Yes it is, not even a contest. I'm still disappointed over the "multiplayer" patch... What a pile of rubbish that was. Though I suppose that would mean it suits the game as a whole.
Unless that's an Xbox jab, I have no idea where you made that up. It's one of the most fun I've played in a while... but I don't know, maybe I'm just tires of these linear, hold your hand single player games with well presented, forgettable stories (Such as most PS4 exclusives.)
I can see the comparison. But it's a much better game than No Man's Sky, even after all the patches. I think it's a fun game. It's not meant to be an RPG with 40 hours of focused story, but it's great for a more casual game session either alone or with a team. I hope it gets plenty of updates, because the core game is just too good to give up on.
Looks like you weren't disappointed.
Yes, that's why they've given plenty of high scores to PlayStation games over the years. This sounds like a bad, rushed review. It's not like IGN are even IGN anymore, they've lost most, if not all their core staff. But I don't think this review was biased, as bad as it is.
As an Xbox One X owner... I have to say this is the best looking game on the console yet. The colours in and out of the water, along with the skyline and lighting, are absolutely beautiful. Perfect example of what HDR can do.
Alright. So how would this compete with Days Gone, in your eyes? The multiplayer aspect will attract a much larger audience, so surely Days Gone should be somewhat worried? State of Decay 2 will sell the majority of its copies in the first few months, as with most games. So on that front, WWZ shouldn't beat it up too badly. Due to the release dates and style of zombies, I would say Days Gone has more to worry about. But even then... No, neither will ...
That's to be expected. This is a multiplayer only game, so it's logical that reviews can only come out once the servers are active. Due to the possible size of the game, a review may not work with only a handful of reviewers playing online together.
Lol there'll still be Sony fans who think the Vita is still doing well and good.
"BioWare hasn't been itself lately. Things have seemed to gradually get worse for the developer" Oh come on. Mass Effect 3, despite its huge flaws, was a great game. DA Inquisition won game of the year. Andromeda was a colossal disappointment... but I reckon it was a fairly good game in its own right. It was also made by an inexperienced BioWare team.
Yes, there was a lot of that in Uncharted 4.
This doesn't take up battery life. Sure they both have lights, but the X1 controller still lasts three times as long. I doubt it'll be as bright, either.
Persona 5 and Wolfenstein 2 had better stories, undeniably.
I disagree. It may not be as sharp, but they're still noticeably better than on a 1080p screen. Witcher 3 looks great in 60fps.
Paid map packs divide online communities. Halo 5 has expanded so much with free content drops, and it wouldn't have had the same effect if you had to pay for them. There's a line with how microtransactions are implemented, and EA has crossed it. But some games can genuinely justify them, especially if they're done well (Halo 5, Overwatch, Rocket League for example.)
That voice acting.
"with a consistent frame rate and slick controls" Yes... a consistently bad frame rate. The controls still need polishing.
It's far more jarring than that in Horizon, and it was only one example.
They packed too much in such a small world for Horizon. With such jarring changes in weather and locale, it's hard for me to say it had that great of an open world. It just wasn't believable how close desert was to snow.
Persona 5... No contest.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.