@cejay0813:

As I already stated, there is no live service for this game and no subscription model - nothing, zero, nada, none. There also no microtransactions at all. You pay $60 and you get a full game.

@keiser69:

Except Outriders isn't a live service game... The devs have stated this numerous times. Outriders is a full-package game. All content is included from day one and it has a start and an end. Think of loot games like Diablo 2 or Borderlands - that is the formula Outriders is using, except unlike those games, Outriders also has a fully fleshed out endgame component as well.

They are not drip-feeding us content like other games of this type do or waiting to see how many big the playerbase is before moving forward with expanding the game. You get it all from day one.

There actually is such thing as an objective review, it's just about how you construct the review. If you are writing about your take/perspective about the gameplay/story, then of course it will be subjective, but if simply give a synopsis of what the story is, what role the character plays in it, and then review measurable, demonstrable aspects of the game, like performance and technical aspects, what features the game offers, etc. then you absolutely can have an objective review.

Think of it like the Digital Foundry approach to game review, where you talk about what the game is, what it can offer, and how it performs, rather than your personal opinion on how well or not you feel it executes them.

Reviewer sites "too much to do" and how it winds up feeling superfluous, as well aesthetic choices that add "no real purpose."

- Apparently this reviewer doesn't understand the "role-playing aspect" of a role-playing game... Not everything has to equate to adding stat points or changing gameplay. rpg's are (or should be) about immersing your in the world and becoming your character.

The reviewer also admits to skipping the side quests and somehow she was tasks with reviewing an rpg, that is also the most anticipated game of the year... dafuq?...

@smackybumbum:

Many of the games showcased won't be released for at least a year, so having viable gameplay good enough to show off, may not be an option. Couple this with global pandemic going on, which has slowed or even stopped game development among the industry and this just adds to it.

CGI trailers are also used to to build hype and interest in a product, and this is pretty much always the case when a game is first being announced, which pretty much every new game shown was - a reveal trailer. Games that were being released soon or had a solid release date, were all gameplay.

And Halo did not have a visual downgrade. Infinite is going back to its roots by looking/playing more like the older games, which means the aesthetic is taking on a more "blocky" look. The draw distance was amazing, the visual fidelity was amazing, and the post processing effects, lighting and resolution will also be amazing. What was shown at the event was also a WIP build, not the finalized game.

From any relevant metric to measure graphics/visual fidelity, Infinite has not been downgraded, it's just that the overall look of the game has been changed. If you don't like the way it looks, then that's your opinion and that's fine, but it changes nothing.

@smackybumbum:
you apparently have little to no knowledge on how game development/marketing works, and why a studio would show a CGI trailer vs gameplay.

Based on the subjective nature of gaming, you can replace "XSX" with "PS5" and you question remains just as valid or asinine, depending on your perspective.

@Acheron18:
to be fair, I put little if any merit in what other people think of things, especially considering that factors other than the quality of the product (or lack of,) including issues that don't even have to do with the game itself, can be the reason(s) for why somebody will give it a positive or negative score.

Metacritic in particular will do things like add different "weights" to review scores (like having a score from a well-known source be worth more than a score from a not-so-well known source.) This isn't to try and shit on The Witcher 3, but just to add context as to why one should be cautious when basing quality off of review scores, and why I generally ignore them.

The only person's opinion that matters on the issue of "is something worth buying" or "is something good or bad," is my own.

@Acheron18:
I didn't like the Witcher 3, so I never played any dlc.