Buy this game ?

[Thorn-Exile]

As much as I would like to buy this game .... I think I will wait a little longer, a beautiful game but from what I've read, there are still a lot of bugs, slow FPS , etc...... Thanks to all for the honest reviews,
It helps alot !.....Thank you .

[Musodacan]

Most of the responses you will get will be from fanboys, and a few from haters. The game has many problems for some and few for others. You can buy it, try it for less than two hours, and decide whether to keep it or ask for a refund.

[Florian Meyer]

Originally posted by Musodacan:

Most of the responses you will get will be from fanboys, and a few from haters. The game has many problems for some and few for others. You can buy it, try it for less than two hours, and decide whether to keep it or ask for a refund.

How many hours have you already played woth?

[Musodacan]

Originally posted by m.h.267:

Originally posted by Musodacan:

Most of the responses you will get will be from fanboys, and a few from haters. The game has many problems for some and few for others. You can buy it, try it for less than two hours, and decide whether to keep it or ask for a refund.

How many hours have you already played woth?

How does it answer the question of op?

[Florian Meyer]

Why can't you answer the question? Since you feel called upon to give competent answers here and are disqualifying some of the players, it would be interesting to what extent your statements are based on experience.

[DYEUZ]

@ Thorn-Exile ... Your decision is strictly yours & possibly a wise one if you are not sure if this game would reach your expectations or not. So, do what you want & decide what is right, FOR YOU.

Many honest reviews out there & for one to call the reviewers name is a bit childish & disrespectful. We all are different in taste & opinion thank God!!

I did not even give mine after 450 hours of play so far. It would probably reach a minority of those that could handle it. The rest would certainly bash me, like they always do.

Thank you.

[Musodacan]

Originally posted by m.h.267:

Why can't you answer the question? Since you feel called upon to give competent answers here and are disqualifying some of the players, it would be interesting to what extent your statements are based on experience.

110 hours before quitting the game. I didn't feel it was fair to negatively influence OP so I gave the advice I felt was the wisest and most unbiased.

[Kossatz]

Even with the bugs I believe it is still worth buying. Everything feels so realistic that I cannot see them as a game breaker IMHO.

[Florian Meyer]

Originally posted by Musodacan:

Originally posted by m.h.267:

Why can't you answer the question? Since you feel called upon to give competent answers here and are disqualifying some of the players, it would be interesting to what extent your statements are based on experience.

110 hours before quitting the game. I didn't feel it was fair to negatively influence OP so I gave the advice I felt was the wisest and most unbiased.

Your advice to the op was fine, but at the same time you stipulated that anyone who answers after you will be seen by the op as a hater or fanboy.

[Musodacan]

I wouldn't say. DYEUZ responded after me and gave an objective opinion.

[Thorn-Exile]

Originally posted by DYEUZ:

@ Thorn-Exile ... Your decision is strictly yours & possibly a wise one if you are not sure if this game would reach your expectations or not. So, do what you want & decide what is right, FOR YOU.

Many honest reviews out there & for one to call the reviewers name is a bit childish & disrespectful. We all are different in taste & opinion thank God!!

I did not even give mine after 450 hours of play so far. It would probably reach a minority of those that could handle it. The rest would certainly bash me, like they always do.

Thank you.

Thank you man , i appreciate you onest answer !.....Thanks !

Originally posted by Kossatz:

Even with the bugs I believe it is still worth buying. Everything feels so realistic that I cannot see them as a game breaker IMHO.

Same to you ....Thank you both !.....Buying isnt that bad either as waiting ,stil got other options for other games....we wil see ...it was just my opinion ......

[Geronimo]

I learned a long time ago not to judge a book by its cover, a woman by her cooking skills, or a video game by others' enjoyment of it.

Before I learned this truth I missed out on experiences I later discovered that I actually enjoyed immensely.

It's not that expensive a risk, and it's refundable. Try it for yourself!

[Bobby]

Originally posted by Geronimo:

I learned a long time ago not to judge a book by its cover, a woman by her cooking skills, or a video game by others' enjoyment of it.

Before I learned this truth I missed out on experiences I later discovered that I actually enjoyed immensely.

It's not that expensive a risk, and it's refundable. Try it for yourself!

The biggest issue you have with the 2hr ‘window’, is that in some games - this- you will barely do anything before that time is gone!

The experience for someone that has never played either ‘Hunter’ game, is that you just don’t go out and instantly shoot things dead or unlock or purchase lures, camo, dogs etc,etc. it’s a game that requires a lot of input to be enjoyed and learn its interface and nuances -bugs/dislikes- For that alone some genres on steam should have an extended ‘try before you buy’. Over say shooters for eg. For some, lack of patience wins out before the ‘window’.

It’s a hard area to call.

I played CoTW for way past 2hrs and then some, put it down after I found I was useless. Read up a bit then tried again, enjoyed it and many months down the line bought DLC for it. But none of it hit the spot in 2hrs

[Nekhebu]

I'm someone who likes hunting games but I'm not a fanboy who lives and breathes them. I own all DLCs in COTW (since there was a sale a couple weeks ago) and I have 140 hours in WOTH so have a pretty good idea on how they compare (I know you didn't ask but thought I'd approach it this way) and which one is "better".

All I can say is both games are good in their own ways and are worth getting if you like hunting. These are my thoughts on both of them (what are pros for me could be cons for others and vice versa obviously as it's all subjective):

Call Of The Wild

Pros:

• Very nice graphics
  
• Large variety of maps
  
• Lots of different weapons
  
• Tree stands and tents
  
• Bows
  
• Companion dog
  
• Dynamic animal tracks - you can see if someone walked here recently
  
• Lots of fast travel points and not overly much walking if you don't want to
  
• Is more of a "gamey" game - you have an XP progression, perk points, skill points, which is kind of nice for when you just want to have fun shooting virtual animals and not feel like you have to constantly be on your toes
  
• Rare type furs, i.e. something to chase for your lodge
  
• Rather active community

Cons:

• Decent but not overly realistic animal animations, especially when shot (e.g. moose standing on their hind legs like some horses)
  
• Draw distance is pretty abysmal - you zoom in on your binoculars and you don't see grass or any of the animals at farther distances
  
• Level progression is too grindy and slow
  
• Due to having lots of animals in the game they're not all perfect, some look pretty poor

Way Of The Hunter

Pros:

• Amazing graphics
  
• Incredible render distance (1.1km on PC apparently) meaning you can spot animals very far away
  
• Much more realistic hunting experience - no massive glowing orbs and markers to blindly follow
  
• A completely different, more realistic approach to need zones - each animal has 6 - 2 feeding, 2 sleeping and 2 drinking - and they roam between them. Pressure makes them move to others.
  
• A nice selection of guns, despite some people always want more
  
• Huge maps (both are IIRC 12x12km, so 144 square kilometres)
  
• Better progression than COTW as you unlock skills by just doing things - shooting hearts/lungs, walking, driving, etc.

Cons:

• Only two maps in the game so far (two more coming in the next 10-12 months)
  
• No bows (apparently also coming)
  
• No companion dogs
  
• No tree stands or tents
  
• Very scarce fast travel locations, which makes traversing the large maps sometimes tiresome
  
• No rare fur types (again, yet apparently)
  
• Semi-broken multiplayer (e.g. if you host and your friend kills an animal they often can't claim it and get money for it)
  
• Quite a few audio bugs, which people have been complaining about for 2 months yet developers keep ignoring them.
  
• Broken shotguns where you can't hit one bird from 20 metres, yet developers say it works as intended so think what you want

Conclusion
So which one you will ask... If you won't lose sleep over £20 then go to cdkeys.com and buy WOTH from there. It's still too expensive on Steam for my liking though. It's already a very good game and has potential to become incredible but those few bugs (specifically the audio volumes and repeating bird noises that you get sometimes) currently hold it back a bit. Take into consideration that COTW has been around the block for 5 years already so direct comparisons can't be made. After all COTW at launch was pretty bad. If we assume Nine Rock Games will support WOTH for the next few years then there's hope everything will be eventually fixed.

If you're not planning on playing multiplayer much it's worth getting WOTH for the single player experience as it is indeed great. Graphics, draw distance and animal animations and behavior alone are worth it. COTW feels like a child's toy after you go back to it, despite being a good game. WOTH just has an edge over it if you want a more realistic experience. If you know you don't have much patience though WOTH won't be for you as it's much more difficult but then I guess you shouldn't be interested in hunting games at all.

[Florian Meyer]

Originally posted by Nekhebu:

I'm someone who likes hunting games but I'm not a fanboy who lives and breathes them. I own all DLCs in COTW (since there was a sale a couple weeks ago) and I have 140 hours in WOTH so have a pretty good idea on how they compare (I know you didn't ask but thought I'd approach it this way) and which one is "better".

All I can say is both games are good in their own ways and are worth getting if you like hunting. These are my thoughts on both of them (what are pros for me could be cons for others and vice versa obviously as it's all subjective):

Call Of The Wild

Pros:

• Very nice graphics
  
• Large variety of maps
  
• Lots of different weapons
  
• Tree stands and tents
  
• Bows
  
• Companion dog
  
• Dynamic animal tracks - you can see if someone walked here recently
  
• Lots of fast travel points and not overly much walking if you don't want to
  
• Is more of a "gamey" game - you have an XP progression, perk points, skill points, which is kind of nice for when you just want to have fun shooting virtual animals and not feel like you have to constantly be on your toes
  
• Rare type furs, i.e. something to chase for your lodge
  
• Rather active community

Cons:

• Decent but not overly realistic animal animations, especially when shot (e.g. moose standing on their hind legs like some horses)
  
• Draw distance is pretty abysmal - you zoom in on your binoculars and you don't see grass or any of the animals at farther distances
  
• Level progression is too grindy and slow
  
• Due to having lots of animals in the game they're not all perfect, some look pretty poor

Way Of The Hunter

Pros:

• Amazing graphics
  
• Incredible render distance (1.1km on PC apparently) meaning you can spot animals very far away
  
• Much more realistic hunting experience - no massive glowing orbs and markers to blindly follow
  
• A completely different, more realistic approach to need zones - each animal has 6 - 2 feeding, 2 sleeping and 2 drinking - and they roam between them. Pressure makes them move to others.
  
• A nice selection of guns, despite some people always want more
  
• Huge maps (both are IIRC 12x12km, so 144 square kilometres)
  
• Better progression than COTW as you unlock skills by just doing things - shooting hearts/lungs, walking, driving, etc.

Cons:

• Only two maps in the game so far (two more coming in the next 10-12 months)
  
• No bows (apparently also coming)
  
• No companion dogs
  
• No tree stands or tents
  
• Very scarce fast travel locations, which makes traversing the large maps sometimes tiresome
  
• No rare fur types (again, yet apparently)
  
• Semi-broken multiplayer (e.g. if you host and your friend kills an animal they often can't claim it and get money for it)
  
• Quite a few audio bugs, which people have been complaining about for 2 months yet developers keep ignoring them.
  
• Broken shotguns where you can't hit one bird from 20 metres, yet developers say it works as intended so think what you want

Conclusion
So which one you will ask... If you won't lose sleep over £20 then go to cdkeys.com and buy WOTH from there. It's still too expensive on Steam for my liking though. It's already a very good game and has potential to become incredible but those few bugs (specifically the audio volumes and repeating bird noises that you get sometimes) currently hold it back a bit. Take into consideration that COTW has been around the block for 5 years already so direct comparisons can't be made. After all COTW at launch was pretty bad. If we assume Nine Rock Games will support WOTH for the next few years then there's hope everything will be eventually fixed.

If you're not planning on playing multiplayer much it's worth getting WOTH for the single player experience as it is indeed great. Graphics, draw distance and animal animations and behavior alone are worth it. COTW feels like a child's toy after you go back to it, despite being a good game. WOTH just has an edge over it if you want a more realistic experience. If you know you don't have much patience though WOTH won't be for you as it's much more difficult but then I guess you shouldn't be interested in hunting games at all.

You hit the point. Now it's time to be patient and see if the developers can get these problems under control. I think that if at some point there will be bow hunting and other pieces of equipment then the excitement and the comparison with cotw will be superfluous. Anyone who wants to support the game, despite the bugs it still has, should be aware that with every comment that casts the game in a bad light, the likelihood that it will fail sooner or later increases. The best way to fix these bugs is to report them where something can be done about it. Constructive criticism is even necessary. When these errors are corrected is not in our power. For example, if the sound problems were easy to fix, then the developers would certainly have done it by now. I have no idea about it and that's why I don't demand that everything works immediately. It is of no use to the game if potential buyers constantly only read negative reviews and thus get a completely wrong picture of woth. And if you concentrate on the positive, you will be defamed as a fanboy, but the game works for me, so I don't care about that designation.

[Bobby]

Originally posted by m.h.267:

Originally posted by Nekhebu:

I'm someone who likes hunting games but I'm not a fanboy who lives and breathes them. I own all DLCs in COTW (since there was a sale a couple weeks ago) and I have 140 hours in WOTH so have a pretty good idea on how they compare (I know you didn't ask but thought I'd approach it this way) and which one is "better".

All I can say is both games are good in their own ways and are worth getting if you like hunting. These are my thoughts on both of them (what are pros for me could be cons for others and vice versa obviously as it's all subjective):

Call Of The Wild

Pros:

• Very nice graphics
  
• Large variety of maps
  
• Lots of different weapons
  
• Tree stands and tents
  
• Bows
  
• Companion dog
  
• Dynamic animal tracks - you can see if someone walked here recently
  
• Lots of fast travel points and not overly much walking if you don't want to
  
• Is more of a "gamey" game - you have an XP progression, perk points, skill points, which is kind of nice for when you just want to have fun shooting virtual animals and not feel like you have to constantly be on your toes
  
• Rare type furs, i.e. something to chase for your lodge
  
• Rather active community

Cons:

• Decent but not overly realistic animal animations, especially when shot (e.g. moose standing on their hind legs like some horses)
  
• Draw distance is pretty abysmal - you zoom in on your binoculars and you don't see grass or any of the animals at farther distances
  
• Level progression is too grindy and slow
  
• Due to having lots of animals in the game they're not all perfect, some look pretty poor

Way Of The Hunter

Pros:

• Amazing graphics
  
• Incredible render distance (1.1km on PC apparently) meaning you can spot animals very far away
  
• Much more realistic hunting experience - no massive glowing orbs and markers to blindly follow
  
• A completely different, more realistic approach to need zones - each animal has 6 - 2 feeding, 2 sleeping and 2 drinking - and they roam between them. Pressure makes them move to others.
  
• A nice selection of guns, despite some people always want more
  
• Huge maps (both are IIRC 12x12km, so 144 square kilometres)
  
• Better progression than COTW as you unlock skills by just doing things - shooting hearts/lungs, walking, driving, etc.

Cons:

• Only two maps in the game so far (two more coming in the next 10-12 months)
  
• No bows (apparently also coming)
  
• No companion dogs
  
• No tree stands or tents
  
• Very scarce fast travel locations, which makes traversing the large maps sometimes tiresome
  
• No rare fur types (again, yet apparently)
  
• Semi-broken multiplayer (e.g. if you host and your friend kills an animal they often can't claim it and get money for it)
  
• Quite a few audio bugs, which people have been complaining about for 2 months yet developers keep ignoring them.
  
• Broken shotguns where you can't hit one bird from 20 metres, yet developers say it works as intended so think what you want

Conclusion
So which one you will ask... If you won't lose sleep over £20 then go to cdkeys.com and buy WOTH from there. It's still too expensive on Steam for my liking though. It's already a very good game and has potential to become incredible but those few bugs (specifically the audio volumes and repeating bird noises that you get sometimes) currently hold it back a bit. Take into consideration that COTW has been around the block for 5 years already so direct comparisons can't be made. After all COTW at launch was pretty bad. If we assume Nine Rock Games will support WOTH for the next few years then there's hope everything will be eventually fixed.

If you're not planning on playing multiplayer much it's worth getting WOTH for the single player experience as it is indeed great. Graphics, draw distance and animal animations and behavior alone are worth it. COTW feels like a child's toy after you go back to it, despite being a good game. WOTH just has an edge over it if you want a more realistic experience. If you know you don't have much patience though WOTH won't be for you as it's much more difficult but then I guess you shouldn't be interested in hunting games at all.

You hit the point. Now it's time to be patient and see if the developers can get these problems under control. I think that if at some point there will be bow hunting and other pieces of equipment then the excitement and the comparison with cotw will be superfluous. Anyone who wants to support the game, despite the bugs it still has, should be aware that with every comment that casts the game in a bad light, the likelihood that it will fail sooner or later increases. The best way to fix these bugs is to report them where something can be done about it. Constructive criticism is even necessary. When these errors are corrected is not in our power. For example, if the sound problems were easy to fix, then the developers would certainly have done it by now. I have no idea about it and that's why I don't demand that everything works immediately. It is of no use to the game if potential buyers constantly only read negative reviews and thus get a completely wrong picture of woth. And if you concentrate on the positive, you will be defamed as a fanboy, but the game works for me, so I don't care about that designation.

Negative reviews are about the state of the game. That’s called ‘life’.
If the game had sound issues then it’s had sound issues from day dot. So therefore it shipped with sound issues and not enough testing done.
It’s not an EA title, so again, negative reviews or constructive opinions are much the same. No one is going to ‘talk it up’ if they’ve bought it with issues that cripple the game.
The other thing:
Reviews are what the world runs on these days. Be it trip adviser, pubs, meals, Amazon or steam. People have little patience anymore and when there’s no shop keeper (called a human) at steam to talk to or air their grievances, then it’s straight to a bad review. But there’s reviews everywhere on the internet, so you read them, glean the reoccurring occurrences of issues and find the good points and weigh them up to the point that you buy or don’t. Quite simple really.
But the whole system is it’s own worst enemy and it floats or sinks by it, thanks to the fact games get churned out with ‘day one’ patches.