1) personally, some people may enjoy Big Rigs, or whatever that game is called. It's still one of the worst games of all time, but all that matters is that some people may enjoy it. Same for Halo Infinite and your experience.
2) Can't agree mid to high 80's is fair for this game, nor that any of your assessments are accurate. However, I respect your personal opinion.
1. Halo Infinite is far from being one of the worst games of all time though.
2. Correct me if im wrong but didn't you say Halo Infinite realistically is more like an 8/10? If so, that's not a bad game at all. I have no issues with it being an 87 rated game. Even if you want to say that it's more like an 8 to an 8.5/10, okay, that's still a great game and nowhere near bad.
Hard disagree. Games should be reviewed for what they are, as objectively as possible. Halo should have been reviewed what it's worth, same with Horizon or GOW. What you claim there is that Microsoft should get a free pass for worse quality and production value simply because they were not as successful. IMO, a perfect example of this is something like Days Gone, which IMO is an 8/10 at release, and got mid to low 70's. I maintain to this day that if it was released as an Xbox game it would have reviewed high 80s.
I agree that games SHOULD be reviewed for what they are but they're not because they won't be the same for everyone. You have to take into account that everyone has their favorites and personal biases and rarely do people go against them. It's like Souls games, Nintendo games, Rockstar, etc. They're all going to get favored even if/when they don't deserve it because there's people who love them and unless it's truly a bad or broken game, they won't review it low.
It's not that Microsoft should get a free pass but they shouldn't be reviewed the same as Sony or Nintendo. First, they're coming off a bad generation and went into 2018 with only five studios and if not for Spencer convincing Nadella to keep Xbox alive, it would be dead and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Second, outside of the big 3, they barely cracked an 80 for any of their published games while Sony was dominating and getting high scores, not only because of the games themselves being great but because Xbox One was such a disaster, reviewers were definitely against Microsoft and very favorable for Sony. A game like Uncharted 4 is not a 94 rated game. It's not even the best or second best Uncharted game. But because Naughty Dog is highly regarded and favored, their games will score high and if Druckmann leads the game, add at least 5 points minimum. Same with Miyamoto, Kojima, Howard and probably a few others. It's just what it is.
It's just that games are never going to be rated for what they actually are. This rarely happens and when it does, it's because a game is actually bad or broken. Microsoft's quality has increased this generation compared to last generation. Production value is excellent for Forza, Flight Sim, Psychonauts, etc. It may not be what it should have been for Halo Infinite but considering the disaster that 343 is and has been for years, it's amazing the game even released and is as great as it is when it could have been an easy 60 or 70 rated game.
As for Days Gone, I love the game. #5 best game of last gen, my 2019 goty and a 9.5/10. However, like I mentioned in regards to personal favorites and personal biases, Days Gone was my open world dream zombie game come true and had a Sons of Anarchy feel to it which is one of my all time favorite TV shows but if I take away the massive favoritism towards it, it's no better than an 8/10 and I can't argue with those who didn't like it. Technical issues, a very slow and boring 10 hour slog to start the game and when you look at all the content in the game, like I said with Horizon, it's a Ubisoft game. How many camps, outposts, nests are there in the game? Hell, they all have a respective story line to them but at the same time, it's generic and been done a billion times already by this point. Also, some reviewers didn't like Deacon and the sexual comments he makes in the game towards his wife. Now, I see that as normal but certain reviewers didn't and thought it was sexist so right there, it's going to score low and you then add in all the other issues and yeah, a low 70's score is about right for the game in general even though I would give it at least an 8/10 favoritism aside.
I don't know why you would think that in 2019, two months after the abysmal Crackdown 3 that Days Gone would review better on Xbox. It wouldn't. If anything, it would probably be worse. I don't know why you think this when all you have to do is look at 2018/2019 and excluding Gears 5 and Forza Horizon 4, all of Microsoft's releases were in the 60's.
Of course, the only review that should matter to anyone is their own. Critics, youtubers, etc. should just be a reference and if the reviewer/youtuber likes what you like, go based on that because you would have similar tastes. But again, everyone has their personal favorites and biases. You've shown this and so have I. It's simply what it is.
The only reason why im keeping track of Microsoft's review scores on OC is simple. It's because they need to hit FOR ME this generation. If Xbox Series X doesn't at the very least become my #1 best Xbox console (which in all honesty, it should) and #2 overall (behind only PS4) once this generation ends, then Microsoft and Xbox will forever be my secondary gaming console as I would switch back to PlayStation as my primary console next generation.
I cannot agree with any of this assessment. First and foremost, it is not a Ubisoft style game, unless you consider all open world experiences to be ubisoft style games. The production value around side quests and their impact on the main story, voice acting, mocap, etc, are all of higher standard for one, and the game doesn't even play like any Ubisoft game.
Ubisoft style game in that it's an open world checklist. Ubisoft has viewpoints. Horizon has the Tallnecks. Same thing. Horizon has bandit camps. So does Ubisoft games. Same thing. There's all the icons on the world map. Same as Ubisoft. There's way more similarities than differences in how the setup, style and template is. Basically, the structure is setup the same. And this applies to nearly every open world game in general because unless you're an ER or BOTW that makes it feel different (even though they're really not all that much either), what else can developers do? It's like, here's 15 camps to clear out on the map. Here's 5 tallnecks to climb. Here's a bunch of resources you need to gather to upgrade your stuff. It's all truly the same crap because what other structure could they do in an open world game.
Is Horizon better than vast majority of Ubisoft games? Yes. And I say this as someone who's favorite company is Ubisoft. The structure is pretty much identical. Are the stories, combat, etc. all different? Yes but again, the structure and setup is the same. And I love these open world games. I don't mind a checklist but at the same time, im not expecting anything new or different or revloutionary because I know none of them are.
The original game had no underwater combat, so how can it be a step back? Same with climbing, it's much improved. As for the grappling hook, I used it plenty while in combat to evade enemies.
Assassin's Creed Origins/Odyssey has free climbing and underwater combat. HFW which is minimum 4+ years after Origins yet doesn't have either so in my mind, it's a step back because almost 5 years later, that's what im expecting. For sequels, I expect more. Especially when other games do the same things but better.
The climbing is improved but is it AC Origins/Odyssey levels? No way. Why can't I just free climb? Why am I restricted to following an outline on the walls and mountains? Also, why does Aloy not climb where I want her to go despite the outline telling me I can? Is it better than Zero Dawn, maybe but then again, I played ZD at launch before AC Origins so the climbing was perfectly acceptable for me. 5 years later though, an open world game like Forbidden West should have free climbing.
I can see that in regards to the grapple hook but if you could free climb, you would just climb to get away from enemies so the result is the same but the grapple hook is more of a hassle and nuisance. I simply believe that if free climbing was in FW, there would be no need for a grapple hook.
The point is to travel faster. I agree air combat would have been fun, but its another transversal mechanic. More options, especially well designed ones, are never a negative. As for size, I found it just the right size and engaging from the beginning. The hand glider was fun as hell and again, very handy when travelling from higher spots to lower spots. Saved me substantial amounts of time and allowed me to take a breather.
Hand glider was great. No argument there. The flying though is so late in the game, by this time, I was like 95% done with everything. By the time you unlock this ability via the story, the game is basically over. The ability to fly and the breather for underwater is good in general to have but because you gain it so late in the story, the game is basically forcing you to back track if you want to complete those other areas you couldn't access earlier.
Side content is optional, you can avoid it. I never consider side content a negative because it's optiona. As for visuals, you just praised Halo for its visuals but somehow HFW having incredible ones is a negative?
For combat, I never felt underpowered.
I will not dissect the rest of your comment, but it's pretty much a hard disagree. The missions are way more meaningful, side missions have a story purpose and contribute to your main missions, optional content is plenty and optional... And it seems a lot of your criticism stems from just not being good at the game, which is fine. I suck at souls games, but I would absolutely not say they are not good. You are also holding FW to a different standard to Halo. By objective measures, everything technical you listed as "amazing" in Halo is better in Forbidden West - Graphics, Audio, Soundtrack, Mocap, voice acting. Every single item is superior many times over.
Side content is optional but at the same time, in an action RPG, if you want to level up and fill out your skill trees, you kinda have to do the vast majority of it all. I didn't praise the visuals in Halo Infinite. I said it was their main weakness but I wasn't playing it for the visuals. HFW has amazing visuals but would I sacrifice some of those visuals for free climbing? Oh hell yeah!!! Would I sacrifice a little more for the breather and ability to fly a stormbird in the first 25% of the story? Even more so, hell yeah!!
I agree with the story missions being more meaningful and once you get to The Embassy, they're all excellent. Loved the story quests but I do wish there was more of them. I'm not a fan of short main stories when it's an open world game. I will always prefer more story quests over any optional side content when it comes to open world games. Side quests were for the most part good and better than the first game but a lot of them are still fetch quests or go save this person repeatedly. Story/character wise, I agree 100% that they're way more meaningful than ZD.
I wasn't great in FW and played half the game on hard until I got tired of feeling underpowered so I did lower the difficulty. However, I completed Zero Dawn on hard pretty easily because you do more damage output in ZD than you do in FW. Watching a video earlier today for all patches and updates for FW, Guerrilla nerfed so many weapons, bombs and armor which I 100% disagree with because it's a single player game. It's a competitive game whatsoever. Also, I do turn off various options. Compass, aim assist, any enemy detection arrows or that eye thing, all off.
I hold FW to a different standard because I played and completed the original and simply expected more and better. I also expected Guerrilla to give me underwater combat and free climbing with the climbing being my #1 most wanted gameplay element. I didn't get either so of course, I will hold it to a higher standard.
With Halo Infinite, my expectations were low. Never played a Halo game. Was hoping for at least an 8 or 8.5 personally and I would have bee very happy and content with that. I'm not a massive first person shooter guy. I prefer third person over first person so that's another reason why my expectations were low.
Simply, Halo Infinite exceeded my expectations where as Horizon Forbidden West didn't. I do love both games and am all in for their future campaign expansions.
As for what I believe is superior, not true. Apologies but looking up my ratings in my spreadsheet, I have Halo Infinite listed as a 9 in visuals, 10 in audio, 9 in combat/gameplay and a 10 in story/characters. For HFW, I have it listed as a 10 in visuals, 10 in audio, 8.5 in gameplay/combat, 10 in story/characters and an 9.0/10 for side content since I did everything excluding collecting documents.
Overall, both are actually a 9.5/10 overall but the main difference is that HI was my 2021 goty to where I don't think HFW wins my 2022 goty unless both GOWR and TLOUP1 are massive disappointments. Also, my expectations for FW were higher due to what ZD was for me. And as I said, there were elements in FW gameplay/combat wise that I didn't like/enjoy and some stuff really irked me like not being able to free climb. Add in the technical issues I had throughout the game and that's why it's an 8.5/10 for me in this category. For reference, ZD was a 10 in visuals, 9 in audio, 10 in gameplay and 9 in story/characters.
So again, I actually loved both games but different expectations for each of them. All my games have different expectations. For example, my expectations for Steel Rising and Evil West in September are nowhere near what they will be for The Last of Us Part I which was my 2013 goty and my 360/PS3 game of the generation.
So while I agree with you in general regarding reviews, critics, etc., it's just not what it is and most likely never will be because like you with HFW or me with HI, it's always going to come down to personal favoritism and what the person prefers, likes and enjoys the most.
. The climbing is at the very least serviceable, and readable, and it does enough to feel integrated in with the rest of the game mechanics. I don't see why it needs to be AC-style to be worth implementing in the game, because AC was built on a very different style of open-world, at least at first, which is what necessitated its style of climbing. 
