun, intelligently designed open world game without it is a testament to GG's design experience, but unfortunately it seems that driving a story once again goes cross-grain to gameplay. Really, I can tolerate a story when it's something well written and well-paced like the Uncharted series, but scripted, cinematic stuff can still at best only hope to be half as good as whatever is playable. I honestly never remember "story" in games; perhaps more accurately, I just don't care to. Why? Because so far no game has given me a good enough reason to do so. The gameplay should be good enough to tell a story itself, ala Souls. The less a player is broken away from the interactive element that makes gaming so unique, the better.

I honestly don't even want to play the next GTA if it's just going to be another by-the-numbers, pompous gangbanger dramedy, tied together by matching notorious fetch quests.

If anything from last gen thru now has been proven, it's that we should be steering towards more self-authored game design, with scripted, cinematic stuff being reserved only for games where there is little gameplay to be had in the first place. See Telltale.

 

[CritialGaming]

snip

That's a little extreme don't you think?

The biggest problem when it comes to gameplay versus story, is the type of game it is to begin with. Open world games, have a very hard time telling a meaningful story because they rely on the player to have some sort of agency with it. This counters the overall design of open world games to be a sandbox which can often flood the player with so much busy work and side questing that the player loses all attachment to the main story whenever they bother to return to it.

Whereas you take a game like The Last of Us, and you can't even compare the story between it and a open world experience. Even in extended gameplay sections of TLoU, your entire motivation is to get the characters through a gave section for story reasons and as a result you are never taken out of the story because the gameplay directly enhances the story.

You have to take things for what they are in terms of there limitations. Games are very much limited by the player experience. Because they are interactive, the game must accommodate certain things in order to make a functional game while still telling a story.

Or games can say "fuck it" and not bother telling you a story. Dark Souls, for example, doesn't tell you shit. The entire game provides you with only a vague end goal in mind and leaves you to get through the game as best you can. The challenge of getting through an area or discovering items, or defeating a new boss is what pushes you forward. The gameplay is why you play, nothing more. And it is great for what it is, but I don't think it is a fair comparison to other games actively trying to tell you a story.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

This review just popped up on my Youtube feed and it has me rather excited for Horizon Zero Dawn. Seems like the writing is at least solid and the gameplay looks to be really really good.


---

The gameplay should be good enough to tell a story itself, ala Souls. The less a player is broken away from the interactive element that makes gaming so unique, the better.

I honestly don't even want to play the next GTA if it's just going to be another by-the-numbers, pompous gangbanger dramedy, tied together by matching notorious fetch quests.

If anything from last gen thru now has been proven, it's that we should be steering towards more self-authored game design, with scripted, cinematic stuff being reserved only for games where there is little gameplay to be had in the first place. See Telltale.

Since when is reading item descriptions part of gameplay?

The problem with GTA and Dan Houser's writing is that it thinks it's actually good while being nothing but hack writing. Just imagine if a real critic analyzed GTA's writing.

The great thing about games is that they can use anything to tell their stories from straight-up movie quality cutscenes to literal books on virtual book shelves to gameplay itself. A lot of times what makes a scene so powerful, whether a game or movie, is the little things; the acting performance, the delivery, the framing, the music, etc. Being able to move around and move the camera as Joel or Ellie in TLoU would've totally killed the scene at the very end of the game. Also, the majority of gameplay is trying to stay alive since games are so addicted to combat and how are you supposed to focus on important dialog, character moments, themes when you're not paying full attention? Unless you consider looting a random room while someone is talking to you to be "gameplay". I'm not opposed to telling story and building characters through gameplay like Team ICO games (far exceeding a Souls game) but that's not going to work for everything. Nothing works for everything thus saying you can't use certain tools that do indeed work for certain things only will limit the medium.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

snip

That's a little extreme don't you think?

Maybe, but not as extreme as the constant teetering between non-interactive story and gameplay that most games seem to suffer. At this point the less we have to rely on deliberate cutscenes the better.

A good example of practical, effective cutscene application would be on bootup before the title screen to set a mood or backstory, an NPC's recollection of a past event that needs illustration, an ending where control is naturally taken away, etc. Most story points can be moved forward in-game at this point without taking control away from the player though. I think everything should feel like an extension of gameplay, even if it's just walking or having a conversation with an NPC. I like the idea of walking up to and starting a conversation or other interaction without the screen changing and control being taken away until whatever is said and done. I have a feeling the new God of War will do this very well. I think the ultimate goal is to blot out the line between interaction and passivity as much as possible.

Since when is reading item descriptions part of gameplay?

When you're still interactive with it and don't have to wait for anything else to play out. Imagine how frustrating it would be to play Souls if every time you find something a cutscene or scripted event is triggered to explain it.

 

[Poetic Nova]

Well, this means that I'll surely get the game down the line. Other stuf got priority however.