• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

OPINION: Horizon Zero Dawn is the game MGSV should have been

As a longtime fan of the series, MGSV represented the framework for everything that could have been; it was pure potential. The potential to lay the mythology and nuance of the series onto a foundation of fresh new gameplay. MGSV should have been the pinnacle of the series...and unfortunately ended up being anything but. The intricately woven story of past entries was completely absent. Characterizations and complex themes were neutered. The truly interesting easter eggs and hidden "think-outside-the-box" tricks weren't really substantial, and what was there lacked that mind blowing "wow" factor that MGS3 had (e.g. the multiple, unique ways to kill/bypass The End, or turning the stamina system against the enemy by cutting off their food supply, etc).

Okay, so a lot of us can agree that MGSV wasn't really a great MGS game; but what is there makes for a solid action-stealth game. I can live with that. But is it this genre-defining masterpiece that some make it out to be? Not by a long shot. Anyone with two eyes can see a game that is very much incomplete; a barren open world with very little detail or variation. There's a dull lifelessness to it. The hackneyed mission structure just begs to be scaled back and placed into a cohesive and more compelling open world map. There's a glimmer of what could have been, to be sure. In the end, though, this ultimately resigns itself to being one of the most disappointing entries in a series I've ever played.

MGSV would have benefitted greatly from a quest structure similar to that of Horizon. A story that had three solid acts, and a protagonist that was true to the mythology of the series. If you were to add to that a survival and crafting system akin to what we had in MGS3, along with a more interactive and versatile camouflage mechanic, you'd have the culmination of everything MGS has ever tried to be.

Fast forward to the release of Horizon Zero Dawn. Never has any of the above been more apparent to me having played it; it is obvious Horizon is the game MGSV should and could have been, and I think even Hideo Kojima himself might have something to say on the matter. Why do I feel that this is the case?

The Decima Engine. Kojima ended up sourcing the Decima engine for Death Stranding. It's no coincidence that Horizon has a lot in common with MGSV, in terms of how it plays and feels. Horizon's emergent open-world gameplay encourages stealth-action strategies, with a wide variety of tactics and tools at your disposal to approach each encounter in a unique way. This is a game that performs beautifully, and looks insanely good while doing it, a goal Kojima and company have always worked very hard to attain (overall, when you take performance into consideration along with visual fidelity, Horizon runs laps around MGSV. It's more impressive in what it does at 30fps than MGSV is running at 60fps).

It is my theory (along with my opinion) that Kojima played Horizon and felt like this is exactly what he wanted to achieve with the FOX engine, but couldn't due to the situation with Konami. Maybe the Decima engine proved to be even more suited to his needs, who knows? What I do know is, playing Horizon and taking it in as a complete package, it feels like everything I wanted from MGSV: outstanding visuals and gameplay, a varied and detailed open world, all wrapped up in a satisfying story with fully realized characters.

I think Kojima looks to create the game he set out to make in the first place using the Decima Engine, free from constraints, with Horizon having set the bar so very high.

But that's just pure speculation, on my part. I have no idea what the man thinks. So I may very well be talking out of my ass.
 

LordKano

Member
I strongly disagree. The Ubisoft-like structure of Horion Zero Dawn would have compromised the profound gameplay of MGSV. It needs open areas, without constant interruptions in the environment. It's bland if you look at it from the perspective of a traditional open-world, but it's not supposed to be that. It's not a world you're supposed to explore, its only purpose is to give you freedom to infiltrate in specific places. And it does that wonderfully.
 

Bolivar687

Banned
You start talking about emergent gameplay and then don't explain what you mean and instead talk about the engine presentation and how Horizon at 30fps is more beautiful than a two year old cross gen game at 60fps. I love Horizon but it's nowhere near MGSV mechanically nor does it remotely touch what it achieved from a gameplay perspective, the only game that came close was Far Cry 2 (I've heard Stalker is in the same vein too).

I don't think we have the same definition of "emergent gameplay."
 

Par Score

Member
I'll add to the strong disagreement.

MGSV is a master-work, the heir apparent to the Far Cry 2 throne (until Breath of the Wild came along and performed a bit of regicide), a game truly full of options.

Horizon is a very well done Ubisoft-style "open-world" game, with a neat setting. It's not even in the same league as MGSV / Far Cry 2 / BotW.
 
It should have just been small missions with a larger border you can approach from any angle .

Cut all the motherbase resourcing shit and just have some excellently designed towns / mansions
 
MGSV didn't need to be open-world to start with. They should've gone with linear progression within areas akin to Uncharted 4's Madagascar or Hitman (Reboot) levels.
 
Two very different games with two very different goals. I don't think they're really comparable.

Also, graphically, it's really unfair to compare a cross gen, multiplatform game that's nearing two years old running at 60 FPS to a brand new game exclusive to one platform hitting 30 FPS. What Kojima did with the FOX Engine, especially with the optimization work done on PC, is just as impressive as anything Horizon does. MGS V runs max settings on toasters and still holds 50-60 FPS while looking great.

Edit: I also don't think you're giving credit to how open ended MGS V truly is when it comes to approaching situations. You really think you have the same options and tools at your disposal in Horizon that you do in MGS V?
 
It should have just been small missions with a larger border you can approach from any angle .

Cut all the motherbase resourcing shit and just have some excellently designed towns / mansions
It should have just been like Peace Walker.

Or even better: Just a linear game like MGS 1-4. With a great story, great characters, great boss fights ... and an ending. The stuff that made MGS great in the first place.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
MGS V's Gameplay structure was the best part about the game, so I disagree with OP somewhat and wouldn't change V's game play in the least.

Now if you say MGS V would have used a well rounded conclusion like Horizon had, that would be a solid yes.
 
I strongly disagree. The Ubisoft-like structure of Horion Zero Dawn would have compromised the profound gameplay of MGSV. It needs open areas, without constant interruptions in the environment. It's bland if you look at it from the perspective of a traditional open-world, but it's not supposed to be that. It's not a world you're supposed to explore, its only purpose is to give you freedom to infiltrate in specific places. And it does that wonderfully.
I disagree. There is nothing redeemable about MGSVs open world. most encampments are simple in structure and lack any real threat. Yeah you can tackle them any way you like but let's not act like it justifies the garbage open world is.
 
No, you got it wrong OP.

Edit: Botw is the improvement to MGSV template not Horizon. Not in term of structure or world design, but in term of gameplay (emergent gameplay)
 
My only real complaint with MGS V is that it's unfinished. Otherwise, it's exactly where the series needed to go. It could have used some more crazy boss fights in addition to actually being a full, finished game, but that's really about it.
 

THEaaron

Member
Not for me at all.

I really liked how gameplay and story were presented in MGSV. Seriously.


My only real complaint with MGS V is that it's unfinished. Otherwise, it's exactly where the series needed to go. It could have used some more crazy boss fights, but that's really about it.


It is not unfinished. MGSV is the bridge to Metal Gear. Kojima hinted that with COMING IN 1984(which is the refence for Orwell and being a prequel to MG) and stated it in a tweet after the games release.
It is just a prequel to that game. You can dislike the fact but that whole "it's unfinished" is not nailing it.
 
I strongly disagree. The Ubisoft-like structure of Horion Zero Dawn would have compromised the profound gameplay of MGSV. It needs open areas, without constant interruptions in the environment. It's bland if you look at it from the perspective of a traditional open-world, but it's not supposed to be that. It's not a world you're supposed to explore, its only purpose is to give you freedom to infiltrate in specific places. And it does that wonderfully.
While I'll defend MGS V to the death, I would have liked it more if they made each mission a separate mission like Ground Zeroes (not a separate release, mind you) and put you in a nice, open space beforehand instead of having you go to the mission from an open world perspective. Each mission started with me landing my helicopter and then going on a dead sprint for a while.
 
So I guess it's purely subjective that MGSV is stuffed to the gills with filler, no? Am I just imagining how bloated it felt?

The game's development was in chaos, and it feels that way, through and through. Is that not apparent to the people who put it on such a high pedestal?

People are putting it in the same league as Breath of the Wild and Far Cry 2?

Just...wat?

I must have missed that conversation.
 

Interfectum

Member
Nope. MGS5 should have been setup more like Hitman. There should have been 10 or so "Ground Zeroes" style maps all set in unique locations.
 
So I guess it's purely subjective that MGSV is stuffed to the gills with filler, no? Am I just imagining how bloated it felt?

The game's development was in chaos, and it feels that way, through and through. Is that not apparent to the people who put it on such a high pedestal?

People are putting it in the same league as Breath of the Wild and Far Cry 2?

Just...wat?

I must have missed that conversation.

Nah, I agree it has a decent amount of bloat. I just chose not to engage in most of it, so it's not a big issue for me.
 

Nestunt

Member
MGSV should have been many different games (even open-world) with those amazing controls. It's a shame they did not know how to properly design an open-world.
 

Elandyll

Banned
Agreed.

The open world structure of MGS V got in the way of itself (beside the freeform way of tackling objectives), while they managed to make it work with a strong nartative in HZD, where nearly every single side quest ties in the narrative in some ways or builds the world further.
 
So I guess it's purely subjective that MGSV is stuffed to the gills with filler, no? Am I just imagining how bloated it felt?

The game's development was in chaos, and it feels that way, through and through. Is that not apparent to the people who put it on such a high pedestal?

People are putting it in the same league as Breath of the Wild and Far Cry 2?

Just...wat?

I must have missed that conversation.

Not that it's the best indicator of quality, but it did take #3 in the Best Games of 2015 poll here. I think fans of the game like me recognize that it's a flawed masterpiece. I agree that the conclusion could be better, and there's a glaring plotline that isn't tied up, but I didn't feel like the main missions were filler at all. I was addicted as hell to them. I played through some of them multiple times to try out different approaches. I had a lot of fun.

If you didn't like it, you didn't like it. And that's fine. Some of it may have felt like filler to you.
 

Dervius

Member
+1 for disagreement.

I can see where OP is coming from, but it still seems like an odd comparison.

While on paper both games feature open-worlds, and stealth-gameplay, functionally they're very different.

MGSV's open world seems to go often misunderstood. It was not intended to be used in the way traditional open world games are, it was made open to offer the greatest number of options to your tactical approach - which it achieved brilliantly.

Horizon seems to be a very accomplished "traditional" open world game. It definitely surpasses MGSV in areas such as narrative (or being finished).

Also, as people have already stated, comparing the visual presentation of a two year ld multi-platform title running at 60fps to a brand new platform exclusive title running at 30fps seems less than worthwhile.

tl:dr; Can't really compare the two properly because they strive for, and achieve, very different things despite the surface-level similarities.

P.S. MGSV is a mechanical masterpiece.
 
Not that it's the best indicator of quality, but it did take #3 in the Best Games of 2015 poll here. I think fans of the game like me recognize that it's a flawed masterpiece. I agree that the conclusion could be better, and there's a glaring plotline that isn't tied up, but I didn't feel like the main missions were filler at all. I was addicted as hell to them. I played through some of them multiple times to try out different approaches. I had a lot of fun.

If you didn't like it, you didn't like it. And that's fine. Some of it may have felt like filler to you.

To be clear, I enjoyed my 40ish hours with it, but it wore me down. It was around the time I fought the skulls with rock armor at the airport that I realized just how ill-conceived a lot of it felt (to me). That was a pathetic excuse for a boss fight (all of them are) compared to what has come before in the series.

After that, along with countless side ops, I felt like I had experienced everything the game had to offer. I went online and discovered the rest of the game/story via videos and write ups. And boy and I glad I didn't stick around for that "ending". Woof.

To be clear, I think MGSV is fun for what it is, but I don't hold it in high regard at all. It's kind of baffling to me that some consider it to be a "masterpiece". I thought that title was reserved for MGS3.
 
I strongly disagree. The Ubisoft-like structure of Horion Zero Dawn would have compromised the profound gameplay of MGSV. It needs open areas, without constant interruptions in the environment. It's bland if you look at it from the perspective of a traditional open-world, but it's not supposed to be that. It's not a world you're supposed to explore, its only purpose is to give you freedom to infiltrate in specific places. And it does that wonderfully.

Whenever I hear this, I wonder if they've even played the game. Some parts of Horizon are reminiscent of a Ubisoft open world game but as a whole it's nothing alike.

Regardless, no OP. Horizon and MGSV are two completely different games with two completely different creative visions.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
I really liked how gameplay and story were presented in MGSV. Seriously.

Same here. The un-closed plot threads were fine too as the fates of the major characters involved are dealt with in other MGS games, and having a second re-hashed metal gear fight in chapter 51 I maintain would still have felt somewhat anti-climactic.

The honest truth though is that there is a ton of content in MGSV as it stands, so how anyone could possibly feel short-changed is mystifying to me.
 

Protome

Member
Nah, Hitman is the game MGSV should have been.

Take a handful of levels the size and content of Ground Zeroes, give it Hitman's structure for repeatability and missions.
 

Zakalwe

Banned
So I guess it's purely subjective that MGSV is stuffed to the gills with filler, no? Am I just imagining how bloated it felt?

The game's development was in chaos, and it feels that way, through and through. Is that not apparent to the people who put it on such a high pedestal?

People are putting it in the same league as Breath of the Wild and Far Cry 2?

Just...wat?

I must have missed that conversation.

1. Far Cry 2 is not a good game... you're suggesting it's in the same league as BotW? Or suggesting that whatever league it's in is above MGSV?

FC2 is a game with a lot of great innovative ideas, but overall it's a janky mess.


2. In relation to the OP, that's a terrible idea. MGSV has issues, but they're mosstly story and pacing related. The actual gameplay is the best TPS gameplay available today, Horizon is good but it doesn't even come close to the amount of options and emergent nature of MGSV's gameplay.

-

Personally, I think both Horizon and MGSV have the same issues: bland open world with highly polished and fun gameplay that becomes repetitive because of the bland open world.

MGSV manages to combat this somewhat with its emergent gameplay.

Horizon manages to combat this somewhat with its more focused narrative pulling you forward.

Overall, Horizon is more successful in producing a game that feels more focused, but MGSV has incredible emergent gameplay that Horizon can't even come close to.

Point being, what you propose in the OP is not a solution. Horizon doesn't do what MGSV is trying to do, Horizon isn't an example of getting right what MGSV got wrong (story issues aside, I think Horizon definitely tells a better story).

Both games try different things, both games have similar flaws, and both games end up being very different experiences.
 

Markoman

Member
Disagree....

MGSV is a tactical open world sandbox that reminds me of games like Operation Flashpoint. HZD is a more story-focussed game.

MGSV's flaws came from time constraints, multi-plattform development and too much MB stuff.
 
Gotta hop on the disagreement train here. Very different games (and goals) with surface similarities like mechanics.

Also, MGSV was 60 fps, even on consoles, so it seems like it would be kind of a step back to then add visual fidelity, but reduce the framerate for DS. That smoother framerate is part of the MGS "mechanical masterpiece" that is MGSV. Everything is just so responsive and you're able to move and react quickly.

Also, I do think we're putting the cart wayyyyy before the horse. We don't yet have a solid enough idea of what DS is going to be from a gameplay perspective to warrant predictions about why he chose the engine he did, at least imho
 

Truant

Member
The moment-to-moment gameplay of MGS5 is infinitely better than Horizon. Its biggest issue is the underdeveloped world and base stuff. I actually think it would be better as a stealth action game set in the MGS universe, with no real story. I guess it kinda is that way now, but selling it as the final MGS game is kinda misleading.

I wish there was a Long War style mod for MGS5 that added a bunch of upgrades, missions and things to do in the game.

Edit: I have no interest in the MGS story/games outside 5.
 

Alo0oy

Banned
I strongly disagree. The Ubisoft-like structure of Horion Zero Dawn would have compromised the profound gameplay of MGSV. It needs open areas, without constant interruptions in the environment. It's bland if you look at it from the perspective of a traditional open-world, but it's not supposed to be that. It's not a world you're supposed to explore, its only purpose is to give you freedom to infiltrate in specific places. And it does that wonderfully.

While I disagree with the OP because I think it's a great game, this post reads like you haven't played the game.

The game's structure is nothing like Ubisoft, the game has no interruptions, and the areas are open, all of them except for the dungeons are open. Everything you said about Horizon is false/hearsay.
 

Truant

Member
While I disagree with the OP because I think it's a great game, this post reads like you haven't played the game.

The game's structure is nothing like Ubisoft, the game has no interruptions, and the areas are open, all of them except for the dungeons are open.

Agreed. Horizon does the open world thing a lot better than MGS5. It's not even in the same league.
 
Eh, I just didn't see many great examples of true, "emergent gameplay" in MGSV. Certainly not to the extent of what was in MGS3.

There was nothing, NOTHING as detailed as destroying the enemy's food supply in a given area (TNT to the food storage sheds), listening for soldiers who were complaining about being hungry, and setting traps using poisoned food rations for the soldiers to go "FOOD!", wolfing that shit down and dropping dead from it.

MGSV didn't have anything CLOSE to that. Or maybe I just missed it?

And yes, 60fps and smooth controls and all that...but what the hell else was there??

Those outposts were so...bare.

I don't get it. Or is 60fps really that important? Is that what made the game good for so many people?
 

horkrux

Member
Horizon's emergent open-world gameplay encourages stealth-action strategies, with a wide variety of tactics and tools at your disposal to approach each encounter in a unique way.

I don't know what you mean by 'wide variety', because it essentially boils down to entering the next patch of tall grass and that's it. It's fun, it works, but it's ultimately shallow af. The gameplay in MGSV is vastly superior, you have way more tactics and tools at your disposal. In Horizon fighting humans is actually the worst part of the game. In MGSV it manages to entertain you for dozens of hours.

I agree that MGSV's open world is heavily flawed, but you're actually doing more varied stuff than in the previous games. You're no longer just running from A to B, you're actually infiltrating, achieving a certain goal and exfiltrating, all in one mission, multiple times throughout the game. What it's really lacking is surprises I guess.
 

Phediuk

Member
Are people still trying to push the "Horizon is just an Ubisoft game" narrative?

lol.

What the fuck Ubisoft game plays like Horizon at all? I mean, tell me which ones, because I must have missed them.
 

ksamedi

Member
Mgsv is one of the greatest games of all time. Yeah it didnt necesarily have to be open world but the OP seems to think its universally disliked. Thats not true at all.
 

Zakalwe

Banned
Agreed. Horizon does the open world thing a lot better than MGS5. It's not even in the same league.

Horizon's open world is not one of its strong points.

It's basically a huge arena for the combat, with very little reward for exploration (aside from a few items, the collectable stuff is very underwhelming in terms of reward), very little interaction aside from the combat and story related areas, it doesn't feel lived in and even if the story supports this fact the actual gameplay feels less compared to RPGs with more alive open worlds like TW3.

Horizon does a lot of things right, but its open world, while very beautiful and impressive from a technical standpoint, is not an example of the best in the business.
 

LordKano

Member
I disagree. There is nothing redeemable about MGSVs open world. most encampments are simple in structure and lack any real threat. Yeah you can tackle them any way you like but let's not act like it justifies the garbage open world is.

Eh, I just don't think that's true at all. Most of the encampments offers a nice depth of possibilites and multiple reactions depending on how you infiltrate.

While I'll defend MGS V to the death, I would have liked it more if they made each mission a separate mission like Ground Zeroes (not a separate release, mind you) and put you in a nice, open space beforehand instead of having you go to the mission from an open world perspective. Each mission started with me landing my helicopter and then going on a dead sprint for a while.

I agree, there's room for a lot of improvments, if only in term of game design (the helicopter gimmick is incredibly boring after a few missions).
 

Truant

Member
Horizon's open world is not one of its strong points.

It's basically a huge arena for the combat, with very little reward for exploration (aside from a few items, the collectable stuff is very underwhelming in terms of reward), very little interaction aside from the combat, it doesn't feel lived in and even if the story supports this fact the actual gameplay feels less compared to RPGs with more alive open worlds like TW3.

Horizon does a lot of things right, but its open world, while very beautiful and impressive from a technical standpoint, is not an example of the best in the business.

That was kinda my point. MGS5's world is that bad.
 
Mgsv is one of the greatest games of all time. Yeah it didnt necesarily have to be open world but the OP seems to think its universally disliked. Thats not true at all.

I really, really don't see this holding up over time. No way this is a commonly uttered phrase ten years from now.
 

RRockman

Banned
Absolutely not. Horizon does well at what it does but MGS5 is at a whole 'nother level when it comes with interactivity with all enemies and machines, not just the machines. Also, watching my elder brother play it when ever he was on a mission, he would sometimes have backup that would magically teleport to his location instead of having to find a way to their point.

Then some missions themselves are also heavily oriented towards one solution as well, that same mission with the magic support team made it extraordinarily hard to sneak in the point where you needed to be. he was able to force his way through by constantly jumping on rocks in an unpolished manner, clearly meaning it was not intended.
 

Scrawnton

Member
Strongly disagree. MGSV is very mechanics driven and it's world is perfect for its style of gameplay that allows countless angles to deal with missions. To me, Horizon boiled down to just being a third person shooter in a Ubisoft-esque open world.

Open world games need to be more like MGSV and BotW and less like Horizon.
 

duckroll

Member
Or maybe I just missed it?

Yeah, sounds like you missed it. There's a shitload of freeform emergent scenarios all over MGSV in every mission. I've done missions in totally different ways depending on how I approach, and the way the game reacts to your actions is on a whole other level compared to MGS3. MGSV has some of my most memorable unscripted moments in the entire series, especially when I fuck up and the game adjusts to the fuck up, allowing me to find other alternative solutions to clean up my own mess.

Frankly, I feel Hitman ate MGS5's lunch.

I think this would be true if more people actually played Hitman, unfortunately, in terms of popularity and awareness, MGSV being second best basically means it is the best for most people.
 

THEaaron

Member
Well, ignoring the aesthetics, Horizons open world is also a pretty shallow battle arena.

But it is "worse" with MGSV. Where the open-world aspect is crucial to create the freedom in base infiltration and also ends there.
 

Fardeen

Member
I wish mgs V Atleast had that quantity of good story content and cut scenes like horizon and Witcher 3. These games were huge but didn't lack story content at all. MGS5 was so bland and dull and was an insult to fans who loved mgs story and lore. How big boss turned to the dark side. Instead we got Kojima poor imitation of a protagonist inspired by mad max silent protagonist type. This sucked
 
Top Bottom