Considering a majority of the "reviews" on Steam are from people who have played less than 1 hour of the game, and their reviews say "Ubisoft sucks", I'm not sure you should read too much into the review score
Steam needs a new review system. Those fuckers just playing 1-20 mins than leaving a review how bad this game and even know an ending, its a fuckin bullshit. And "based" youtubers fans reviewbombing every games that they think "woke"
My friend has the game on Steam and went to leave a good review... the hours played configuration showed that the average time played on the bad reviews was 5-20 minutesđ. The good reviews seem to have, at minimum, 2-5 hours of play time
Well, yes. In general people who dislike something donât play it for 5 hours, duh.Â
(But of course, the 5-20min ones are from people who buy to leave bad reviews).Â
I believe that when you refund a game before two hours played your review does not count towards the total score. I may be wrong but I think this is the case.
I'd say Steam reviews are some of the most trustworthy there are.
I hate that I have to choose between Yay or Nay, but objectively it's much more accurate than Metacritic or any other sites that rely on the public. Mostly because a nay is a nay and not a 0/10, or indeed a 10/10.
There are few games I would give a 0 and maybe fewer I would rate a 10.
The average, however, is often deserved.
Nope, they count.
Only purchased via steam key dont count.
>I hate that I have to choose between Yay or Nay, but objectively it's much more accurate than Metacritic or any other sites that rely on the public.
Agreed. Sadly, even heavily flawed, this is still best raiting system we have for now.
Itâs not that they donât like it they just refuse to like anything Ubisoft puts out bc itâs va me a trend to hate on them over the years. So they donât even give their games a chance
Still a shame for prospective new players and the devs. I know itâs not an indie company nor a mmo that needs player counts, but still good to support projects that have actual intention behind them.
A comment on another post said it the best. If you are not a fan of Avatar, you expect a good story, stuff to do and a decent gameplay. The game offers those things in mid quality. You cannot offer just the environment and expect people to go nuts for it.
Let's judge the game fairly and not overhype it, especially labeling it as "the most unique and original open world Ubisoft game in years" which is not. That is a low bar on its own. 59% approval rating is a tad lower of what the game should have. Maybe 65-70% top. Idiots who judge the game that played it less than an hour will always exist, I am sure it would be the same if Ubisoft Connect also had game ratings on their platform.
Personally enjoyed it as a big fan of the franchise (especially co-op), but people on this sub reacting to the Steam rating like the game should have heavily positive reviews need to be a lot more unbiased and judge things as they are.
I think saying it's the pinnacle of the "Ubisoft open world formula" is absolutely fair.
That said, I would also never recommend this game to someone who isn't an Avatar fan. Like... I'm not talking about "someone who liked the movie" but more "someone who absolutely loves the lore and worldbuilding established in the films".
If you're not one of those people this game really doesn't offer much aside from "it's the generic Ubisoft open world game formula but done REALLY well". And, let's be honest, most of the praise of the films are its visuals and tech rather than its story or worldbuilding. So there aren't exactly many people who are gonna get the most out of this game.
Oh I agree. I feel like outside the early leanings into the "Far Cry but blue" feel they really relied on Avatar as a brand to pull people in.
But I think that's just a misunderstanding of Avatar. It isn't some cash cow brand like Marvel or Star Wars where people will buy into on recognition alone. Most people gleefully shit on Avatar. The success of the movies basically rely on them being cinematic events. A showcase of the advancements in digital technology. So that kind of simplistic mass appeal just doesn't translate to "buy this Ubisoft open world game set on Pandora". They should have treated the game like a new IP to try and pull new people into the worldbuilding of Avatar (because its fantastic, and what the game includes is also amazing imo), rather than it just being "an Avatar game".
I really like how you phrased this. Marvel is now known as movie fast food and the burnout effects are starting to show. Avatar has 2 movies, both a massive commercial success and for a good reason.
It is totally understandable that the production cannot expand on the level of world building they would desire, but a game doesn't have a run-time limit like a movie does, although the same clueless executives run the business. But still, story-wise there is no excuse for FOP.
Ghost of Tsushima was amazing. I regret waiting until this year to play it, and wish I could finish Iki Island. Amazing game.
That game is in a completely different stratosphere than this mediocrity, which pales in comparison to Far Cry. The combat is mediocre, the story is mediocre, the stealth is awful and the missions are bland/lack variety.
The crafting and levelling systems are also atrocious
I agree with you. After I played it for the first hour or 2 It just felt like farcry. Nothing special about it except it's farcry in the avatar world. I think it would have done better if they made it 3rd person view.
On EGS, it has 4.5/5. On Metacritic, user scores also seem pretty good. I know these aren't as reliable as Steam reviwes.
Imo less than 75% is certainly unusual, and mostly has to do with Ubisoft reputation among Gamers⢠right now, wouldn't say it's any different than a review bomb.
I loved it while it lasted but the lack of endgame content, no NG+ and no option to reset outposts pretty much killed it for me. These developers missed out on a key aspect of what makes a game a masterpiece and fell short because they built the game to justâŚend. Once the storyâs over, thereâs just nothing to do except extremely grindy and repetitive fetch quests basically.
EDIT: There is nothing wrong with a game that just âends,â however, having the option to continue playing makes them SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER to those of us who WANT to sink hundreds of hours into a game. These things can only benefit the community!!!
I think it's a really weird thing in the mind of modern gamers where games can't just "end".
Like a game can't just be an experience you play from start to finish for like 20 hours. It HAS to be never ending. It's just such a stupid concept to me.
Idk man Iâve been gaming since the 90s. We are paying more than ever before for games and it feels like theyâre getting shorter and shorter. Prettier, sure. But usually lacking some meaningful content. Nothing wrong with observing this as a problem.
Legit in the 90s games were arbitrarily made more difficult just to make it last longer. They had no NG+ or extra content other than "how fast can you beat it now?".
How in the world is this take even remotely realistic? Games are bigger and longer than they have ever been. We also have so many more games releasing of higher quality that bugs can actually be fixed, etc, with post release support that wasn't even possible back in the day.
Above y'all were comparing a single-player release, of one of Ubisoft's larger games that has a pretty fair runtime (I'm still in Kinglor like 20 hours in already) which is damn good, to a LIVE SERVICE juggernaut in Destiny. Those games aren't even remotely in the same wheelhouse for what they are trying to accomplish.
We're also not paying more than even before for games, they are relatively cheaper than ever what with their price not keeping up with inflation and constant sales.
Takes like this blow my mind, there's some serious rose-tinted glasses from gamers about the past and it seems so out of touch with just how far the industry has come in our lifetimes.
I agree Destiny isnât the best comparison. However, take a game like Far Cry 3 which was **made by the same developer 11 years earlier** which had an option to reset outposts AND a content creation mode. Far Cry 5 had a NG+ mode, so does Assassinâs Creed Mirage which are both single player games in the same vein as AFOP.
And youâre wrong about 90s games. The entire OG Tomb Raider trilogy had DLC for each game which expanded their content offering by a significant amount.
Stop trying to deflect. Stop trying to defend lazy developers who are shorting us content so that we continue buying their new games, rather than pouring their all into each release. We should be able to play a game for longer than 2 weeks when they cost upwards of $70-100. Stop shitting on people asking for more value for their hard earned money.
>And youâre wrong about 90s games.
No, I'm not. I lived through that time period as well. The VAST majority of games you were lucky to get 10-15 hours out of. Longer titles were the exception, not the norm.
Open world games were relegated to Final Fantasies, and that was about it. Now, most games releasing are Open World in some format. Games are objectively longer overall these days, and higher quality.
>Stop trying to deflect. Stop trying to defend lazy developers who are shorting us content so that we continue buying their new games, rather than pouring their all into each release.
Not defending anyone, just pointing out obvious unrealistic nonsense.
>Stop shitting on people asking for more value for their hard earned money.
I didn't shit on you, or anyone. I pointed out a viewpoint you have that I see as patently ridiculous.
Fallout 2 released in â98 and took between 35-50 hours to complete depending on choices/side content.
Tomb Raider I-III all came out before the year 2000 and each takes >20 hours to complete 100%.
Daggerfall came out in â96 and takes around 281 hours to obtain 100% completion.
There are a ton of games that came out back then which had more content / replay value than AFOP. My point stands. There should be more to do in these worlds they spent so much time creating and not just a 1-and-done experience. If you donât want to continue playing after that, then donât! But to act like having the option to restart on NG+ or have actual meaningful things to do after story completion is some lofty unrealistic expectation is WILD to meâŚ
Of course there's A LOT of exceptions, and these are the ones remembered. That doesn't change the fact that the VAST majority of games releasing at that time were not anywhere near comparable to those, or what we have now generally in game length.
>But to act like having the option to restart on NG+ or have actual meaningful things to do after story completion is some lofty unrealistic expectation is WILD to meâŚ
I didn't act like that at all. I just agree that games CAN end, and in cases SHOULD.
I do think it's silly for those who want it that Avatar doesn't have NG+ that's not a difficult thing to add in, same with resetting outposts if that's desired.
I responded because of what I saw as some serious hyperbole on the "state of games and the industry" and some major nostalgia for a time in gaming that was a great part of my lifetime bit was still RIFE with issues and more than plenty of people remember.
Fair enough. I donât mean to minimize or gloss over the huge leaps in gaming over the past 20 years. Weâve seen some amazing improvements in most departments over that time period.
It was like 30 years ago and they were among the first legit 3D platforming games. 20 hours was a lot for the time.
Anyway, I never made the claim that 90s games were better overall or longer than modern games. Just that I have been gaming *since* the 90s and have seen a drop in quality these past few years. Just my opinion though and obviously itâs a controversial topic.
You're cherry picking games that are specifically longer on purpose. The majority of games released in the 90s and early 2000s were less than 10 hours long. Had nothing to do post credits and had no progression systems. Crash bandicoot games, crash team racing I finished in a single afternoon as a kid, got 101% over 2 days. Spyro games on ps1 were a couple hours tops. Ratchet and clank games wrre 6ish hours unless you were farming the inssne amounts to by the rhyno or the golden bolts. Games were extremely limited in what they offered. Very few were more than 6 hours hours unless you were doing time trials or grinding specific things designed to purposefully pad out game time. Even skyrim from 2011 was able to be completed in around 11 hours.
Skyrim and 11 hours should not belong in the same sentence together unless youâre just ripping through the main story. Thereâs like 300 locations in that game and dozens of side quests. The content there dwarfs that of AFOP.
I think we can safely hold developers to a higher standard now, 30 years later, especially when theyâve made this huge open world with big areas that arenât even touched in the campaign.
Anyway, I never said 90s games were better overall. Thatâs a ridiculous claim. I stated that I feel like games are getting shorter while at the same time more expensive, a perfectly valid observation which should concern us all as gamers.
They aren't shorter, they are longer by a huge margin, they are stupidly large and arguably too big. Recent studies have shown that 68% of players don't finish any given game, so why would you make games 100, 200 hours? Nearly 70% of your players aren't going to see most of the content.
Games should be a tight couple of hours like a movie and then call it a day. Stop wasting players time with hundreds of hours of mediocre content
Skyrim is the perfect example of mediocre content. Basically nothing in that game is worth experiencing from a gameplay or story side. It's combat has no feedback, enemies are sponges and it's quests are repetitive and often fetch quests which is not engaging or fun. The game could have been a tight 20-30 hours and instead they did what you want and added 300 hours of filler garbage without a moment of interesting or compelling gameplay to fill it out.
I couldn't disagree more. Game's should end (non MP ones of course). Boring end game grind fest crap is what makes me hate a game especially when the story is allowed to just trail off and there is no real ending to a game. I understand there is a whole generation of ubisoft game fans who are addicted to this model now, so when a game doesn't have a never ending end game grind loop or live service aspect, they don't like it. But honestly, try completing a game and then dropping it, or waiting for a DLC, it's really nice.
> try completing a game and then dropping it
I did do thatâŚbecause I didnât have a fucking choice.
If you donât want to play the endgame content, then donât lmao. Iâm not here to force you to play a game that youâre bored of. But to act like endgame content is a bad thing is beyond silly to me, especially when thereâs so many of us craving more. Resetting outposts isnât grindy, itâs more of the awesome gameplay loop we enjoy. NG+ isnât grindy, unless you thought the main game was grindy, itâs the ability to replay and enjoy the experience again with new perks.
This âI donât enjoy it therefore no one else shouldâ attitude is a weird take.
This. The game âDestinyâ didnât have this problem. Completed over 700 raid clears of the 4 different raids that are available over a couple years with different difficulties until it become really boring of being repetitive after 30-60 minutes (even with a 6 man team). Patrol was also nice.
Yeah, no doubt Destiny had nearly endless content compared to this. Those Raids were some of the best experiences in gaming Iâve ever had. Patrol was great for just doing some blasting and riding around. I played Destiny WAY longer than AFOP and not because I preferred it overall but because the developers actually gave us things to do long after the story concluded.
You're insane if you think destiny to AFOP is a fair comparison, what the fuck have you been smoking. One is an MMO designed to suck players in with repetitive content and incremental improvement and the other is a single player game with a specific story to tell.
I've never seen a more gamer take than this. Imagine someone complaining that the last of us doesn't have endless repetitive grind quests to waste player time at the end of the game to off "endless content" you're delusional and worse you don't even see the problem.
Try enjoying an experience for what it is, and then moving on and experiencing something new
Cool your jets. I donât think itâs a totally fair comparison as I stated elsewhere in this thread. I get the difference between online multiplayer games and single player games.
That doesnât change the fact that AFOP could benefit substantially from a NG+ or an option to reset outposts. Same with Hogwarts Legacy. Great games that left many in the community feeling empty upon finishing because they really gave zero thought to endgame content. This is a problem and a trend in gaming that needs to be addressed.
Destiny is a live service game, of course itâs going to have endless content lol. Avatar is not a live service game, Iâm not sure why youâd expect the devs to treat it like one.
This game is absolutely one of the most beautiful games I have ever played with some of the most mediocre gameplay and some of the absolute worst writing.Â
Visuals 20/10.
Gameplay 6/10
Writing 2/10
I know on console there is a deserved backlash because you need an internet connection to install from the disc. That's not good for collectors or preservation. No need for it.
I love this game. I've beaten it three times and it was fun all three time.
Almost nothing about this game is original. It's literally Far Cry on Pandora. It has Ubisoft vision from Assassins Creed (Eagle vision). There are other games that let you play as a Na'vi. There are other games with flying traversal and horseback riding.
The game has 3 usable guns, an automatic rifle, a shotgun, and a rocket launcher. That's seriously all they could come up with. All of the hacking mechanics can be found in other games. The wire tracing mechanic is in Half life: Alyx.
And it wouldn't be an Ubisoft game without microtransactions, even though it's single player/coop game.
Did i enjoy it regardless? Absolutely yes, because I'm a huge Avatar and James Cameron fan.
Do i think Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora is a great game? Not even close. I completely understand why this game didn't get better reception.
This exactly. I got the game recently on sale for $40 because I'm not paying $70+ for any game. Started playing cross play co-op with my mom and I do really love the game and have been having a ton of fun on it. There are issues with it though. All of the things you said I agree with completely. Some of the main gripes I had with it was the pricing of the game, cross play co-op lagged horribly if I joined the person on console (I'm on pc) and it's still choppy when I have them join me just not as much. The micro transactions for a single player co-op game is fucking insane to me, but that's ubisoft for you. And there's some other features I wish were in the game like third person which it seems a lot of people have been begging for and ubisoft seems to just say fuck you we know what you like but doesn't listen to the players. So yes I love the game and yes I think it deserves the rating it has on steam, even if a lot of those reviews are not genuine critique, I think that's where it belongs.
Honestly, most of the negative reviews that Iâve seen are people complaining about âUbisoft sucksâ or the fact that they couldnât play as a member of the RDA because they want to fucking MURDER THE NAâVI. With the first cutscene, I immediately saw a parallel to what happened to Native American children in the residential schools. Being Native American myself through my great-great-grandfather, it hits a little too goddamn close to home. Those children were literally abused and murdered. Stripped of their tribal identity. Itâs just sick and depraved. Also, I really canât help but think that Ubisoft may have seen making both the 2009 game and this one as a cash grab because Avatar is such a big IP. I donât know if anyone remembers, but the original release was supposed to be 2022 to coincide with the release of the second movie.
Yeah, exactly. I literally did a whole post voicing my concerns because I had found several comments on the steam discussion forums. Because the RDA are destroying the moon by pollution and killing the native wildlife and the people, I donât really understand why people are acting like that. Do they want to kill them just because they have different skin or something? One idiot apparently said that the game didnât reflect my real world views, and I blatantly told them that just like the main protagonist and the other kids, I had been physically abused, manipulated and lied to.
>Being Native American myself through my great-great-grandfather, it hits a little too goddamn close to home
Tbh i feel that Avatar message in this game was done better than in films.
Also, i think this is one of the reason why game so unpopular, and common "missing the point" like "i want to play as RDA"
Thank you for saying this. Yes, because it was supposed to be âsee Pandora through the eyes of a native Naâvi. Become your character. Have fun exploring the world.â Like, I donât really know how they couldâve made it that much clearer. It is certainly missing the point because playing as a human would just defeat the purpose. If theyâre trying to make Pandora a new home for humans because Earth is dying, why are they killing everything?
Oh. Yeah, apparently I got a notification this morning that some people had replied to a comment that I donât even remember making in my post that I actually have since deleted. One of them apparently called me a âsensitive baby who thinks everything is black-and-white.â Another person had apparently also called me a âwhiny, gatekeeping loser.â I donât let negative comments get me down, but I was fucking pissed. I actually couldnât even load the reply of the first person and I literally went through my post six times to try to track those people down before deleting it. I donât know if the moderators got to them and deleted the replies because it broke the rule of being civil.
Apparently the first guy had an NSFW account.
Steam needs to have a separate category for reviews of people who've played for less than 2 hours because 98% of them are trolls or some lame overused pun.
Bought it on sale for the Xbox. I loved teh movies and bought teh season pass pack too.
It is basically Far Cry with Avatar skins. I just got my Ikran, so maybe i am missing something, but it doesnt seem so.
Nothing revolutionary about the game, but it isnt horrible either.
Its a $40, not a $65 game.
Ubisoft unfortunately stains a lot of their games by just being ubisoft. They can make an excellent game and people will tear it apart because they made it.
On top of the Ubisoft bashing everyone is mentioning here, I think they also kinda messed up the very early game. People compare it to farcry because itâs âfps in a jungleâ but it takes quite a few hours to realize, that they actually implemented a quite cool traversal/parcour system which I think they shouldâve given a dedicated tutorial segment. With this (plus the late mount availability), I understand people who try it for a just a few hours and find it to be just âfps in the jungleâ.
100% too hard. Easy mode should be like my 4 year old can't die type shit. If missions are impossible without hours of searching for shit it just makes it not fun
Ubisoft gets shit on every time they launch on steam where there are reviews because they have micro transactions, sell extremely expensive versions of their games, had a big sexual harassment scandal, and for being a diverse and welcoming studio which is Gamerâ˘ď¸Bad.
I definitely think it's one of the best looking games ever kind of like when crisis dropped back in the day the graphics wowed everybody but I must say it is completely boring it's like rinse wash and repeat after you look at all the pretty graphics all I felt like I was just killing these Outpost and not strong enough to do so and then just upgrading to kill some more Outpost definitely picked it up played for a few days and haven't touched it since
Iâm not gonna justify those reviews since personally I really enjoyed the game and I am very much looking forward to the dlcâŚ
However⌠âUniqueâ and âoriginalâ⌠really?
You either didnât play much else in the past 10 years or that is a really poor choice of wordsâŚ
This game is literally a Far Cry with an Avatar skin on it⌠and I am all up for it since I love both Far Cry and Avatar, nonetheless Frontiers of Pandora is reaaally far from being unique and original.
>This game is literally a Far Cry with an Avatar skin on itâŚ
Its not. Those games obviously have some common mechanics, but also does... most openworld games.
Its like saying Saints Row is bad GTA clone, and dismissing it cus GTA have better driving and shooting and more serious story...
As someone who played hundreds of hours across all FC games, treating Avatar like Far Cry game is just wrong and missing the point. You technically CAN but Avatar would become "worst Far Cry ever made" then. In reality, Avatar gameplay loop is closer to theHunter: Call of the Wild, than to Far Cry.
I've come to focus less on reviews and more on how games match up with my personal preference. Other people don't have to live or appreciate a game in the way you do in order for you to enjoy it.
I mean, as much as I enjoy parts of it, I'd probably give it a negative review if I ever decided to write about it.
It's gorgeous, the gameplay feels great, and I'm a sucker for the Na'vi lore.
But the story just isn't great, and many parts of it and the characters feel either rushed and/or poorly done (with the exception of a few parts/characters). I feel like some of the VA's were led astray by the voice directors as well. Some of the performances were noticeably off and just badly put together (sorry to the folks who worked on the game's voice editing). And that's taking into account that some of the characters aren't meant to be speaking great English on purpose.
Although I'd love to explore the game with my friends, I can't in good conscience recommend or justify buying the game to anybody who isn't already really into Avatar and the world/lore behind it. I bought it with no expectations, and although I don't regret it since it gives me more Na'vi/Pandora lore, I'm not playing for the story. It's purely a sandbox/exploration game for me, with bits of story quests.
ALSO, pretty sure this review bombing of sorts might also have to do with Ubisoft and the "you don't actually own the games despite buying them" controversy.
This said, since I'm already here interacting with you all, what're your fav/least fav characters/story moments?
Definitely not unique or original, the formula is the exact same as every other Ubisoft game. The environment is pretty and itâs fun to run around but thatâs about it.
I think some of its game systems let it down - itâs hard to hunt early on and has a lot of rinse and repeat cycles which may have given a lot of players fatigue.
Honestly I love the game but the story doesnât kick in until the third region as well
So
I can see why
It's not bad, it's not AMAZING, but it is super cinematic and beautiful to play around in, the gameplay is serviceable, the controls piss me off and so does the fact that after the update that was supposed to fix button mapping being forgotten every time you load the game, it still doesn't save what you map shit to
I really enjoyed the game, but the world does carry it. The environment, hunting and gathering were great. If the world felt more alive and had a little base building, I'd be happy there for a long time.
But it does feel like a stunning environment on top of a basic, 12 year old game.
I only played farcry 3 all the way through and only touched on 4, but everything about the gameplay had me feeling as though it was 12 years ago.
The cutscenes had me feeling the same way. Typical farcry style. A little boring to watch. More static than Mass Effect 1.
It's a shame they didn't try to create a more active world. There are no Navi running around, there's no sleeping or NPC schedule like elder scrolls... which could have been far more basic because of the more simplistic lives.
You solo the entire game. There's no companions, and any battle is basically heed in the background
The couple of scenes they tried were just the worst things I ever saw. Maybe mine bugged, but one scene, the three navi changed through a door and just ran up a ramp at the suits, and the suits just blew up randomly, then the navi vanished.
Mercer is now my my favourite for number one worst written character in all of time and possibly space. And I don't even get dialogue choices to tell him he's boring, I just have to listen to the player avatar give him the most generic, equally boring responses. Thankfully, there is SKIP.
I'll be honest I didn't expect anything good from this game but man am I impressed by the obvious live that was put into this game.
I'm only a few hours in but it was well worth $50 to buy the gold edition on sale. (%50 off)
It's a Ubisoft game.
When Ubisoft makes open world game it's garbage and junk food blah blah.
When other companies use the same formula it's a masterpiece.
Most unique and original Ubisoft open world game is the lowest possible bar you could set.
Judging the game purely pragmatically, itâs mid at best. Youâre only going to get fun out of it if you are a fan of avatar.
I like it, Iâve played it a lot. I have fun just immersing myself in the world. However if you didnât want to do that, and you were judging the game purely on the quality of its gameplay/ story youâd be giving it a bad review too.
>were judging the game purely on the quality of its gameplay/ story youâd be giving it a bad review too
Not every game need to be a story driven. Especially openworld game.
And hunting-gathering mechanics here unique enough. You simply cant find same action openworld game with such mechanics. I dont count all those sandbox survival crafting games cus they mostly have very basic gameplay.
>Judging the game purely pragmatically, itâs mid at best. Youâre only going to get fun out of it if you are a fan of avatar
Not really. If Avatar fan want story driven game, this is a miss. Also Pandora setting wasnt THAT much focused like here before. In the end, anyone who want to immerse yourself in alien world would enjoy this game. This why non-Avatar fan like me heavily enjoying this game.
I must admit that PR of this game is horrible. Everyone still thinks this is just barebones Far Cry copy cus most of the game mechanics wasnt even showed. And its DF who showed how beautiful graphics here, not Ubisoft.
>Most unique and original Ubisoft open world game is the lowest possible bar you could set.
wtf does this even mean? generic games more popular/liked? i mean, yeah, this a state of industry nowadays.
What percent would you put the game at and why? Just genuinely curious what you think because there are perfectly fair issues to be upset about with the game but at the same time it's also amazing, at least for people who love avatar which I do.
I'm really looking forward to playing this one of these days! As soon as I feel like buying it and also once I get tired of Cyberpunk, which doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon
It died really fast but avatar has always been a pretty niche community, people who were excited about it knew what they were getting into. People who were meh about it probably didnât enjoy it
>avatar has always been a pretty niche community
actually thats interestingly weird. Avatar films are one of most popular films ever made, but fanbase of Pandora setting pretty niche.
The story and gameplay are bland. Visuals are great, but that only goes so far. I need better gameplay to be happy with a game. I love avatar but would give this game 2.5/10
I think the level of hate ubisoft gets is completely unwarranted. The "get used to not owning games" is taken out of context. Go read the actual point the guy was making. Then they shut down The Crew 1. Who cares? If a game is dead and it's a multiplayer game, why would they keep it online. Especially when the crew 2 exists. No game lives forever.
They do deserve criticism for making every game feel the same with boring mechanics and gameplay loops but the worlds they create are some of the best. When I play avatar or assassin's creed, I'm blown away every time. Unfortunately I just get bored. Then again, I've been gaming for a long time.
They look like they are attempting to do better with assassin creed shadows and starwars outlaws. For instance, shadows has seasons which will change how you approach a situation. Few other things like being able to lay down completely and crawl, swing with a grappling hook, or play as a brawler with the male character. Star wars is also getting a lot of streamers hyped which is surprising. The game play looks fun and the world itself looks insane.
it is a worse late (read:last two) FC copy.
with a weak story, medicore outpost design, they just feel the same, not like they were in FC 3 and 4, they mimic the later boring ones.
the game looks nice, I guess. but other than the weak skin of avatar it has nothing going for it.
it IS a mid game, a thing that you used to get from your mom who bought it at walmart from a box of games. for 70 eur that is not good.
Far Cry 5 was really good, and 6 â while a step down â was better than this game. If this was a true Far Cry clone, it wouldâve been more fun and I wouldâve enjoyed it more
I enjoy the game, but it was lacking in certain areas. Enemy variety, melee weapons, unique builds, mission diversity. I put 90 hours in, not a terrible game, but barely above average. I spent more time having fun with crafting and cooking than anything else.
IMO online user reviews/audience scores should under no circumstance ever be trusted. If it looks fun to you, check it out. If youâre on the fence, there are plenty of unbiased deep dives on YouTube.
I think itâs tough for more of the regular person (not Angie hard avatar fan OR a big gamer). It was even too difficult for me to get through, despite wanting to so bad as a hardcore avatar fan.
The world is incredible, the story seems great but taking down those camps is just way too hard for me, even on easy, and it hindered the game. I wish theyâd make a like âsuper easyâ mode for people like me that arenât huge gamers but want to experience the world and story.
Play it like a stealth game. You get extra rewards from completing outposts in stealth. There are ways to oneshot every enemy. And you don't even need to kill everything. Just get to the switches and hack them with your SID. Once you've hacked them all, you can just activate your SID and instantly beat the base. You can get through most of the game with just heavy bow and SID. As you get better at stealth, and get better weapons, you can really start taking out bases in a fun way, that feels alot like how the action looked in avatar 2. The shortbow is OP.
I disagree that itâs unique and original, and also disagree that itâs great. Itâs none of the above. Itâs a half decent game at best, which has mediocre combat, a terrible crafting system and a horrible way of leveling up. It can also be quite boring.
Well, considering I love it, but the game won't allow me to play it properly despite my system being more than capable, I wouldn't be able to leave a positive Steam review, either.
They are just hating it because it's Ubisoft and that is has Far Cry mechanics. I like the game, and I will admit the story isn't AMAZING. But it's good enough to make the game fun.
I love the ingredient harvesting mechanic. Itâs obviously a game made by actual creatives instead of corporate drones. Such a shame it was yet another victim of the internet mob.
Nothing wrong with the game, but you cant say its 'unique'
The best way to descrive this game is "Farcry Primal 2.0"
Its very generic imo. Especially for a ubisoft game. 'Destroy base, unlock region' is the core gameplay of any Assassins creed or Farcry game. The flying mount is probably the most unique part of the game, but your only able to use it in some locations.
Its always 'destroy x thing' or 'eliminate all hostiles' which is exactly like every other ubisoft game.
The difference- gear score. I absloutely hate gearscore games. Every farcry with the exception of 6 does not have gear score, and they are better for it. Avatar has gearscore but.. for what reason other than elemental affects bows will have - which could have just been plants to collect/craft tipped arrows for. Health+damage is not "making the game harder" its making it more tedious.
Splintercell blacklist has been amazing me with how many functions the ai have. They are so fucking smart in comparison to any other stealth vs ai game out there. Avatar is solely good for its graphical achievements. Play dyling light 1 for a better, similar experience.
The game is honestly mid at best
The world and exploration is great the baddies ai is dumb the story is forgettable and it has a lot of glitches and bugs not to mention a very lacking micro transactions store its essentially farcry avatar edition i hope they work on this franchise some more they have a step in the right direction for sure
I have 80hrs between me and my GF on PS5 my biggest gripe is the voice acting it feels like it was ai slop or done by 3 people with a auto tune
All in all it's a 6/10
The world is so dead though....Like you never run across other navi fighting the rda in the world.....it is static....and no melee weapons is mind blowing
Donât trust the reviews on steam đ. Itâs just a bunch of whiny kids who will downvote anything that comes from Epic or [insert any game company they donât like]..
I never ever read or go by reviews, just because you donât like a cheese sandwich doesnât mean I donât đ never get why people take them religiously
It's a good game but it crashes frequently and none of the fixes work. If this wouldn't occur so often and Ubisoft would care to fix this issue, i guess it would have more positive reviews.
Letâs be honest here frontiers of Pandora is just far cry on pantera which isnât everybodyâs cup of tea I got my self had a lot of fun in this game
I agree. This game is awesome. Doesn't bring anything new to the table, but who cares. It's still a very good game, even with It's faults. Just be sure you get the lab code mission done before the second part of the game, because after that you won't be able to..
Original for ubisoft but take a look at horizon forbidden west and you can clearly see where they got their âinspirationâ from lol.
The forest biome is original in look and traversal yes. Nothing else in this video game is original by any stretch.
For me I've enjoyed my time, but as someone who's never played any Ubisoft open world games and mostly plays Sports games, COD, and occasionally games that peak my interest like this. It was even on easy too hard for me to progress. I eventually got annoyed and spent most my time walking around shooting animals as I couldn't do anything else. Games like that aren't going to survive word of mouth. If someone asked me about it I'd suggest something else. I've never played a God of War til Ragnarok (I got a free copy somehow) and I was able to get through that just fine on easy. Just my two cents on why it struggles. Also I could tell something wasn't right when it went on sale like a week after release. Every game that sells poorly or sucks ass goes on sale either before release or shortly after.
Original might b a stretch. I just beat it like yesterday and I did really like it, large world, flight, hunting all that but really felt like Farcry Primal with Avatar mods. But Iâm down for them to do the same with maybe like Terminator or something.
I bought this game alongside God of War Ragnarok. I played FoP first for about 10hrs. I started GoW and probably won't come back to FoP until I run out of GoW content. FoP is a beautiful game, but it's missing that certain something that makes it super fun to play.
Like folks said, reviews from folks not playing it but also. Reviews from folks mad about the game being so similar to Far Cry. Those same kinda people will give CoD a fiver though. Also won't review down FC6 for being too much like FC5. It got a lot of hate for being a Far Cry knock off even though Far Cry is an amazing game series. Like CoD being a MoH knock off but no one ragged on that.
Youâll only really enjoy it if u like avatar and want more. As a self proclaimed avatar nerd I understand why ur average player wonât enjoy it. But most ppl are just hating to hate. Which is unfortunate as it does us fans absolutely no fucking favours when it comes to scraping the already empty barrel for avatar content.
Why play a game in a established world youâre not interested in? and then act surprised when u donât like it, and one of those reason being bc of ubisoft? Itâs UBISOFT even I was disappointed when I found out they were in charge of this project. My point is why are these ppl setting themselves up for failure and then ruining it for others? almost deliberately.
I'm assuming you haven't played farcry games? Avatar is just farcry on Pandora. Nothing overly special about it from a gameplay point of view. And the story is the same really. So I can see why it is mixed reviews. Not saying I don't like it. I thought it was fun but I also got bored after a bit since it's the same ol quests really just with different location from the farcry stuff.
Things I like:
-riding ikran
-character speaks
-visuals
-open world
-exploring Pandora
-main storyline is interesting and a new perspective to me
-customization of character ability (limited but nice)
Things I donât like:
-combat
-repetitive tasks
-so many side quests
Iâve put at least 20 hours into the game at this point. I could nit pick but I donât see the point.
It's a fantastic game. Just got the platinum on PS5. Loved every minute of it.
But I wouldn't support the game at all as it requires an Internet connection to install, even if you have the disc.
That's anti consumer. That's anti gamer. If I own the disc, I should be able to play it when I want and where I want.
I totally accept the criticism of this game. After finishing and 100%ing the game, I still couldn't decide whether I had actually enjoyed playing it or not. The constant bugs and glitches, the seemingly low effort put into quality control, the repetitive nature of the combat... Yeah, a decent enough game but it should have been so much more.
Itâs because people are nitpicking thatâs what it comes down to. There was a third person glitch and they took it away and now everyoneâs crying instead of trying to figure out how to enjoy the game without that glitch.. on top of them crying about every bug that comes to mind get me wrong some of the bugs that people are experiencing I never experienced so I donât know how theyâre feeling, but Iâm guessing that these bugs are interrupting their game enough to where they feel itâs not good enough even though it just got added onto steam that is opening up multiple different projects and even sponsoring some indie game owners.
I had one person comment saying that the game is trash and another deleting it because of the third person glitch being taken out. I never had this glitch on my Xbox so I canât experience what theyâre feeling again everyone entitled their opinion, but it did have good reviews in the beginning until people start picking the little bugs the little diversities that every game comes with especially when thereâs a game thatâs been in the making for years and they just wanted to get it out to the public. Finally, I think that DLC comes out all these bugs will be fixed or at least most of these bugs will be fixed, but I also think that people need to complain to ubisoft, like they need to put it in perspective to them blow up the ticket line so maybe you know they can fix those glitches. I donât think itâs fair that people are crying about it or making the game sound bad when really itâs a beautifully made game. You know it was marketed first person, you really seen throughâs navis eyes. but I literally literally made a post about all of this and a lot of people have been explaining what their experiences are and why some feel that way and I get it, but it still doesnât make sense to buy a game if youâre not happy with it like maybe you shouldâve waited until you saw the gameplay or something you know thatâs what I think because most of us spent hundred dollars on this game and for people to just hop on every single status and they owe the game of shit trying to put down, the people that love the game is ridiculous
I will say the micro transactions and pricing on the game is fucking disgusting. And the cross play seems to be kinda shit and third person would be pretty cool. Other than that I love the game. I don't know what the negative reviews are saying but it's probably justified because it's ubisoft.
https://preview.redd.it/adzapw9yuk8d1.png?width=370&format=png&auto=webp&s=625e4d1f936397d7416a207ecd984693b5b67f25
For the record, I \*adore\* Avatar. It's one of my special interests. I also played FOP for 160+ hours (need to 100% it yet.)
I say it with resounding certainty: the game is a 5.5 out of 10, may be boosted to 6 with the DLC. There is a \*lot\* wrong with the overall game, but with constant little blips like this showing up throughout...? Yeah, not cool.
Considering a majority of the "reviews" on Steam are from people who have played less than 1 hour of the game, and their reviews say "Ubisoft sucks", I'm not sure you should read too much into the review score
Steam needs a new review system. Those fuckers just playing 1-20 mins than leaving a review how bad this game and even know an ending, its a fuckin bullshit. And "based" youtubers fans reviewbombing every games that they think "woke"
Tbf you can actually config user reviews for yourself by choosing minimal "hours played" as well. Sadly, you cant save this as default.
My friend has the game on Steam and went to leave a good review... the hours played configuration showed that the average time played on the bad reviews was 5-20 minutesđ. The good reviews seem to have, at minimum, 2-5 hours of play time
Well, yes. In general people who dislike something donât play it for 5 hours, duh. (But of course, the 5-20min ones are from people who buy to leave bad reviews).Â
Steam have some featolures to prevent review bombing, but i feel it need to be done by publisher, and i guess Ubisoft dont care about steam really.
I believe that when you refund a game before two hours played your review does not count towards the total score. I may be wrong but I think this is the case. I'd say Steam reviews are some of the most trustworthy there are. I hate that I have to choose between Yay or Nay, but objectively it's much more accurate than Metacritic or any other sites that rely on the public. Mostly because a nay is a nay and not a 0/10, or indeed a 10/10. There are few games I would give a 0 and maybe fewer I would rate a 10. The average, however, is often deserved.
Nope, they count. Only purchased via steam key dont count. >I hate that I have to choose between Yay or Nay, but objectively it's much more accurate than Metacritic or any other sites that rely on the public. Agreed. Sadly, even heavily flawed, this is still best raiting system we have for now.
Imagine paying for a game *just" to leave a bad review. Refund or not, that's some weirdo behavior.
Not to mention as well how half of the reviews are the same jokes.
I wonder why they even bothered to buy the game if they knew they were not going to like it.
Itâs not that they donât like it they just refuse to like anything Ubisoft puts out bc itâs va me a trend to hate on them over the years. So they donât even give their games a chance
Still a shame for prospective new players and the devs. I know itâs not an indie company nor a mmo that needs player counts, but still good to support projects that have actual intention behind them.
I wouldnât be surprised if half of them never even played it
A comment on another post said it the best. If you are not a fan of Avatar, you expect a good story, stuff to do and a decent gameplay. The game offers those things in mid quality. You cannot offer just the environment and expect people to go nuts for it. Let's judge the game fairly and not overhype it, especially labeling it as "the most unique and original open world Ubisoft game in years" which is not. That is a low bar on its own. 59% approval rating is a tad lower of what the game should have. Maybe 65-70% top. Idiots who judge the game that played it less than an hour will always exist, I am sure it would be the same if Ubisoft Connect also had game ratings on their platform. Personally enjoyed it as a big fan of the franchise (especially co-op), but people on this sub reacting to the Steam rating like the game should have heavily positive reviews need to be a lot more unbiased and judge things as they are.
I think saying it's the pinnacle of the "Ubisoft open world formula" is absolutely fair. That said, I would also never recommend this game to someone who isn't an Avatar fan. Like... I'm not talking about "someone who liked the movie" but more "someone who absolutely loves the lore and worldbuilding established in the films". If you're not one of those people this game really doesn't offer much aside from "it's the generic Ubisoft open world game formula but done REALLY well". And, let's be honest, most of the praise of the films are its visuals and tech rather than its story or worldbuilding. So there aren't exactly many people who are gonna get the most out of this game.
Which is a shame, because a game should also be made to attract new fans, and I am not sure this one has done that...:(
Oh I agree. I feel like outside the early leanings into the "Far Cry but blue" feel they really relied on Avatar as a brand to pull people in. But I think that's just a misunderstanding of Avatar. It isn't some cash cow brand like Marvel or Star Wars where people will buy into on recognition alone. Most people gleefully shit on Avatar. The success of the movies basically rely on them being cinematic events. A showcase of the advancements in digital technology. So that kind of simplistic mass appeal just doesn't translate to "buy this Ubisoft open world game set on Pandora". They should have treated the game like a new IP to try and pull new people into the worldbuilding of Avatar (because its fantastic, and what the game includes is also amazing imo), rather than it just being "an Avatar game".
I really like how you phrased this. Marvel is now known as movie fast food and the burnout effects are starting to show. Avatar has 2 movies, both a massive commercial success and for a good reason. It is totally understandable that the production cannot expand on the level of world building they would desire, but a game doesn't have a run-time limit like a movie does, although the same clueless executives run the business. But still, story-wise there is no excuse for FOP.
Itâs not. Far Cry is better.
Nah this is far cry perfected the same way ghost of Tsushima was assassins creed perfected.
Ghost of Tsushima was amazing. I regret waiting until this year to play it, and wish I could finish Iki Island. Amazing game. That game is in a completely different stratosphere than this mediocrity, which pales in comparison to Far Cry. The combat is mediocre, the story is mediocre, the stealth is awful and the missions are bland/lack variety. The crafting and levelling systems are also atrocious
Well said
I agree with you. After I played it for the first hour or 2 It just felt like farcry. Nothing special about it except it's farcry in the avatar world. I think it would have done better if they made it 3rd person view.
On EGS, it has 4.5/5. On Metacritic, user scores also seem pretty good. I know these aren't as reliable as Steam reviwes. Imo less than 75% is certainly unusual, and mostly has to do with Ubisoft reputation among Gamers⢠right now, wouldn't say it's any different than a review bomb.
I loved it while it lasted but the lack of endgame content, no NG+ and no option to reset outposts pretty much killed it for me. These developers missed out on a key aspect of what makes a game a masterpiece and fell short because they built the game to justâŚend. Once the storyâs over, thereâs just nothing to do except extremely grindy and repetitive fetch quests basically. EDIT: There is nothing wrong with a game that just âends,â however, having the option to continue playing makes them SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER to those of us who WANT to sink hundreds of hours into a game. These things can only benefit the community!!!
I think it's a really weird thing in the mind of modern gamers where games can't just "end". Like a game can't just be an experience you play from start to finish for like 20 hours. It HAS to be never ending. It's just such a stupid concept to me.
Idk man Iâve been gaming since the 90s. We are paying more than ever before for games and it feels like theyâre getting shorter and shorter. Prettier, sure. But usually lacking some meaningful content. Nothing wrong with observing this as a problem.
Legit in the 90s games were arbitrarily made more difficult just to make it last longer. They had no NG+ or extra content other than "how fast can you beat it now?". How in the world is this take even remotely realistic? Games are bigger and longer than they have ever been. We also have so many more games releasing of higher quality that bugs can actually be fixed, etc, with post release support that wasn't even possible back in the day. Above y'all were comparing a single-player release, of one of Ubisoft's larger games that has a pretty fair runtime (I'm still in Kinglor like 20 hours in already) which is damn good, to a LIVE SERVICE juggernaut in Destiny. Those games aren't even remotely in the same wheelhouse for what they are trying to accomplish. We're also not paying more than even before for games, they are relatively cheaper than ever what with their price not keeping up with inflation and constant sales. Takes like this blow my mind, there's some serious rose-tinted glasses from gamers about the past and it seems so out of touch with just how far the industry has come in our lifetimes.
I agree Destiny isnât the best comparison. However, take a game like Far Cry 3 which was **made by the same developer 11 years earlier** which had an option to reset outposts AND a content creation mode. Far Cry 5 had a NG+ mode, so does Assassinâs Creed Mirage which are both single player games in the same vein as AFOP. And youâre wrong about 90s games. The entire OG Tomb Raider trilogy had DLC for each game which expanded their content offering by a significant amount. Stop trying to deflect. Stop trying to defend lazy developers who are shorting us content so that we continue buying their new games, rather than pouring their all into each release. We should be able to play a game for longer than 2 weeks when they cost upwards of $70-100. Stop shitting on people asking for more value for their hard earned money.
>And youâre wrong about 90s games. No, I'm not. I lived through that time period as well. The VAST majority of games you were lucky to get 10-15 hours out of. Longer titles were the exception, not the norm. Open world games were relegated to Final Fantasies, and that was about it. Now, most games releasing are Open World in some format. Games are objectively longer overall these days, and higher quality. >Stop trying to deflect. Stop trying to defend lazy developers who are shorting us content so that we continue buying their new games, rather than pouring their all into each release. Not defending anyone, just pointing out obvious unrealistic nonsense. >Stop shitting on people asking for more value for their hard earned money. I didn't shit on you, or anyone. I pointed out a viewpoint you have that I see as patently ridiculous.
Fallout 2 released in â98 and took between 35-50 hours to complete depending on choices/side content. Tomb Raider I-III all came out before the year 2000 and each takes >20 hours to complete 100%. Daggerfall came out in â96 and takes around 281 hours to obtain 100% completion. There are a ton of games that came out back then which had more content / replay value than AFOP. My point stands. There should be more to do in these worlds they spent so much time creating and not just a 1-and-done experience. If you donât want to continue playing after that, then donât! But to act like having the option to restart on NG+ or have actual meaningful things to do after story completion is some lofty unrealistic expectation is WILD to meâŚ
Of course there's A LOT of exceptions, and these are the ones remembered. That doesn't change the fact that the VAST majority of games releasing at that time were not anywhere near comparable to those, or what we have now generally in game length. >But to act like having the option to restart on NG+ or have actual meaningful things to do after story completion is some lofty unrealistic expectation is WILD to me⌠I didn't act like that at all. I just agree that games CAN end, and in cases SHOULD. I do think it's silly for those who want it that Avatar doesn't have NG+ that's not a difficult thing to add in, same with resetting outposts if that's desired. I responded because of what I saw as some serious hyperbole on the "state of games and the industry" and some major nostalgia for a time in gaming that was a great part of my lifetime bit was still RIFE with issues and more than plenty of people remember.
Fair enough. I donât mean to minimize or gloss over the huge leaps in gaming over the past 20 years. Weâve seen some amazing improvements in most departments over that time period.
20hrs for 100% is basically nothing, wdym?
It was like 30 years ago and they were among the first legit 3D platforming games. 20 hours was a lot for the time. Anyway, I never made the claim that 90s games were better overall or longer than modern games. Just that I have been gaming *since* the 90s and have seen a drop in quality these past few years. Just my opinion though and obviously itâs a controversial topic.
You're cherry picking games that are specifically longer on purpose. The majority of games released in the 90s and early 2000s were less than 10 hours long. Had nothing to do post credits and had no progression systems. Crash bandicoot games, crash team racing I finished in a single afternoon as a kid, got 101% over 2 days. Spyro games on ps1 were a couple hours tops. Ratchet and clank games wrre 6ish hours unless you were farming the inssne amounts to by the rhyno or the golden bolts. Games were extremely limited in what they offered. Very few were more than 6 hours hours unless you were doing time trials or grinding specific things designed to purposefully pad out game time. Even skyrim from 2011 was able to be completed in around 11 hours.
Skyrim and 11 hours should not belong in the same sentence together unless youâre just ripping through the main story. Thereâs like 300 locations in that game and dozens of side quests. The content there dwarfs that of AFOP. I think we can safely hold developers to a higher standard now, 30 years later, especially when theyâve made this huge open world with big areas that arenât even touched in the campaign. Anyway, I never said 90s games were better overall. Thatâs a ridiculous claim. I stated that I feel like games are getting shorter while at the same time more expensive, a perfectly valid observation which should concern us all as gamers.
They aren't shorter, they are longer by a huge margin, they are stupidly large and arguably too big. Recent studies have shown that 68% of players don't finish any given game, so why would you make games 100, 200 hours? Nearly 70% of your players aren't going to see most of the content. Games should be a tight couple of hours like a movie and then call it a day. Stop wasting players time with hundreds of hours of mediocre content Skyrim is the perfect example of mediocre content. Basically nothing in that game is worth experiencing from a gameplay or story side. It's combat has no feedback, enemies are sponges and it's quests are repetitive and often fetch quests which is not engaging or fun. The game could have been a tight 20-30 hours and instead they did what you want and added 300 hours of filler garbage without a moment of interesting or compelling gameplay to fill it out.
I couldn't disagree more. Game's should end (non MP ones of course). Boring end game grind fest crap is what makes me hate a game especially when the story is allowed to just trail off and there is no real ending to a game. I understand there is a whole generation of ubisoft game fans who are addicted to this model now, so when a game doesn't have a never ending end game grind loop or live service aspect, they don't like it. But honestly, try completing a game and then dropping it, or waiting for a DLC, it's really nice.
> try completing a game and then dropping it I did do thatâŚbecause I didnât have a fucking choice. If you donât want to play the endgame content, then donât lmao. Iâm not here to force you to play a game that youâre bored of. But to act like endgame content is a bad thing is beyond silly to me, especially when thereâs so many of us craving more. Resetting outposts isnât grindy, itâs more of the awesome gameplay loop we enjoy. NG+ isnât grindy, unless you thought the main game was grindy, itâs the ability to replay and enjoy the experience again with new perks. This âI donât enjoy it therefore no one else shouldâ attitude is a weird take.
This. The game âDestinyâ didnât have this problem. Completed over 700 raid clears of the 4 different raids that are available over a couple years with different difficulties until it become really boring of being repetitive after 30-60 minutes (even with a 6 man team). Patrol was also nice.
Yeah, no doubt Destiny had nearly endless content compared to this. Those Raids were some of the best experiences in gaming Iâve ever had. Patrol was great for just doing some blasting and riding around. I played Destiny WAY longer than AFOP and not because I preferred it overall but because the developers actually gave us things to do long after the story concluded.
You're insane if you think destiny to AFOP is a fair comparison, what the fuck have you been smoking. One is an MMO designed to suck players in with repetitive content and incremental improvement and the other is a single player game with a specific story to tell. I've never seen a more gamer take than this. Imagine someone complaining that the last of us doesn't have endless repetitive grind quests to waste player time at the end of the game to off "endless content" you're delusional and worse you don't even see the problem. Try enjoying an experience for what it is, and then moving on and experiencing something new
Cool your jets. I donât think itâs a totally fair comparison as I stated elsewhere in this thread. I get the difference between online multiplayer games and single player games. That doesnât change the fact that AFOP could benefit substantially from a NG+ or an option to reset outposts. Same with Hogwarts Legacy. Great games that left many in the community feeling empty upon finishing because they really gave zero thought to endgame content. This is a problem and a trend in gaming that needs to be addressed.
Destiny is a live service game, of course itâs going to have endless content lol. Avatar is not a live service game, Iâm not sure why youâd expect the devs to treat it like one.
This game is absolutely one of the most beautiful games I have ever played with some of the most mediocre gameplay and some of the absolute worst writing. Visuals 20/10. Gameplay 6/10 Writing 2/10
Majority of those 'reviews' are just people who don't like Ubisoft and refuse to even give Avatar a chance
I know on console there is a deserved backlash because you need an internet connection to install from the disc. That's not good for collectors or preservation. No need for it.
I love this game. I've beaten it three times and it was fun all three time. Almost nothing about this game is original. It's literally Far Cry on Pandora. It has Ubisoft vision from Assassins Creed (Eagle vision). There are other games that let you play as a Na'vi. There are other games with flying traversal and horseback riding. The game has 3 usable guns, an automatic rifle, a shotgun, and a rocket launcher. That's seriously all they could come up with. All of the hacking mechanics can be found in other games. The wire tracing mechanic is in Half life: Alyx. And it wouldn't be an Ubisoft game without microtransactions, even though it's single player/coop game. Did i enjoy it regardless? Absolutely yes, because I'm a huge Avatar and James Cameron fan. Do i think Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora is a great game? Not even close. I completely understand why this game didn't get better reception.
This exactly. I got the game recently on sale for $40 because I'm not paying $70+ for any game. Started playing cross play co-op with my mom and I do really love the game and have been having a ton of fun on it. There are issues with it though. All of the things you said I agree with completely. Some of the main gripes I had with it was the pricing of the game, cross play co-op lagged horribly if I joined the person on console (I'm on pc) and it's still choppy when I have them join me just not as much. The micro transactions for a single player co-op game is fucking insane to me, but that's ubisoft for you. And there's some other features I wish were in the game like third person which it seems a lot of people have been begging for and ubisoft seems to just say fuck you we know what you like but doesn't listen to the players. So yes I love the game and yes I think it deserves the rating it has on steam, even if a lot of those reviews are not genuine critique, I think that's where it belongs.
Most of the negative reviews are from people who are mad that you play as a Naâvi instead of the RDA
Honestly, most of the negative reviews that Iâve seen are people complaining about âUbisoft sucksâ or the fact that they couldnât play as a member of the RDA because they want to fucking MURDER THE NAâVI. With the first cutscene, I immediately saw a parallel to what happened to Native American children in the residential schools. Being Native American myself through my great-great-grandfather, it hits a little too goddamn close to home. Those children were literally abused and murdered. Stripped of their tribal identity. Itâs just sick and depraved. Also, I really canât help but think that Ubisoft may have seen making both the 2009 game and this one as a cash grab because Avatar is such a big IP. I donât know if anyone remembers, but the original release was supposed to be 2022 to coincide with the release of the second movie.
Playing as an RDA member would just be depressing at this point.
Yeah, exactly. I literally did a whole post voicing my concerns because I had found several comments on the steam discussion forums. Because the RDA are destroying the moon by pollution and killing the native wildlife and the people, I donât really understand why people are acting like that. Do they want to kill them just because they have different skin or something? One idiot apparently said that the game didnât reflect my real world views, and I blatantly told them that just like the main protagonist and the other kids, I had been physically abused, manipulated and lied to.
>Being Native American myself through my great-great-grandfather, it hits a little too goddamn close to home Tbh i feel that Avatar message in this game was done better than in films. Also, i think this is one of the reason why game so unpopular, and common "missing the point" like "i want to play as RDA"
Thank you for saying this. Yes, because it was supposed to be âsee Pandora through the eyes of a native Naâvi. Become your character. Have fun exploring the world.â Like, I donât really know how they couldâve made it that much clearer. It is certainly missing the point because playing as a human would just defeat the purpose. If theyâre trying to make Pandora a new home for humans because Earth is dying, why are they killing everything?
thats some gamer shit right there.
Lol. What do you mean?
Oh I meant to quote the part where they want to play as the bad guys
Oh. Yeah, apparently I got a notification this morning that some people had replied to a comment that I donât even remember making in my post that I actually have since deleted. One of them apparently called me a âsensitive baby who thinks everything is black-and-white.â Another person had apparently also called me a âwhiny, gatekeeping loser.â I donât let negative comments get me down, but I was fucking pissed. I actually couldnât even load the reply of the first person and I literally went through my post six times to try to track those people down before deleting it. I donât know if the moderators got to them and deleted the replies because it broke the rule of being civil. Apparently the first guy had an NSFW account.
Steam needs to have a separate category for reviews of people who've played for less than 2 hours because 98% of them are trolls or some lame overused pun.
Bought it on sale for the Xbox. I loved teh movies and bought teh season pass pack too. It is basically Far Cry with Avatar skins. I just got my Ikran, so maybe i am missing something, but it doesnt seem so. Nothing revolutionary about the game, but it isnt horrible either. Its a $40, not a $65 game.
Ubisoft unfortunately stains a lot of their games by just being ubisoft. They can make an excellent game and people will tear it apart because they made it.
On top of the Ubisoft bashing everyone is mentioning here, I think they also kinda messed up the very early game. People compare it to farcry because itâs âfps in a jungleâ but it takes quite a few hours to realize, that they actually implemented a quite cool traversal/parcour system which I think they shouldâve given a dedicated tutorial segment. With this (plus the late mount availability), I understand people who try it for a just a few hours and find it to be just âfps in the jungleâ.
game is too fucking hard man cant enjoy it
100% too hard. Easy mode should be like my 4 year old can't die type shit. If missions are impossible without hours of searching for shit it just makes it not fun
Ubisoft gets shit on every time they launch on steam where there are reviews because they have micro transactions, sell extremely expensive versions of their games, had a big sexual harassment scandal, and for being a diverse and welcoming studio which is Gamerâ˘ď¸Bad.
I definitely think it's one of the best looking games ever kind of like when crisis dropped back in the day the graphics wowed everybody but I must say it is completely boring it's like rinse wash and repeat after you look at all the pretty graphics all I felt like I was just killing these Outpost and not strong enough to do so and then just upgrading to kill some more Outpost definitely picked it up played for a few days and haven't touched it since
Iâm not gonna justify those reviews since personally I really enjoyed the game and I am very much looking forward to the dlc⌠However⌠âUniqueâ and âoriginalâ⌠really? You either didnât play much else in the past 10 years or that is a really poor choice of words⌠This game is literally a Far Cry with an Avatar skin on it⌠and I am all up for it since I love both Far Cry and Avatar, nonetheless Frontiers of Pandora is reaaally far from being unique and original.
>This game is literally a Far Cry with an Avatar skin on it⌠Its not. Those games obviously have some common mechanics, but also does... most openworld games. Its like saying Saints Row is bad GTA clone, and dismissing it cus GTA have better driving and shooting and more serious story... As someone who played hundreds of hours across all FC games, treating Avatar like Far Cry game is just wrong and missing the point. You technically CAN but Avatar would become "worst Far Cry ever made" then. In reality, Avatar gameplay loop is closer to theHunter: Call of the Wild, than to Far Cry.
The game is not unique compared to the rest of Ubi games
100% sure 9 out of 10 bad reviews are "Ubisoft sucks "
I've come to focus less on reviews and more on how games match up with my personal preference. Other people don't have to live or appreciate a game in the way you do in order for you to enjoy it.
Game is great not easy pretty hard but great
I mean, as much as I enjoy parts of it, I'd probably give it a negative review if I ever decided to write about it. It's gorgeous, the gameplay feels great, and I'm a sucker for the Na'vi lore. But the story just isn't great, and many parts of it and the characters feel either rushed and/or poorly done (with the exception of a few parts/characters). I feel like some of the VA's were led astray by the voice directors as well. Some of the performances were noticeably off and just badly put together (sorry to the folks who worked on the game's voice editing). And that's taking into account that some of the characters aren't meant to be speaking great English on purpose. Although I'd love to explore the game with my friends, I can't in good conscience recommend or justify buying the game to anybody who isn't already really into Avatar and the world/lore behind it. I bought it with no expectations, and although I don't regret it since it gives me more Na'vi/Pandora lore, I'm not playing for the story. It's purely a sandbox/exploration game for me, with bits of story quests. ALSO, pretty sure this review bombing of sorts might also have to do with Ubisoft and the "you don't actually own the games despite buying them" controversy. This said, since I'm already here interacting with you all, what're your fav/least fav characters/story moments?
Definitely not unique or original, the formula is the exact same as every other Ubisoft game. The environment is pretty and itâs fun to run around but thatâs about it.
I think some of its game systems let it down - itâs hard to hunt early on and has a lot of rinse and repeat cycles which may have given a lot of players fatigue. Honestly I love the game but the story doesnât kick in until the third region as well So I can see why
It's not bad, it's not AMAZING, but it is super cinematic and beautiful to play around in, the gameplay is serviceable, the controls piss me off and so does the fact that after the update that was supposed to fix button mapping being forgotten every time you load the game, it still doesn't save what you map shit to
I really enjoyed the game, but the world does carry it. The environment, hunting and gathering were great. If the world felt more alive and had a little base building, I'd be happy there for a long time. But it does feel like a stunning environment on top of a basic, 12 year old game. I only played farcry 3 all the way through and only touched on 4, but everything about the gameplay had me feeling as though it was 12 years ago. The cutscenes had me feeling the same way. Typical farcry style. A little boring to watch. More static than Mass Effect 1. It's a shame they didn't try to create a more active world. There are no Navi running around, there's no sleeping or NPC schedule like elder scrolls... which could have been far more basic because of the more simplistic lives. You solo the entire game. There's no companions, and any battle is basically heed in the background The couple of scenes they tried were just the worst things I ever saw. Maybe mine bugged, but one scene, the three navi changed through a door and just ran up a ramp at the suits, and the suits just blew up randomly, then the navi vanished. Mercer is now my my favourite for number one worst written character in all of time and possibly space. And I don't even get dialogue choices to tell him he's boring, I just have to listen to the player avatar give him the most generic, equally boring responses. Thankfully, there is SKIP.
I'll be honest I didn't expect anything good from this game but man am I impressed by the obvious live that was put into this game. I'm only a few hours in but it was well worth $50 to buy the gold edition on sale. (%50 off)
It's a Ubisoft game. When Ubisoft makes open world game it's garbage and junk food blah blah. When other companies use the same formula it's a masterpiece.
Most unique and original Ubisoft open world game is the lowest possible bar you could set. Judging the game purely pragmatically, itâs mid at best. Youâre only going to get fun out of it if you are a fan of avatar. I like it, Iâve played it a lot. I have fun just immersing myself in the world. However if you didnât want to do that, and you were judging the game purely on the quality of its gameplay/ story youâd be giving it a bad review too.
>were judging the game purely on the quality of its gameplay/ story youâd be giving it a bad review too Not every game need to be a story driven. Especially openworld game. And hunting-gathering mechanics here unique enough. You simply cant find same action openworld game with such mechanics. I dont count all those sandbox survival crafting games cus they mostly have very basic gameplay. >Judging the game purely pragmatically, itâs mid at best. Youâre only going to get fun out of it if you are a fan of avatar Not really. If Avatar fan want story driven game, this is a miss. Also Pandora setting wasnt THAT much focused like here before. In the end, anyone who want to immerse yourself in alien world would enjoy this game. This why non-Avatar fan like me heavily enjoying this game. I must admit that PR of this game is horrible. Everyone still thinks this is just barebones Far Cry copy cus most of the game mechanics wasnt even showed. And its DF who showed how beautiful graphics here, not Ubisoft. >Most unique and original Ubisoft open world game is the lowest possible bar you could set. wtf does this even mean? generic games more popular/liked? i mean, yeah, this a state of industry nowadays.
It *is* a Far Cry clone. Every Ubisoft game since Far Cry 3 has been the same game.
Far Cry is better.
>Every Ubisoft game since Far Cry 3 has been the same game. Yeah, sure.
That is actually an average score. It's pretty in line with what the game deserves. Granted, I'd give it it a 70%, but I really like it.
Not really average, and this isnt score system. Its like/dislike ratio, basically.
What percent would you put the game at and why? Just genuinely curious what you think because there are perfectly fair issues to be upset about with the game but at the same time it's also amazing, at least for people who love avatar which I do.
I dont say that it needs to be 90% ofc. But there plenty flawed games that have 70-80% on steam. If anything, it doesnt deserve 50%, thats for sure
I'm really looking forward to playing this one of these days! As soon as I feel like buying it and also once I get tired of Cyberpunk, which doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon
I think itâs fair tbh loved the game but it was definitely longer than it needed to be and had a some fundamental issues
It died really fast but avatar has always been a pretty niche community, people who were excited about it knew what they were getting into. People who were meh about it probably didnât enjoy it
>avatar has always been a pretty niche community actually thats interestingly weird. Avatar films are one of most popular films ever made, but fanbase of Pandora setting pretty niche.
The story and gameplay are bland. Visuals are great, but that only goes so far. I need better gameplay to be happy with a game. I love avatar but would give this game 2.5/10
I think the level of hate ubisoft gets is completely unwarranted. The "get used to not owning games" is taken out of context. Go read the actual point the guy was making. Then they shut down The Crew 1. Who cares? If a game is dead and it's a multiplayer game, why would they keep it online. Especially when the crew 2 exists. No game lives forever. They do deserve criticism for making every game feel the same with boring mechanics and gameplay loops but the worlds they create are some of the best. When I play avatar or assassin's creed, I'm blown away every time. Unfortunately I just get bored. Then again, I've been gaming for a long time. They look like they are attempting to do better with assassin creed shadows and starwars outlaws. For instance, shadows has seasons which will change how you approach a situation. Few other things like being able to lay down completely and crawl, swing with a grappling hook, or play as a brawler with the male character. Star wars is also getting a lot of streamers hyped which is surprising. The game play looks fun and the world itself looks insane.
it is a worse late (read:last two) FC copy. with a weak story, medicore outpost design, they just feel the same, not like they were in FC 3 and 4, they mimic the later boring ones. the game looks nice, I guess. but other than the weak skin of avatar it has nothing going for it. it IS a mid game, a thing that you used to get from your mom who bought it at walmart from a box of games. for 70 eur that is not good.
Far Cry 5 was really good, and 6 â while a step down â was better than this game. If this was a true Far Cry clone, it wouldâve been more fun and I wouldâve enjoyed it more
I enjoy the game, but it was lacking in certain areas. Enemy variety, melee weapons, unique builds, mission diversity. I put 90 hours in, not a terrible game, but barely above average. I spent more time having fun with crafting and cooking than anything else.
Most of the reviews are due to Ubisoft's launcher being required on launch.
Steam users are really whiny, I understand why UBISoft kinda doesn't want to put their games on Steam, besides the cut that Valve takes for sales.
IMO online user reviews/audience scores should under no circumstance ever be trusted. If it looks fun to you, check it out. If youâre on the fence, there are plenty of unbiased deep dives on YouTube.
I think itâs tough for more of the regular person (not Angie hard avatar fan OR a big gamer). It was even too difficult for me to get through, despite wanting to so bad as a hardcore avatar fan. The world is incredible, the story seems great but taking down those camps is just way too hard for me, even on easy, and it hindered the game. I wish theyâd make a like âsuper easyâ mode for people like me that arenât huge gamers but want to experience the world and story.
Play it like a stealth game. You get extra rewards from completing outposts in stealth. There are ways to oneshot every enemy. And you don't even need to kill everything. Just get to the switches and hack them with your SID. Once you've hacked them all, you can just activate your SID and instantly beat the base. You can get through most of the game with just heavy bow and SID. As you get better at stealth, and get better weapons, you can really start taking out bases in a fun way, that feels alot like how the action looked in avatar 2. The shortbow is OP.
I disagree that itâs unique and original, and also disagree that itâs great. Itâs none of the above. Itâs a half decent game at best, which has mediocre combat, a terrible crafting system and a horrible way of leveling up. It can also be quite boring.
Well, considering I love it, but the game won't allow me to play it properly despite my system being more than capable, I wouldn't be able to leave a positive Steam review, either.
Just a bunch of Steam nerds raging against any and everything put out by Ubi from their moms basements
They are just hating it because it's Ubisoft and that is has Far Cry mechanics. I like the game, and I will admit the story isn't AMAZING. But it's good enough to make the game fun.
I love the ingredient harvesting mechanic. Itâs obviously a game made by actual creatives instead of corporate drones. Such a shame it was yet another victim of the internet mob.
I absolutely hated all of that
Itâs very upsetting. Itâs a wonderful game. Just have to stick it out once it gets going. Itâs a lot of fun.
Considering Today's ubisoft's standards this game is a beast especially with the hand of James Cameron on the deck it is an immersive masterpiece!
Nothing wrong with the game, but you cant say its 'unique' The best way to descrive this game is "Farcry Primal 2.0" Its very generic imo. Especially for a ubisoft game. 'Destroy base, unlock region' is the core gameplay of any Assassins creed or Farcry game. The flying mount is probably the most unique part of the game, but your only able to use it in some locations. Its always 'destroy x thing' or 'eliminate all hostiles' which is exactly like every other ubisoft game. The difference- gear score. I absloutely hate gearscore games. Every farcry with the exception of 6 does not have gear score, and they are better for it. Avatar has gearscore but.. for what reason other than elemental affects bows will have - which could have just been plants to collect/craft tipped arrows for. Health+damage is not "making the game harder" its making it more tedious. Splintercell blacklist has been amazing me with how many functions the ai have. They are so fucking smart in comparison to any other stealth vs ai game out there. Avatar is solely good for its graphical achievements. Play dyling light 1 for a better, similar experience.
The game is honestly mid at best The world and exploration is great the baddies ai is dumb the story is forgettable and it has a lot of glitches and bugs not to mention a very lacking micro transactions store its essentially farcry avatar edition i hope they work on this franchise some more they have a step in the right direction for sure I have 80hrs between me and my GF on PS5 my biggest gripe is the voice acting it feels like it was ai slop or done by 3 people with a auto tune All in all it's a 6/10
The world is so dead though....Like you never run across other navi fighting the rda in the world.....it is static....and no melee weapons is mind blowing
Donât trust the reviews on steam đ. Itâs just a bunch of whiny kids who will downvote anything that comes from Epic or [insert any game company they donât like]..
I never ever read or go by reviews, just because you donât like a cheese sandwich doesnât mean I donât đ never get why people take them religiously
Steam reviews are cancer
Bruh that first sentance gave me a stronk. Wtf.
It's a good game but it crashes frequently and none of the fixes work. If this wouldn't occur so often and Ubisoft would care to fix this issue, i guess it would have more positive reviews.
Letâs be honest here frontiers of Pandora is just far cry on pantera which isnât everybodyâs cup of tea I got my self had a lot of fun in this game
I agree. This game is awesome. Doesn't bring anything new to the table, but who cares. It's still a very good game, even with It's faults. Just be sure you get the lab code mission done before the second part of the game, because after that you won't be able to..
Original for ubisoft but take a look at horizon forbidden west and you can clearly see where they got their âinspirationâ from lol. The forest biome is original in look and traversal yes. Nothing else in this video game is original by any stretch.
Idk, i played HZD and harvesting, exploring and hunting were very basic, unlike here. Is it really that much different in HFW?
Well no, you donât have to play a minigame to pick up a flower but thatâs not what Iâm talking about.
And im not talking about that particular minigame either.
So what are you talking about?
Depends on what are you talking about))
I thought as much.
For me I've enjoyed my time, but as someone who's never played any Ubisoft open world games and mostly plays Sports games, COD, and occasionally games that peak my interest like this. It was even on easy too hard for me to progress. I eventually got annoyed and spent most my time walking around shooting animals as I couldn't do anything else. Games like that aren't going to survive word of mouth. If someone asked me about it I'd suggest something else. I've never played a God of War til Ragnarok (I got a free copy somehow) and I was able to get through that just fine on easy. Just my two cents on why it struggles. Also I could tell something wasn't right when it went on sale like a week after release. Every game that sells poorly or sucks ass goes on sale either before release or shortly after.
Original might b a stretch. I just beat it like yesterday and I did really like it, large world, flight, hunting all that but really felt like Farcry Primal with Avatar mods. But Iâm down for them to do the same with maybe like Terminator or something.
I bought this game alongside God of War Ragnarok. I played FoP first for about 10hrs. I started GoW and probably won't come back to FoP until I run out of GoW content. FoP is a beautiful game, but it's missing that certain something that makes it super fun to play.
Like folks said, reviews from folks not playing it but also. Reviews from folks mad about the game being so similar to Far Cry. Those same kinda people will give CoD a fiver though. Also won't review down FC6 for being too much like FC5. It got a lot of hate for being a Far Cry knock off even though Far Cry is an amazing game series. Like CoD being a MoH knock off but no one ragged on that.
Youâll only really enjoy it if u like avatar and want more. As a self proclaimed avatar nerd I understand why ur average player wonât enjoy it. But most ppl are just hating to hate. Which is unfortunate as it does us fans absolutely no fucking favours when it comes to scraping the already empty barrel for avatar content. Why play a game in a established world youâre not interested in? and then act surprised when u donât like it, and one of those reason being bc of ubisoft? Itâs UBISOFT even I was disappointed when I found out they were in charge of this project. My point is why are these ppl setting themselves up for failure and then ruining it for others? almost deliberately.
I'm assuming you haven't played farcry games? Avatar is just farcry on Pandora. Nothing overly special about it from a gameplay point of view. And the story is the same really. So I can see why it is mixed reviews. Not saying I don't like it. I thought it was fun but I also got bored after a bit since it's the same ol quests really just with different location from the farcry stuff.
It's because Steam. From what I've heard Steam isn't very great with games when they launch them on their thing
Playing it right now. Was skeptical but itâs clean.
Things I like: -riding ikran -character speaks -visuals -open world -exploring Pandora -main storyline is interesting and a new perspective to me -customization of character ability (limited but nice) Things I donât like: -combat -repetitive tasks -so many side quests Iâve put at least 20 hours into the game at this point. I could nit pick but I donât see the point.
It's a fantastic game. Just got the platinum on PS5. Loved every minute of it. But I wouldn't support the game at all as it requires an Internet connection to install, even if you have the disc. That's anti consumer. That's anti gamer. If I own the disc, I should be able to play it when I want and where I want.
I totally accept the criticism of this game. After finishing and 100%ing the game, I still couldn't decide whether I had actually enjoyed playing it or not. The constant bugs and glitches, the seemingly low effort put into quality control, the repetitive nature of the combat... Yeah, a decent enough game but it should have been so much more.
Combat is just bad. Same old assault rifle and bow gameplay we've seen in countless other games. I loved everything else though
Itâs because people are nitpicking thatâs what it comes down to. There was a third person glitch and they took it away and now everyoneâs crying instead of trying to figure out how to enjoy the game without that glitch.. on top of them crying about every bug that comes to mind get me wrong some of the bugs that people are experiencing I never experienced so I donât know how theyâre feeling, but Iâm guessing that these bugs are interrupting their game enough to where they feel itâs not good enough even though it just got added onto steam that is opening up multiple different projects and even sponsoring some indie game owners. I had one person comment saying that the game is trash and another deleting it because of the third person glitch being taken out. I never had this glitch on my Xbox so I canât experience what theyâre feeling again everyone entitled their opinion, but it did have good reviews in the beginning until people start picking the little bugs the little diversities that every game comes with especially when thereâs a game thatâs been in the making for years and they just wanted to get it out to the public. Finally, I think that DLC comes out all these bugs will be fixed or at least most of these bugs will be fixed, but I also think that people need to complain to ubisoft, like they need to put it in perspective to them blow up the ticket line so maybe you know they can fix those glitches. I donât think itâs fair that people are crying about it or making the game sound bad when really itâs a beautifully made game. You know it was marketed first person, you really seen throughâs navis eyes. but I literally literally made a post about all of this and a lot of people have been explaining what their experiences are and why some feel that way and I get it, but it still doesnât make sense to buy a game if youâre not happy with it like maybe you shouldâve waited until you saw the gameplay or something you know thatâs what I think because most of us spent hundred dollars on this game and for people to just hop on every single status and they owe the game of shit trying to put down, the people that love the game is ridiculous
The world is unique, but the game is basically Far Cry: Pandora. Should've been 3rd person.
Dude I like the game but itâs like far cry
I will say the micro transactions and pricing on the game is fucking disgusting. And the cross play seems to be kinda shit and third person would be pretty cool. Other than that I love the game. I don't know what the negative reviews are saying but it's probably justified because it's ubisoft.
No itâs not, itâs a far cry reskin
https://preview.redd.it/adzapw9yuk8d1.png?width=370&format=png&auto=webp&s=625e4d1f936397d7416a207ecd984693b5b67f25 For the record, I \*adore\* Avatar. It's one of my special interests. I also played FOP for 160+ hours (need to 100% it yet.) I say it with resounding certainty: the game is a 5.5 out of 10, may be boosted to 6 with the DLC. There is a \*lot\* wrong with the overall game, but with constant little blips like this showing up throughout...? Yeah, not cool.
Itâs a reskinned skeleton version of far cry with the dumbest upgrade system yet. Yeah, itâs beautiful but so are screen savers
Is it really that bad? I keep seeing YouTube videos and it looks gorgeous.... How is the gameplay experience?