It's never going up to 89 now is it? Unless a handful or more perfect reviews come in.

Played two hours so far and really enjoying it, the bow and arrow have a real nice feel to them, Aloy is a great character and the environments look great.

If I had any complaints its that the character can float/get caught over rocks etc a little too easily.... feels a bit clunky, but other than that i have a real wish to go back and play it after staying up till 1.30am to play it (and i wanted to play more).

If you read their comments below too you will see them defending themselves by what I find to be legit defenses.

1. They mention that they do mention they only played so much and didn't finish. Many would leave that out. They are honest.

2. They say if they don't like a game and are not having fun, why should they force themselves to play it. They played 18 hours and that to me is long enough play time for a game to fairly judge it. If you say the first 20 hours suck and the next 20 hours are amazing, well that is the games fault. They need to make a game engaging the whole time.

I have no issue if he didn't finish it. My main concerns is his review. He complains of the sinple thing and trying to compare the game to the other games. I hate this statetment.
The sad fact for Horizon, and every other open-world game like it, is that we now live in a post-Witcher 3 world. CD Projekt Red has raised the bar for this genre in nearly every conceivable way, and it is absolutely not enough to simply be another open-world game. The sidequests have to be interesting, the writing has to be engaging, the characters have to be memorable – just putting a good premise and great graphics on top of boilerplate content isn’t enough. At least, it’s not enough for this reviewer.

He then also compare it with Far Cry. 

Don't ever compare if you want to be objective with your review. Not every game will be like the this game or that game and you should review the game on what it is and not why didn't this game be like this game  or be like that game.

Also on his review. He complains that he is always beng swarm by enemies and cannot came up with a strategy and the only options is to run and dodge. If you are eing swarm by enemies it is obvious to run and don't engage. 
Clearly he is not utizing the tools he have and not coming up with startegy before he engage.

There's someone commented and asked if he is utilizing the stealth and traps correctly. He then respsonded with an arrogant statement. When that person responded.
He raised a valid point. For me he is ust compllaining the game is hard for him and exlporing the world is not worth it because he will be again gangbang by enemies.

Also, complain that why not have Aloy equip all the weapons or items that he has so he shouldnt be hassle of changing it everytime. 

It juust sickens me when they are revieiwing they always compare it to other games and cannot review it on what it is. Take a look at Bloodborne's review. The main point of his review why Bloodborne is different from Dark soul. 

Bottomline. When they start mentioning other games on their review and compare it. It is  not a obective review already. That wil cloud their judgement because it is playing differently. 

Not going into a discussion but just wanting to say any score below a 8 is freaking bullshit and clickbaits.

Game is fantastic looks amazing, plays fluid,huge amount of stuff to do, solid framerate (kuch kucj zelda) likeable characters,fantastic music and a absolutely phenomenal world(soo much details so much to see)

Its by far the best open world game ever after witcher 3.

That's just not how the human mind works. Witcher 3 did indeed "raise the bar", and so we now have new expectations with regard to games of that mold. To give one that is clearly lacking in areas that the other blew out of the water the same score would be unfair and innaccurate, doing a disservice to any who wish to know if it meets modern standards.

The value of everything and anything is established via comparing it with alternatives; one apple pie may seem the best, but when you discover another apple pie that is even better the original is no longer 10/10, as there is clear, observable, explainable areas with room for improvement that the person, having experienced the superior apple pie, can not simply wipe from their mind and ignore.

The point of the review is not only to give a general summation of what something has to offer, but also help provide context for how it compares with other similar experiences so that the reader can decide whether or not that particular game is worth their money, or if perhaps there's another game out there that accomplishes more successfully what this game was attempting to do.

In the end, whether they openly name the games or not, there's never been a review made in a vacuum; they're all comparing every game they review with others they've played in the past.

That's quite a bold statement, and not merely because I quite literally emboldened it.

It seems to me there's a pretty obvious contender that released only a number of hours ago, and there's certainly others as well. There is no "by far" gap between the top few games regardless of which you decide to name.

Okay so you are saying that if I am the reviewer then if Horizon feels different from withcer 3 then it is a bad game? Not every game should follow what Witcher has accomplish and not every games should beat the other.  

And I disagree with your that's how human mind works and we should just accept that. As a reviewer you have to be objective when you are revieiwing games or any other stuff. If you are going to mention game Don't revolve your review on comparing the 2.  You have to look for it flaws and greatness without comparing it to oher games  because one thing you will be biased and that will cloud your judgement. 

The point of the review is to tell people how the game works. How it plays, its strong point and weak points. 
How good it looks, how it runs  and if the performance affects the game. Not because its not like Game A or Game B or The other game is better than this one. 

You have a point i said that in a wrong way.

Its the best open world game on ps4 that i played (played them all)

also i want to mention one thing, zelda has framerate drops a lot,and its  graphics are definitly not the best....10/10  not deserved to be honest.... and noo horizon is also not a 10/10 i would rate it around 9-9.2

But that 5/10 and 6.5/10 review for horizon was clickbait lying BC and every normal thinking gamer who played horizon knows it.

"they hate us cause they ain't us"

I think this quote from "The Interview" fits with those clickbait reviews.