Screw that then. I still cant comprehend why everybody is still using Twitter when alternatives exist now. It's a chicken and egg problem, but it demonstrates how ultimately willing most people are to go along with something terrible so long as they aren't negatively affected by it.Musk removed the ability to see the entire threads without being logged in.
Screw that then. I still cant comprehend why everybody is still using Twitter when alternatives exist now. It's a chicken and egg problem, but it demonstrates how ultimately willing most people are to go along with something terrible so long as they aren't negatively affected by it.
Alongside Cyberpunk 2077 and Alan Wake 2, it's definitely one of the best. However, the other two games have significantly better lighting as the RT is much more elaborate and high resolution. Without a directly illuminated area nearby Avatars lighting can look a bit more monotonous than these games.
EDIT: Sony pay attention to budget of the game they made depending of the studio. Horizon Zero Dawn, Ghost of Tsushima and Days Gone all have some cutscene of lower quality than Naughty Dog title or Sony Santa Monica title. When a studio and an ip prove to be successful they increase the budget. The new Ip of Naughty Dog and Sony Santa Monica will have big budget same for ghost of Tsushima 2 after success of the first episode...
And the best proof of this is Rockstar Games with Red Dead and the biggest AAA title GTA.
This seems pretty standard for videogame shit writing. I'd say 99% of games are this bad, they just don't have the graphical presentation to make it seem so obviously bad. When it's stylized characters with terrible dialog and voice acting, it doesn't come across as so much of a big deal. It's really unfortunate to me that a lot of games are full of stuff like this. I find it very hard to play narrative games that are more than 10 hours long, because they're inevitably bogged down with tons of filler like this.
The most common complaint about Ubisoft games, which is pretty much common to all Ubisoft open world games like Assassin's Creed and Far Cry , is that the game fills the map with hundreds, if not thousands of side activities which are not interesting and lack variation. None of the games you mentioned do this.
It's not that there is a map which depicts things to do, it's having a map which depicts a handful of dull and repetitive activities, repeated hundreds of times and calling that interesting content. Personally, I just ignore that. I'm not that far into Avatar yet but I know that liberating the bases is the same mechanic as Far Cry and many Assassin's Creed games, and Ubisoft get a lot of stick because the same publisher has re-deployed the same mechanics across multiple IPs for about over a decade.
That is why it's always Ubisoft criticised. For the record, I like Assassin's Creed, and many of the Far Cry games. Avatar feels bit like the Far Cry Primal sequel we never got.
For me, these games are all more or less the same. If you want a game with an open world that is significantly better then you should play Cyberpunk 2077. It's a substantial game.I love me some Far Cry, I loved Origins and Odyssey, and I will buy Avatar, but I'm not sure you can compare those games to Spiderman or bloody ZELDA.
The reason these common RPG-lite mechanics - explore, scavenge, craft, gear-up, level-up, skill-up - are used is because they seem incredibly popular and the games they deploy them effectively sell well. But it must suck if you don't like this because there are what gamers are pretty much expecting in large open games intended for exploration.Horizon comits the same sins, same as every 1st party sony game, because they're all using the Far Cry 3 template, same as the rest of the industry - open world, activities, forts, crafting, gathering, skill trees, level up, towers, enemy tagging, batman vision, climbing, knee deep in the grass stealth, etc
The fact that you say 99% of those icons don't represent activities... is the definition of being spammed with icons. You have to turn 80% of what it spams you with off before you can start making sense of the damn thing.The reason these common RPG-lite mechanics - explore, scavenge, craft, gear-up, level-up, skill-up - are used is because they seem incredibly popular and the games they deploy them effectively sell well. But it must suck if you don't like this because there are what gamers are pretty much expecting in large open games intended for exploration.
I've not played the original Horizon for a while but I don't recall the map being spammed with icons like whoa happens in Assassin's Creed and Far Cry. I am fairly sure the map is largely empty except for destination points and the maps fill in with features as you explore. In the you posted above, 99% of these icons don't represent activities, they map is recording which types of things you have encountered in any area like enemies, and fast travel points. That is kind of the point of maps!
You asked why Ubisoft often get criticised for it, and I explained why. It's because most of their popular franchises are re-using the same mechanics, nobody here is claiming other games don't use these mechanics.I don't see Spiderman and Horizon having less activities than The Divison.
Guerilla was criticized for Ubisoft formula. But people enjoyed it otherwise because of the graphics and the setting. Spiderman is more like prototype than a Ubisoft game and was spiderman so people didn't careWell described. I also don't understand how you can't see that. All these games offer plenty of inane content. They're all not much different after all. Some may be a little blinded by love for Sony etc.
Ubisoft's "formula" seems to be well received when you see how well other games are received. It's only Ubisoft that people keep complaining about.
Yes, the huge variety of review sites who all mostly agree Ubisoft games aren't as good are just blinded by irrational Sony love. That's definitely more likely than the Sony games just being better products.Well described. I also don't understand how you can't see that. All these games offer plenty of inane content. They're all not much different after all. Some may be a little blinded by love for Sony etc.
Ubisoft's "formula" seems to be well received when you see how well other games are received. It's only Ubisoft that people keep complaining about.
The reason these common RPG-lite mechanics - explore, scavenge, craft, gear-up, level-up, skill-up - are used is because they seem incredibly popular and the games they deploy them effectively sell well. But it must suck if you don't like this because there are what gamers are pretty much expecting in large open games intended for exploration.
I've not played the original Horizon for a while but I don't recall the map being spammed with icons like whoa happens in Assassin's Creed and Far Cry. I am fairly sure the map is largely empty except for destination points and the maps fill in with features as you explore. In the you posted above, 99% of these icons don't represent activities, they map is recording which types of things you have encountered in any area like enemies, and fast travel points. That is kind of the point of maps!
HFW
Main Story
22½ Hours
Main + Sides
43½ Hours
Completionist
61 Hours
All Styles
46½ Hours
Main Story
28½ Hours
Main + Sides
61½ Hours
Completionist
88 Hours
All Styles
64½ Hours
Main Story
30 Hours
Main + Sides
52½ Hours
Completionist
84½ Hours
All Styles
56½ Hours
Main Story
45½ Hours
Main + Sides
84 Hours
Completionist
143 Hours
All Styles
93½ Hours
Main Story
61 Hours
Main + Sides
96½ Hours
Completionist
144 Hours
All Styles
104 Hours
Main Story
51½ Hours
Main + Sides
103 Hours
Completionist
173 Hours
All Styles
102 Hours
I honestly don't see what the issue is with all the side objectives. They're optional! If you don't want to do them - just don't. I get that people would complain if the world was empty and lifeless but not that there is too much, optional stuff to do. For my part I appreciate having lots of activities all over the map that I can divert to enroute to my main objective if I wish, it makes the world feel more alive. I rarely go out of my way to 'clear' all of those activities though because that just makes the world seem dead again.
And some Ubisoft games are better than others at letting you turn off map icons for side or online objectives, which is the ideal. Then there are grind-fest mechanics like Assassin's Creed Odyssey, which is a damn amazing game until you hit the grind-fest of identifying cult members which is where I've checked out of the game twice twice. This feels like it should be an option side activity to track down extra loot but instead it's a repetitive obstacle in the mainline quest.I honestly don't see what the issue is with all the side objectives. They're optional! If you don't want to do them - just don't. I get that people would complain if the world was empty and lifeless but not that there is too much, optional stuff to do.