• 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.

My problems with Horizon Zero Dawn's exploration

I really like Horizon Zero Dawn. The story, surprisingly, was my favorite part. I wasn't expecting that at all, coming into a game with robo-dinosaurs as its selling pitch. The monster design is cool, the real-time and elaborate VATS system is great, it's visually stunning, Aloy is a lot of fun with her spunky and cheeky attitude, as well as her smooth controls. And more, and more.

I've a lot of compliments for the game, but during my second, ongoing playthrough, a certain problem I had throughout the first is still prevalent - I don't really like exploring in Horizon. Sometimes I launch the game for just 15-30 minute play sessions and enjoy the roaming, but mostly on a visual level. Then the initial splendor of the graphics fades, because visuals are always something I get used to quickly, and then I'm left a bit bored when not focusing on a mission.

It has to do with two things - the absence of some RPG staples, and the interaction with the environment, mainly platforming (which actually isn't an RPG staple). The game has more problems, but I want to focus on this because enjoyable exploration is a topic I like in general, and is essential to open worlds, particularly RPGs.

The wilds of HZD hide no weapons or armor for you to claim. All of the game's gear, sans modifications, is acquired through merchants. This arguably makes sense and is more realistic. But ultimately, from a gameplay perspective, I find it less enjoyable. It's a small improvement to the verisimilitude (though maybe not even) at the expense of incentive through rewards and a sense of discovery. Normally in RPGs, when I find myself in some random cave, dungeon or building that I stumbled upon by chance, there's that small tinge of anticipation that at the end of this small adventure I'll find some item of worth. It's a trope, and it's a small thing, but I find it really fun nevertheless. Loot may not be the sole reason for exploring every nook and cranny in big games, but I think it's a pretty significant one. I think part of the reasonit's ignored in Horizon is because HZD's inventory is too streamlined. Classic equipment slots don't exist - no place for a helmet, gloves, boots and shirt, all separate from one another, or even non-visual items like rings and amulets. In HZD you have complete sets, and that restricts how the game can reward you for exploration, because when it's an all-or-nothing design with clothing, you can't sprinkle small but satisfying gear throughout the map.

Settlements are another point. Bluntly put, I didn't care when I reached one. Everything they have to offer is presented right in front of you, and what they have to offer is often boring. An example of something simple - closed buildings. Like with the point about loot, there's something to be said about creating a realistic world - you can't enter random homes and pick stuff up. But, again, from a gameplay perspective, I find it dull. Entering a village or a city where no door can be opened felt very restrictive and somehow made the settlement feel not much different than the wilds. The buildings were essentially pretty blocks, blocks that I couldn't interact with and made much less interesting than what they could have been. No books to be found, scarce few NPCs to idly talk with about their lives, not too many interesting NPC animations.

Interior design can serve as a story-telling device, demonstrating different traits of different villages in different locations of the world. A village in an area plagued by famine would have no food inside the buildings. A village of a hunting tribe might have many trophies inside the homes, of defeated machines, or little bows for the children. Taverns tend to be a staple of RPGs where you can get a lot of information about the world or ongoing quests, maybe find new ones, and play mini-games. Reaching a town means you get to sell a lot of good loot you found in the wilds. It's your chance to finally craft that special weapon or armor you gathered the ingredients for. You get to recover, to clean up your inventory, and then set out again to the wilds. They can be small havens.

All of these little moments were missing for me in HZD. Overall, it made me feel that there wasn't much to see in the towns. The experience was better in Meridian, but only beacuse its size meant there were more journal logs to find. So the only offering was lore, less so anything interesting in the mechanical department, character building. These might seem like quibbles, but they're sincerely things that I found myself missing. I do realize though that if done poorly a lot here can end up harming the experience by being tedious (weight limit, strict crafting processes, fast weapon degradatoin, etc).

My second issue is a mechanical one, and I feel a bit guilty about it because Horizon does more than other RPGs in this field. It's also different by nature than my first point - it's not about existing practices of the genre, but rather a relatively new thing I want to see more of.

Platforming hasn't been a big thing in the genre's history. You'd sometimes spam jump to try and push yourself over some edge (a box, a cliff...), but that's not exactly a feature a game would pride itself on. It's awkward, neither fun to play nor fun to watch. Even if it's not challenigng, having dedicated platforming animations to watch does make the experience of climbing up stuff more enjoyable. That Horizon has them is a step forward for action-RPGs. They're animated well and they're fast. They also allow for some nice instances when it comes to exploration. I remember vaguely from my first playthrough a part where I was high in the mountains, hanging off the side of one and jumping to another, over a deep pit. It was a small moment, but a cool one, made possible only by dedicated platforming features.

That being said, Horizon takes after Uncharted's style of platforming, which to me is negative when it comes to gameplay. It's restrictive in order to be more visually pleasing, and (too) guiding of the player. You can only climb in designated spots. This ended up making exploration a bit disappointing for me, mechanically, and also why I feel a tad guilty about this point. Horizon does more than any other RPG, but ironically that only made me want more. Many times throughout my travels, particularly when I was staring at ruins, I found myself really wanting to climb them. Why? Because I have a monkey brain and reaching high spots is intrinsically fun. I'm not even talking about the huge buildings, just the smaller, collapsed ones. Old homes in the ruined old cities, or 3-4 story buildings.

I feel the same about trees, boulders and natural elevations, or alternatively, about holes in walls of the ruined buildings that you can neither crouch through nor slide through, despite looking of appropriate size. That last point isn't platforming, but it does have to do with interaction with the environment. Every time I try doing that and fail, or walk by some big tree or old building that I can't climb, I feel a pinch of regret that the interaction with Horizon's environments isn't more liberal. Maybe this sentiment wouldn't have risen if there were no platforming at all, or if most of the map were flat, but since I did get a taste of it during the game and a lot of its design is so vertical, it left me wanting more. I haven't thought about it so much as to decide between Assassin Creed's approach or Breath of the Wild's, but I do know at this point that I want future open world games to not be restrictive when it comes to interaction with the environment. Particularly climbing, but not only that.
 

WaterAstro

Member
It's an open-world game. It has RPG elements, but it's not an RPG.

You could slap Red Dead Redemption in this thread and it would still apply, to this and many other open world games.

Because of my perception? Because it is marketed as an action RPG.

No it's not. You define your character in an RPG. In Horizon, you're playing a character that is already set.
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
I have said this many times, but to me Horizon has most boring open world game I ever played. This especially becomes obvious after playing BotW. Even the open world in Evil Within 2 and NieR Automata much more fun to explore because there is actually things to find. Horizon relies heavily on its visuals for its open world rather than through its mechanics.
 
The spectacle and combat was enough for me to look beyond HZD's shortcomings, especially since BOTW released around the same time and completely changed the perception of open world design that developers became comfortable with.

You're not wrong, but I think the things it focuses on are so much more appealing to me personally.
 
On the one hand people demand more quality postings. But then people like you shoot those down because if a meaningless little annoyance of yours.

:/
Thanks :3

It's an open-world game. It has RPG elements, but it's not an RPG.

You could slap Red Dead Redemption in this thread and it would still apply, to this and many other open world games.



No it's not. You define your character in an RPG. In Horizon, you're playing a character that is already set.
I'm getting confused here. Are we talking about how we treat the game, or how it's marketed? I'm saying that it is specifically marketed as an action role playing game. It says exactly that on the PS store. It says so in the basic Google search. It says so in wikipedia. The developers call it that. What more is required? I'm not really sure why there's an argument that it's not an action RPG, from a marketing point, from how the GG treat it and think of it.

I have said this many times, but to me Horizon has most boring open world game I ever played. This especially becomes obvious after playing BotW. Even the open world in Evil Within 2 and NieR Automata much more fun to explore because there is actually things to find. Horizon relies heavily on its visuals for its open world rather than through its mechanics.
Pretty much put succinctly how I feel, yeah.

The spectacle and combat was enough for me to look beyond HZD's shortcomings, especially since BOTW released around the same time and completely changed the perception of open world design that developers became comfortable with.

You're not wrong, but I think the things it focuses on are so much more appealing to me personally.
Yeah, it's the same for me. Well, that, and the story. I just feel a little pinch thinking about how it could have been so much more. I'm not too interested in Zelda, and I don't have a switch, but I want to experience Breath of the Wild just to feel for myself all the traversal options there.
 

NahaNago

Member
My problems with exploration was i didn't really see a point for it. Every little village looked the same to the main city in each area. Without that map telling me where to go i would have no idea where i should go since there wasn't a recognizable/unique landmark/name for each area. I kinda wish they went crazy with the towns and environment. I blame google maps.
 

Ide88

Neo Member
But what if the intent was not exploration? Is it fair to criticize horizon for poor exploration if that's not the point of the game? Maybe all games can be open world now because we have the technology to render open worlds easily? I haven't played it so I don't know, but it seems like the focus is on combat and the story?
 
But what if the intent was not exploration? Is it fair to criticize horizon for poor exploration if that's not the point of the game? Maybe all games can be open world now because we have the technology to render open worlds easily? I haven't played it so I don't know, but it seems like the focus is on combat and the story?
Oh, I think the focus (as it turned out) *is* the combat and the story. But if that's the case, why make it open world at all? I don't think open worlds should be the default of new games, just because the technology is there. I think that if you make an open world, there needs to be a reason for that - otherwise it's mostly just a bit of a time waste between one focus and another (combat and story).
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
But what if the intent was not exploration? Is it fair to criticize horizon for poor exploration if that's not the point of the game? Maybe all games can be open world now because we have the technology to render open worlds easily? I haven't played it so I don't know, but it seems like the focus is on combat and the story?

Im sorry but thats poor excuse. when developers create open wold that means they want the players to explore but if they don't award the players for exploring then the open world part becomes pointless and also becomes chore to get through.
 

WaterAstro

Member
I'm getting confused here. Are we talking about how we treat the game, or how it's marketed? I'm saying that it is specifically marketed as an action role playing game. It says exactly that on the PS store. It says so in the basic Google search. It says so in wikipedia. The developers call it that. What more is required? I'm not really sure why there's an argument that it's not an action RPG, from a marketing point, from how the GG treat it and think of it.

Yes, because it has RPG elements. Gameplay elements entirely.

When I read the post, you're comparing this game to other RPGs like Witcher 3 or Elder Scrolls. Then you start talking about platforming like it's supposed to be Mario or Ratchet and Clank.

You want this game to be what it's not, and you can't just look at marketing, hear the words "RPG" and create your own expectations from that. If you even watched a trailer from E3, all these expectations in your OP would have been shot. They literally showed what the game is about.
 
Exploration was one of, if not my favourite thing in this game. The map perfectly balances between the different landscapes. Every setting has context in the storyline, various factions, monsters, unique in the map mean exploring was interesting in my opinion.
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
So the Witcher isn't an rpg according to you?

To me Horizon is not RPG because you can't build Alloy however you want. Half way through the game you basically unlock everything. Even in NieR you build character to focus on melee combat or range using the chip system.
 
On the one hand people demand more quality postings. But then people like you shoot those down because if a meaningless little annoyance of yours.

:/
Not to derail the conversation further but it’s all about expectation. Is Destiny 2 part rpg because the devs and marketing have presented it as such. Hell no. Anyone who’s played it for more than a few hours would know that.

I was simply trying to state (albeit in too truncated a fashion) that his exceptations, while reasonably set, could have been corrected by watching a simple let’s play or something. It’s perfectly relevant to criticize the game but to compare it to games which don’t really bear any resemblance just strikes me as kind of a waste of (a lot) of words.
 
Yes, because it has RPG elements. Gameplay elements entirely.

When I read the post, you're comparing this game to other RPGs like Witcher 3 or Elder Scrolls. Then you start talking about platforming like it's supposed to be Mario or Ratchet and Clank.

You want this game to be what it's not, and you can't just look at marketing, hear the words "RPG" and create your own expectations from that. If you even watched a trailer from E3, all these expectations in your OP would have been shot. They literally showed what the game is about.
I don't see how you got all that from reading my post. I'm well aware that the platforming elements aren't a staple of the genre. I wrote that. I wrote that HZD is pushing the genre forward in that regard. And since it has this element in the game, I wrote about how I think it could be improved. I'm not forced upon it something completely unrelated - it's something that the game itself chose to do (and something that the genre itself, of action RPGs, can work well with).

I don't see how watching a trailer would have made my post any different. I'm trying to talk a bit in depth about how I think certain mechanics could be improved later on. The full extent of mechanics aren't revealed in 10-15 minute videos. And even if they were, again, I'm not blaming the game or anything. I'm saying how I think it could be better, and why. In my post I said that my points about platforming are mostly going forward in the genre, not that it's something that exists.

I also don't see how HZD and TW3. Both are games I love, and both are very, very similar in their structure as action RPGs. They differ in execution and focus, but they both are open world RPGs where you play a predefined characters, story heavy.

But, honestly, I feel this is really steering away from the discussion I was trying to get here about how to make exploration worthwhile in games, and where Horizon succeeded and failed out. You're derailing that thread, and by taking weird stances too, such as saying that it's not an action RPG - unrelated to my expectations - and then just don't refer to all the marketing material provided to prove that it is, at least marketing-wise.

The discussion about what is and isn't an action RPG doesn't matter to me per se. At least, not when the developer itself markets it as such. I don't think that the points I raised are completely out of place, regarding what the game is marketed as (which relates to the first half of my post), or what it could do better in what it did try to do (relates to my second half). I also find it almost always a pointless discussion, especially today when so many genres are mixing together.
 
To me Horizon is not RPG because you can't build Alloy however you want. Half way through the game you basically unlock everything. Even in NieR you build character to focus on melee combat or range using the chip system.

Ok that makes more sense. Personally I wouldn't call it a rpg either but disqualifying games that have a predefined character doesn't make any sense. It would disqualify a large number of actual rpgs.
 

autoduelist

Member
It doesn't really matter how it's marketed. It's an open world game through and through, with RPG elements [just like most games have nowadays]. People like 'leveling' and increased stats, etc, so everything gets marketed as part RPG.

I disagree about lewt in this game. There are some weapons/etc to be found, but you're right, it's rare. Buying from a merchant ultimately makes more sense.
 
Not to derail the conversation further but it’s all about expectation. Is Destiny 2 part rpg because the devs and marketing have presented it as such. Hell no. Anyone who’s played it for more than a few hours would know that.

I was simply trying to state (albeit in too truncated a fashion) that his exceptations, while reasonably set, could have been corrected by watching a simple let’s play or something. It’s perfectly relevant to criticize the game but to compare it to games which don’t really bear any resemblance just strikes me as kind of a waste of (a lot) of words.
The bold part is about the platforming point? What games was it compared to, and how doesn't it bear any resemblance? I'm not sure I fully understand that line, sorry.
 

Toni

Member
Agreed, no way is it GOTY worthy though.

In your opinion, ofcourse.

There are a lot of people that love the package Horizon came with.

I thoroughly enjoyed it and think its got every chance to be awarded. The DLC was superb.
 

AR15mex

Member
I don't want to create fights or anything, but a quick Wiki search reveals the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_Zero_Dawn says it's an Action RPG, so there it is.

On OP's topic, I know how he feels, but it is an open world in an era where BOTW has set a new bar for exploration (which I think is a huge part on today game's standards) it feels quite limiting.

Again, if you want a linear adventure and a good story, Horizon is there for you.
 
No it's not. You define your character in an RPG. In Horizon, you're playing a character that is already set.

I agree with you that it's not an RPG but I want to test your idea of RPG with another one: what does set a character, its history or its actions? In a way, isn't every game an RPG regarding the character actions? This is really important as western RPGs are focused on character actions while JRPG are focused on their history. I think its not an RPG as the game history is linear: independent of what you buy or do the end of the game is already written. There is no choice that you could make, there is no "dice roll" to decide something.
 
Well you are a hunter essentially and the stuff you get from enemies is how you progress and acquire weapons and armor. However there is one piece of armor that you get by completing the appropriate side missions. I agree that the villages are pretty boring. There's nothing to do there but to trade and acquire new missions. I still love the game though because the world is such a beauty and the combat is so amazing. People call it an RPG, but that's like calling Farcry 3 an RPG. The gameplay loop is pretty similar. I think they have a good foundation and hopefully the sequel cranks it up significantly.
 
The bold part is about the platforming point? What games was it compared to, and how doesn't it bear any resemblance? I'm not sure I fully understand that line, sorry.

You seem confused about what you want the game to be. Is it an rpg with action elements? Is it a an action game in the vein of Uncharted? If it's the former, you should be thanking your lucky stars it handles as well as Uncharted when other surely don't. I understand you're not literally saying it's Uncharted (only that it takes after Uncharted's platforming) but you're not allowing for the fact that Uncharted is a drastically different experience, one that is vastly simplified and scripted in comparison. You want the climbing to be better than a game that's completely dedicated, gameplay-wise, to a handful of repeated mechanics in a game that's much shorter?

The game can't be all things to all people, or be better than the best elements of other highly lauded games whose devs have probably spent significantly more time and resources refining those mechanics.

It's a new IP in an evolving mashup of genres that Guerilla has zero experience in to this point. Just saying that moderating your expectations might have been helpful in this case.
 
Good post

I agree with a lot of what you said.

Personally I gave HZD a 9.5 in all technical areas and a 7.5 in gameplay. It is a great game overall but a little shallow in some aspects
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
It's a new IP in an evolving mashup of genres that Guerilla has zero experience in to this point. Just saying that moderating your expectations might have been helpful in this case.
Keiichiro Toyama, the guy made his career out of making games like Siren and Silent hill games made Gravity Rush that has unique open world with unique game mechanic. Guerilla both had the budget and the tech, they could have made much more interesting open world but instead they went with Ubisoft style open world which was the safest and most boring way to do open world.
 
Keiichiro Toyama, the guy made his career out of making games like Siren and Silent hill games made Gravity Rush that has unique open world with unique game mechanic. Guerilla both had the budget and the tech, they could have made much more interesting open world but instead they went with Ubisoft style open world which was the safest and most boring way to do open world.

What does one have to do with the other? He doesn't work for Guerilla...are all devs equally talented and creative? Just because they have the budget and the tech doesn't mean they're going to magically be good at things they've never attempted or possibly don't have the skills to accomplish.

I mean c'mon, look at Rockstar. Biggest budgets and unlimited resources and still can't make a game that doesn't have on-foot controls that feel like they're dropped out of a ps2 game
 
No it's not. You define your character in an RPG. In Horizon, you're playing a character that is already set.

Dumbest post in thread.

There are tons of RPG's with set characters like most FF games, Persona, Witcher and so on.

I'd call Horizon RPG lite, since it is very light on the RPG elements. It's very linear, most side quests don't matter or affect the story in any way, there aren't any branching paths. The only thing i remember that you can have an effect on is wether you recruit people for the end fight.

Also you unlock every talent in the game when you are max level.
 
You seem confused about what you want the game to be. Is it an rpg with action elements? Is it a an action game in the vein of Uncharted? If it's the former, you should be thanking your lucky stars it handles as well as Uncharted when other surely don't. I understand you're not literally saying it's Uncharted (only that it takes after Uncharted's platforming) but you're not allowing for the fact that Uncharted is a drastically different experience, one that is vastly simplified and scripted in comparison. You want the climbing to be better than a game that's completely dedicated, gameplay-wise, to a handful of repeated mechanics in a game that's much shorter?

The game can't be all things to all people, or be better than the best elements of other highly lauded games whose devs have probably spent significantly more time and resources refining those mechanics.

It's a new IP in an evolving mashup of genres that Guerilla has zero experience in to this point. Just saying that moderating your expectations might have been helpful in this case.
I don't think I'm confused about what I want it to be, but I do agree what what I outline in the second half is immensely ambitious. I want it better in the basic RPG components, and I want the traversal to take a step forward in open worlds in general. That's the ambitious part, yeah.

The first half of my post, the points regarding villages and the hub centers, I think that's reasonable even with what HZD set out to achieve. The second part of my post is much more hopeful, and focused on the future. I know that RPGs \ action RPGs are huge games that combine together more systems than most other games, so I don't exactly *expect* them to excel in things that other games focus on heavily. What I write about regarding the platforming is probably too demanding just yet, but I think we're starting to see it more and more, enough to make me hopeful about what they could be in a few years. HZD, of course, but TW3 also introduced platforming mechanics that weren't in western RPG developers haven't done previously (BioWare, Obsidian, Bethesda). Very basic ones, but still better than hopping in place. AC has been very action focused in its beginning, but it's also starting to steer towards this action-RPG hybrid, and it has fairly complex platforming\parkour. Zelda took interaction with the environment to a new level.

Yeah, they're all games focused on different things, but I think they're close enough to warrant some hope about how environmental interaction can be in future open world games.
 
What does one have to do with the other? He doesn't work for Guerilla...are all devs equally talented and creative? Just because they have the budget and the tech doesn't mean they're going to magically be good at things they've never attempted or possibly don't have the skills to accomplish.

I mean c'mon, look at Rockstar. Biggest budgets and unlimited resources and still can't make a game that doesn't have on-foot controls that feel like they're dropped out of a ps2 game

I'm not sure why someone being new or at least less familiar means they get a pass for something being subpar to some people. I personally enjoyed the hell out of Horizon and it, along with Nier, is definitely a GOTY thing for me. But I'm also not going to necessarily put it above other open-world games that did it better. It was definitely one of the weaker elements of the game, but they did a decent job of at least breaking it up when going to a new area and giving you a ton of fast travel options.

If someone else (GR2, Nier, whatever) did it better they did it better, the skill involved in pulling it off is inconsequential. You shouldn't get a trophy for participation if you tried hard but still failed.
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
What does one have to do with the other? He doesn't work for Guerilla...are all devs equally talented and creative? Just because they have the budget and the tech doesn't mean they're going to magically be good at things they've never attempted or possibly don't have the skills to accomplish.

I mean c'mon, look at Rockstar. Biggest budgets and unlimited resources and still can't make a game that doesn't have on-foot controls that feel like they're dropped out of a ps2 game

WTF!!!! I myself not big fan of Rockstar games but god damn they make the most liveliest open world game out there. I would say Rockstar make damn good use of their tech. My problem with GG that didn't even try to do anything interesting. They apply things are popular and thats it. I would rather made some thing that might be flawed but interesting rather than go with safe and boring.
 
WTF!!!! I myself not big fan of Rockstar games but god damn they make the most liveliest open world game out there. I would say Rockstar make damn good use of their tech. My problem with GG that didn't even try to do anything interesting. They apply things are popular and thats it. I would rather made some thing that might be flawed but interesting rather than go with safe and boring.

That seems like a primary argument in gaming these days. Or else I've spent way too much time on Destiny's reddit lately...

And Rockstar does have amazing worlds, they just can't fix their on-foot controls to save their lives after like what, 10 tries?

Little unrealistic to expect Guerilla to nail everything on their first attempt...
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
That seems like a primary argument in gaming these days. Or else I've spent way too much time on Destiny's reddit lately...

And Rockstar does have amazing worlds, they just can't fix their on-foot controls to save their lives after like what, 10 tries?

Little unrealistic to expect Guerilla to nail everything on their first attempt...

Again My problem is GG didn't even try anything to say that they nail it or not. They just went with safest and boring way to make open world game. Like I said I would have rather see them try something interesting and fail.
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
It's possible they were rushed after what seems like what the game.was supposed to be.

Na, It seems to me the GG biggest focus for this game was to make the visuals pretty as possible with great performance. In other words they mostly focused on the Graphics rather than adding interesting mechanics.
 

FrostyLemon

Member
I totally agree on all points. No reason to look for loot, no reason to look around at all actually, towns are dead, most of the scenery is just backdrops. Icon vomit on the map.

I loved the combat, story, world design and lore. Didn't need to be an open world game at all, it could have been a semi open experience like ROTTR. I ended up treating it as such, I just ran from mission objective to mission objective because the world didn't encourage you to explore it.
 
Na, It seems to me the GG biggest focus for this game was to make the visuals pretty as possible with great performance. In other words they mostly focused on the Graphics rather than adding interesting mechanics.
Yes. Seems like a PS4 Pro seller and that would be why they were rushed. Only thing I've heard about the game is how it looks on the Pro.
 

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
No it's not. You define your character in an RPG. In Horizon, you're playing a character that is already set.
The all best RPG's made have set characters, what are you referring to other than those shitty WRPG's?
But I agree Horizon isn't a RPG.
 
Top Bottom