@DarthLod: Multiplayer wasn't even necessary in ME3 if you did enough side missions.

ME3 had pretty satisfying endings for most storylines & characters in my opinion. The final decision may have been a simple 3-way choice but the final hours leading up to it wrapped up a lot of things & took your choices into account. If you didn't play a great game just because of a tacked on multiplayer mode, then you missed out. If by "didn't buy", you mean justified pirating then it's a pretty weak excuse too.

@KaptenHaddock: I'm the same, I've put over 220 hours into Inquisition & not touched the multiplayer.

ME3's multiplayer wasn't actually necessary for Galactic Readiness if you were enough of a completionist. I did all the side missions & actually played a little multiplayer & I had far more than I needed for optimum outcomes.

@deadmanhopping: I've put over 220 hours into Inquisition including a second playthrough on Nightmare difficulty & I'm part way through the DLC. I haven't felt compelled to touch the multiplayer mode in any way. ME3's multiplayer was OK, I ended up playing more than I expected.

I think Inquisition's characters were pretty decent, they just weren't very likeable. Origins did a far better job of making characters who you could have a real connection with & care about. Hopefully Andromeda will push forward while also incorporating some of their successes from the past.

@L30N4KU: He's comparing "the open world" of games which is kind of a weird non-specific comparison.

What made The Witcher 3 so amazing was the characters, the story & the way even small 'side missions' often felt significant. What made MGS V great was all the systems that worked together to make a relatively small open world feel new by constantly introducing new challenges & ways to overcome those challenges while infiltrating the same locations. What made Skyrim great is that you'd be traversing the world on the way to completing a mission & you'd come across all sorts of other distracting activities on the way that were often more interesting than the main story. What made the GTA V open world great is that you could be chased across a wildly varying map by police helicopters on an adrenaline fueled rampage.

There are plenty of other ways to look at those games, with both praise & criticism but despite all being "open world" games, they're all trying to do different things. Zelda COTW is more of a physics puzzle, the fun is in trying to figure out & exploit the rules of the world. Zelda may have a satisfying moment where you figure out you can set an enemy on fire & effortlessly take out a group of enemies but GTA will have an equally satisfying moment where you find a shortcut through some buildings & lose the cops trailing you. MGS will have a satisfying moment when you decide to go out of your way to extract an S rank soldier, assign him to R&D & finally unlock that silenced high-powered sniper rifle you've had your eye on for so long.

Comparing "the open world" isn't a fair comparison because The Witcher 3 is not about being a physics sandbox. It's about being a badass swordsman & monster hunter. It's about getting embroiled in politics. It's about relationships, family & friendships. Witcher games may not have the same sense of discovery but that's because it's a land where people live in. There are maps. This Zelda is a game about discovery & puzzle solving, it may be great at that one thing but it doesn't excel at the things these other open world games excel at.

Personally I don't think COTW deserves all the praise it's getting. It does some things well that a lot of games haven't tried to do in a while. It shows restraint in putting markers all over the map & giving lengthy tutorials for every mechanic. That's all fine but it also runs pretty poorly despite having an incredibly low-fi aesthetic. It has an inventory system that many people find clunky. It has a very basic combat system that does not significantly evolve through progression. I'm not saying it's a bad game just that most reviewers who have scored this game are probably long-time Nintendo fans & are probably looking at it through rose-tinted glasses.

Oops, that was more than I meant to type. Rant over.

Somebody needs to mod this map into MGS V.

Having played the open beta, the game is beautiful but I can see it getting old really fast. It's a fun game but it dances across the line between serious & silly in a way that just makes me think the game has an identity crisis. I didn't get a chance to try co-op but it's probably a lot more fun with some friends in small doses, I might still pick it up on sale at some point.

@Hicks_1: I think his point is that the game is centered around the rather silly premise that simply sending a few US soldiers in to assassinate the leader will solve the problem.

Since there's a story element to the game, I think it's fair to review the story as well as other gameplay features.

I'm not much of a multiplayer guy but I actually enjoyed a bit of ME3 co-op action.

As long as the single player experience is polished, I don't care too much if the multiplayer mode is sub par. It's more of a bonus if it's good.

@masscrack: 30.2% vs 32%, overall conclusion is pretty much the same. Some of those scores do seem a bit low though, other outlets probably tested with a 7700K rather than the 5930K here but that shouldn't make a huge difference.

@joupena: My guess is they had the difficulty turned way down for the demo. Everybody's seen the Arkham combat & they wanted to get to the main story points without spending most of the video slowly wearing down the basic enemies.

That being said, I hope this game is more difficult than the last. Once you found some good tactics, Shadow of Mordor was way too easy. Plus the Nemesis system required you to die a few times for the enemies to actually gain abilities & build rivalries.

I'm so glad Miguel knows how to pronounce "Automata"!

Looks good, I don't play hack'n'slash type games too much these days but I'll have to pick it up if it's a decent PC port.