@SecretPolice: Everything’s better with more cowbell. 😅
But Nintendo have always made games that look like this regardless of their platform.
False. GC, the last system that wasn't generations behind competition, they had plenty of reaslistic looking titles. Same applies to the N64, another system that wasn't behind the rest by 10 years. Only now that they're ONLY focusing on simplistic art directions because that's all they can achieve with their toaster. Hell, even the WiiU. Outdated compared to 8th gen, but still strong compared to the 7th gen, which is what we had when the system came out.
And what "realistic" games did Nintendo make on the GameCube?
I mean, for the full list, you gotta be looking at what was released on the system. I can't be remembering everything that was released on a system almost 20 years ago. RE4 was an exclusive at the beginning, and showcased its visuals very well. Eternal Darkness, Star Wars RS, Metroid Prime2, etc. All these more realistic titles that were released on the system looked great for their time. On the Switch, there isn't a single reaslistic title that looks half decent, let alone "good looking".
RE4 and Star Wars Rogue Squadron was built from the ground up for the Gamecube. It wasn't a port.
Eternal Darkness is an enhanced N64 game and looks like it.
There's nothing stopping Nintendo making more Prime games.
Gamespot score is rocking hard and the usual IGN and Metacritic cry as some folks seek help.😂
Like clockwork. Fanboys love changing the rules here when their stuff flops
But Nintendo have always made games that look like this regardless of their platform.
False. GC, the last system that wasn't generations behind competition, they had plenty of reaslistic looking titles. Same applies to the N64, another system that wasn't behind the rest by 10 years. Only now that they're ONLY focusing on simplistic art directions because that's all they can achieve with their toaster. Hell, even the WiiU. Outdated compared to 8th gen, but still strong compared to the 7th gen, which is what we had when the system came out.
Your brilliant assessment lines up perfectly with Nintendo's public announcement that they will no longer compete with Playstation or Xbox.
What does your Nintendo obsession have to do with Horizon?
EVERYTHING
How did you come up with GameCube being the last competing console?
It's almost like Nintendo made an announcement around that time they were no longer in direct competition.
Tell me, how did you figure that one out?
At least Nintendo lived up to their word, just like Sony who was for backwards compatibil--actually, nevermind, they took away that feature barely a year into the PS3's lifespan.
They did live up to their words. Creating ugly games generation after generation. If the other two were like Nintendo, we'd be in the stone age still.
False. GC, the last system that wasn't generations behind competition, they had plenty of reaslistic looking titles. Same applies to the N64, another system that wasn't behind the rest by 10 years. Only now that they're ONLY focusing on simplistic art directions because that's all they can achieve with their toaster. Hell, even the WiiU. Outdated compared to 8th gen, but still strong compared to the 7th gen, which is what we had when the system came out.
Your brilliant assessment lines up perfectly with Nintendo's public announcement that they will no longer compete with Playstation or Xbox.
What does your Nintendo obsession have to do with Horizon?
In the locked thread, there was a BOTW comparison with Horizon.
False. GC, the last system that wasn't generations behind competition, they had plenty of reaslistic looking titles. Same applies to the N64, another system that wasn't behind the rest by 10 years. Only now that they're ONLY focusing on simplistic art directions because that's all they can achieve with their toaster. Hell, even the WiiU. Outdated compared to 8th gen, but still strong compared to the 7th gen, which is what we had when the system came out.
And what "realistic" games did Nintendo make on the GameCube?
I mean, for the full list, you gotta be looking at what was released on the system. I can't be remembering everything that was released on a system almost 20 years ago. RE4 was an exclusive at the beginning, and showcased its visuals very well. Eternal Darkness, Star Wars RS, Metroid Prime2, etc. All these more realistic titles that were released on the system looked great for their time. On the Switch, there isn't a single reaslistic title that looks half decent, let alone "good looking".
RE4 and Star Wars Rogue Squadron was built from the ground up for the Gamecube. It wasn't a port.
Eternal Darkness is an enhanced N64 game and looks like it.
There's nothing stopping Nintendo making more Prime games.
Who said otherwise? I said that RE4 was ported later on to other systems, but of course it was built for the GC. That's my whole point. Back when Nintendo systems were capable of rendering more than a colorful potato on screen, they did have reaslistic looking titles (which looked great for their time). Now, now its simply impossible.
@hardwenzen: you sure are attracted to ugly things because you talk about those things more than things you actually enjoy.
Your 2009 Demon's Souls port is waiting for you.
Don't make me post a bunch of my VERY JUICY Demon's pics, buddy.
@SolidGame_basic: it's interesting because a lot of games use the side quest characters to do the world building by telling you stuff, but in HZD the side quest peoples' dialog (and even the purpose of the quest - "my boy's in a tree!") were kind of secondary; they were there, and gave a reason to do it I guess, but the exploration, the things you found, and the combat encounters along the way really did the heavy lifting for me (which I kind of liked)
8 is great in my book. Not as great as Halo: Infinite or The Medium but still great. Hopefully it has a high Twitch view count though.
Looking forward to playing myself in the future.
😄 trying to throw some shade, huh? Last time I checked, 89 beats 87 (Halo) and 71 (Medium) 😎
@hardwenzen: you sure are attracted to ugly things because you talk about those things more than things you actually enjoy.
Your 2009 Demon's Souls port is waiting for you.
Don't make me post a bunch of my VERY JUICY Demon's pics, buddy.
The fact you excuse games known for being butt-ass ugly yet trash games for being "butt-ass ugly" on other systems goes to show you can't even live up to your shallow standards.
At least be consistent.
RE4 and Star Wars Rogue Squadron was built from the ground up for the Gamecube. It wasn't a port.
Eternal Darkness is an enhanced N64 game and looks like it.
There's nothing stopping Nintendo making more Prime games.
Who said otherwise? I said that RE4 was ported later on to other systems, but of course it was built for the GC. That's my whole point. Back when Nintendo system were capable of rendering more than a colorful potato on screen, they did have reaslistic looking titles (which looked great for their time). Now, now its simply impossible.
But the games you mentioned earlier are ports. "Titles such as Apex, TW3, Doom Eternal, MK11, etc?".
So how are they the same as Resident Evil 4 and Rogue Squadron?
Looks like Horizon:FW is scoring just as expected. high 80s. 87-89 @ mc kind of game.
Elden Ring to be hitting those 95 @ mc scores
8 is great in my book. Not as great as Halo: Infinite or The Medium but still great. Hopefully it has a high Twitch view count though.
Looking forward to playing myself in the future.
😄 trying to throw some shade, huh? Last time I checked, 89 beats 87 (Halo) and 71 (Medium) 😎
9 > 8
@SolidGame_basic: Nope, no shade. Just going by the scores given out here by GameSpot. Or are they no longer as relevant here as I was led to believe? 😐
@SolidGame_basic: Nope, no shade. Just going by the scores given out here by GameSpot. Or are they no longer as relevant here as I was led to believe? 😐
There was a time in SW where Gamespot scores were all that mattered. Not anymore.
I dunno what the fuss is, an 8/10 is a great score. I guess calling something a great score is now throwing shade at the game in question.
8 is great in my book. Not as great as Halo: Infinite or The Medium but still great. Hopefully it has a high Twitch view count though.
Looking forward to playing myself in the future.
😄 trying to throw some shade, huh? Last time I checked, 89 beats 87 (Halo) and 71 (Medium) 😎
9 > 8
what's more impressive, one review, or 92 reviews 😎
RE4 and Star Wars Rogue Squadron was built from the ground up for the Gamecube. It wasn't a port.
Eternal Darkness is an enhanced N64 game and looks like it.
There's nothing stopping Nintendo making more Prime games.
Who said otherwise? I said that RE4 was ported later on to other systems, but of course it was built for the GC. That's my whole point. Back when Nintendo system were capable of rendering more than a colorful potato on screen, they did have reaslistic looking titles (which looked great for their time). Now, now its simply impossible.
But the games you mentioned earlier are ports. "Titles such as Apex, TW3, Doom Eternal, MK11, etc?".
So how are they the same as Resident Evil 4 and Rogue Squadron?
omg!!!! Yes, they're ports because that's all there is on the system. Nintendo, as i have mentioned above, don't even bother with making realistic looking titles because they know their system, and their system cannot handle anything but colorful potato visuals. When a realistic game comes out on a Switch, its 100% a lazy/ugly port. When we're looking at the GC, this wasn't the case. Nintendo themselves made realistic looking titles for it, and third party made realistic looking titles for Nintendo's GC, and they looked great, because the hardware was good for its time.
@jaydan: Not sure what the fuss is either. I clearly said that 8 is a great score for me and I’m looking forward to playing the game someday as well. I’ve always said that I think this game looks great. 🤷♂️
@jaydan: Not sure what the fuss is either. I clearly said that 8 is a great score for me and I’m looking forward to playing the game someday as well. I’ve always said that I think this game looks great. 🤷♂️
How dare you say that! Take that back! Smh
Those are some weird reasons on "The Bad" column.
Good score, looking forward to it!
I noticed that. Especially the complaint about other characters being more interesting than Aloy. We literally played her backstory in the first game. Either way, I enjoyed the first one so it looks like I'm going to dig this one too.
8 is great in my book. Not as great as Halo: Infinite or The Medium but still great. Hopefully it has a high Twitch view count though.
Looking forward to playing myself in the future.
😄 trying to throw some shade, huh? Last time I checked, 89 beats 87 (Halo) and 71 (Medium) 😎
9 > 8
what's more impressive, one review, or 92 reviews 😎
Depends on the agenda 😎
Eurogamer
No Recommendation
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2022-02-14-horizon-forbidden-west-review
RIP :(
It's a real shame. While it's undoubtedly another accomplished game in terms of technical achievement and sheer visual spectacle - I'm reminded again of those incredible faces, and one particularly outstanding underwater level - I've enjoyed Forbidden West less than Zero Dawn. The main story has major issues, and the level design made it difficult for me to play the way I had previously enjoyed, while making a lot of the newer systems feel redundant. Beyond that, the sense is of a game where Guerrilla has cobbled together RPG building blocks often without making them work within the context of its own game, and in some cases actively worsening Horizon Forbidden West as a result. I don't expect groundbreaking innovation, but with using well-established elements there's always the danger of them having been done better elsewhere. Unfortunately, with Horizon Forbidden West that's often the case.
Eurogamer
No Recommendation
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2022-02-14-horizon-forbidden-west-review
RIP :(
It's a real shame. While it's undoubtedly another accomplished game in terms of technical achievement and sheer visual spectacle - I'm reminded again of those incredible faces, and one particularly outstanding underwater level - I've enjoyed Forbidden West less than Zero Dawn. The main story has major issues, and the level design made it difficult for me to play the way I had previously enjoyed, while making a lot of the newer systems feel redundant. Beyond that, the sense is of a game where Guerrilla has cobbled together RPG building blocks often without making them work within the context of its own game, and in some cases actively worsening Horizon Forbidden West as a result. I don't expect groundbreaking innovation, but with using well-established elements there's always the danger of them having been done better elsewhere. Unfortunately, with Horizon Forbidden West that's often the case.
I think differing opinions are good. That's why I like to look at it holistically, not just from one site.
According to DF, there was a day one patch released while they were doing their analysis. Maybe this reviewer finished their playthrough before the patch arrived. Publishers should really make sure these games are ready to go before reviewers start taking a look if they genuinely care about the scores. Sony, especially, seems to really care about media perception so you'd think they would get that patch out asap.
Eurogamer
No Recommendation
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2022-02-14-horizon-forbidden-west-review
RIP :(
It's a real shame. While it's undoubtedly another accomplished game in terms of technical achievement and sheer visual spectacle - I'm reminded again of those incredible faces, and one particularly outstanding underwater level - I've enjoyed Forbidden West less than Zero Dawn. The main story has major issues, and the level design made it difficult for me to play the way I had previously enjoyed, while making a lot of the newer systems feel redundant. Beyond that, the sense is of a game where Guerrilla has cobbled together RPG building blocks often without making them work within the context of its own game, and in some cases actively worsening Horizon Forbidden West as a result. I don't expect groundbreaking innovation, but with using well-established elements there's always the danger of them having been done better elsewhere. Unfortunately, with Horizon Forbidden West that's often the case.
I think differing opinions are good. That's why I like to look at it holistically, not just from one site.
As do I. Eurogamer is my preferred review site. But I don't buy or not buy because of them. I bought Horizon Forbidden West because I liked Horizon Zero Dawn.
According to DF, there was a day one patch released while they were doing their analysis. Maybe this reviewer finished their playthrough before the patch arrived. Publishers should really make sure these games are ready to go before reviewers start taking a look if they genuinely care about the scores. Sony, especially, seems to really care about media perception so you'd think they would get that patch out asap.
I agree. Reviews should not be allowed until the day one patches are applied (assuming there is one). Then they can start the review process. But it's marketing and promotion of their game before the release, so I get why they are allowing it.
I think differing opinions are good. That's why I like to look at it holistically, not just from one site.
As do I. Eurogamer is my preferred review site. But I don't buy or not buy because of them. I bought Horizon Forbidden West because I liked Horizon Zero Dawn.
According to DF, there was a day one patch released while they were doing their analysis. Maybe this reviewer finished their playthrough before the patch arrived. Publishers should really make sure these games are ready to go before reviewers start taking a look if they genuinely care about the scores. Sony, especially, seems to really care about media perception so you'd think they would get that patch out asap.
I agree. Reviews should not be allowed until the day one patches are applied (assuming there is one). Then they can start the review process. But it's marketing and promotion of their game before the release, so I get why they are allowing it.
They should distribute whatever consumers are going to get and reviewers have no choice but to assume that that's what consumers will get. I don't blame the reviewers. If Sony says, "here tell me what you think" and then a few days later says "oh btw I fixed this stuff" I wouldn't want to go back and redo my review.
I think differing opinions are good. That's why I like to look at it holistically, not just from one site.
As do I. Eurogamer is my preferred review site. But I don't buy or not buy because of them. I bought Horizon Forbidden West because I liked Horizon Zero Dawn.
According to DF, there was a day one patch released while they were doing their analysis. Maybe this reviewer finished their playthrough before the patch arrived. Publishers should really make sure these games are ready to go before reviewers start taking a look if they genuinely care about the scores. Sony, especially, seems to really care about media perception so you'd think they would get that patch out asap.
I agree. Reviews should not be allowed until the day one patches are applied (assuming there is one). Then they can start the review process. But it's marketing and promotion of their game before the release, so I get why they are allowing it.
They should distribute whatever consumers are going to get and reviewers have no choice but to assume that that's what consumers will get. I don't blame the reviewers. If Sony says, "here tell me what you think" and then a few days later says "oh btw I fixed this stuff" I wouldn't want to go back and redo my review.
Along those lines, look at games like GT Sport and Sea of Thieves. These live service games a couple years later would have greatly improved scores if that content (and bug fixes) was there on day one. But you can't fix old scores. And metacritic and opencritic aren't going to open up a secondary score for them.
RE4 and Star Wars Rogue Squadron was built from the ground up for the Gamecube. It wasn't a port.
Eternal Darkness is an enhanced N64 game and looks like it.
There's nothing stopping Nintendo making more Prime games.
Who said otherwise? I said that RE4 was ported later on to other systems, but of course it was built for the GC. That's my whole point. Back when Nintendo system were capable of rendering more than a colorful potato on screen, they did have reaslistic looking titles (which looked great for their time). Now, now its simply impossible.
But the games you mentioned earlier are ports. "Titles such as Apex, TW3, Doom Eternal, MK11, etc?".
So how are they the same as Resident Evil 4 and Rogue Squadron?
omg!!!! Yes, they're ports because that's all there is on the system. Nintendo, as i have mentioned above, don't even bother with making realistic looking titles because they know their system, and their system cannot handle anything but colorful potato visuals. When a realistic game comes out on a Switch, its 100% a lazy/ugly port. When we're looking at the GC, this wasn't the case. Nintendo themselves made realistic looking titles for it, and third party made realistic looking titles for Nintendo's GC, and they looked great, because the hardware was good for its time.
Do they sell well? Resident Evil sold badly on the GameCube. Capcom put a clause in the exclusivity contract that stated, if it didn't sell well, they could take it else where.
That's probably a bigger reason as to why these games aren't built from the ground up on the system.
RE4 and Star Wars Rogue Squadron was built from the ground up for the Gamecube. It wasn't a port.
Eternal Darkness is an enhanced N64 game and looks like it.
There's nothing stopping Nintendo making more Prime games.
Who said otherwise? I said that RE4 was ported later on to other systems, but of course it was built for the GC. That's my whole point. Back when Nintendo system were capable of rendering more than a colorful potato on screen, they did have reaslistic looking titles (which looked great for their time). Now, now its simply impossible.
But the games you mentioned earlier are ports. "Titles such as Apex, TW3, Doom Eternal, MK11, etc?".
So how are they the same as Resident Evil 4 and Rogue Squadron?
omg!!!! Yes, they're ports because that's all there is on the system. Nintendo, as i have mentioned above, don't even bother with making realistic looking titles because they know their system, and their system cannot handle anything but colorful potato visuals. When a realistic game comes out on a Switch, its 100% a lazy/ugly port. When we're looking at the GC, this wasn't the case. Nintendo themselves made realistic looking titles for it, and third party made realistic looking titles for Nintendo's GC, and they looked great, because the hardware was good for its time.
Do they sell well? Resident Evil sold badly on the GameCube. Capcom put a clause in the exclusivity contract that stated, if it didn't sell well, they could take it else where.
That's probably a bigger reason as to why these games aren't built from the ground up on the system.
Why would you talk about sales knowing GC didn't do well a whole?
8/10 is still a fantastic score,if I had a PS5 it wouldn’t steer me away from purchasing the game at all. Review websites I think had their standards way too high for this sequel? I’m sure it’s better than the first one.
Do they sell well? Resident Evil sold badly on the GameCube. Capcom put a clause in the exclusivity contract that stated, if it didn't sell well, they could take it else where.
That's probably a bigger reason as to why these games aren't built from the ground up on the system.
Why would you talk about sales knowing GC didn't do well a whole?
The point isn't sales it's whether there's a reason these types of games aren't published for Nintendo consoles outside of hardware capabilities.
EA doesn't even release cash cow Fifa games for Nintendo consoles in any form. Do you not think this may be more of a reason?
Do they sell well? Resident Evil sold badly on the GameCube. Capcom put a clause in the exclusivity contract that stated, if it didn't sell well, they could take it else where.
That's probably a bigger reason as to why these games aren't built from the ground up on the system.
Why would you talk about sales knowing GC didn't do well a whole?
The point isn't sales it's whether there's a reason these types of games aren't published for Nintendo consoles outside of hardware capabilities.
EA doesn't even release cash cow Fifa games for Nintendo consoles in any form. Do you not think this may be more of a reason?
Look at the last fifa titles. It was a copy paste job from a previous year. The Switch is so far behind in tech, that releasing a new game on that thing is almost like building a Switch version from the groundup. Nobody wants to waste their time, unless a lazy port can be done.
Why did my thread get locked? I made my thread before TC updated and changed his thread. I feel like crying :(
I was wondering the same thing.
I had nothing to do with it. Whoever lock it didn't even leave a note either🤷♂️
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment