• 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.

Horizon Zero Dawn - Preview Thread [Up: All Previews Live]

G

Gitaroo

Member
More_Badass said:
It does have an open world with towers (walking towers that follow their own trails, but still...towers), collecting, and light RPG elements, so Horizon is like Far Cry. Or something like that
Click to expand...

so does Zelda Breath of the wild. That game is even closer to farcry than Horizon.
 
C

Chris Kay

Neo Member
Rokal said:
Farcry 2 is genuinely one of the worst games I've ever played. I couldn't believe how boring the open world felt. I wouldn't say I enjoy most open world games, but my memories of Farcry 2 are that of constantly repeating unsatisfying combat over the same open world transportation routes. I'd clear an area only to return to it 4 minutes later and repeat the exact same awful combat scenario.

The comparisons to Farcry on this thread are seriously making me worry about my preorder of Horizon.
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree :)

I guess I am one of those weirdos that loved Farcry 2. I think it was one of the first FPS games I played that gave me true sense of presence in its world that only the best RPGs can deliver. The things like managing your malaria or your guns jamming if you didn't take care of them added a lot of immersion for me. I loved just stalking around in that game and exploring its gorgeous world. I'll admit there were a lot of frustrating elements as well, like the respawning checkpoints but I easily looked past them because the elements I loved were so strongly executed.

As I explained in my post a couple pages back, your worries over the comparisons to Farcry are unfounded. They only serve as a frame of reference to quickly illustrate individual elements and not as a direct comparison for the whole package.
 
S

Soulblighter31

Banned
Chris Kay said:
Agree to disagree :)

I guess I am one of those weirdos that loved Farcry 2. I think it was one of the first FPS games I played that gave me true sense of presence in its world that only the best RPGs can deliver. The things like managing your malaria or your guns jamming if you didn't take care of them added a lot of immersion for me. I loved just stalking around in that game and exploring its gorgeous world. I'll admit there were a lot of frustrating elements as well, like the respawning checkpoints but I easily looked past them because the elements I loved were so strongly executed.

As I explained in my post a couple pages back, your worries over the comparisons to Farcry are unfounded. They only serve as a frame of reference to quickly illustrate individual elements and not as a direct comparison for the whole package.
Click to expand...


Play Stalker if you liked those aspects from Far Cry 2. Thats the actual good game that FC2 stoled elements from, but had no idea how to implement them
 
1

17 Seconds

Banned
Styles said:
Yeah, I was kinda confused when people started comparing this to Far Cry. Is it because of the setting?

I've always thought the game shared a tight bond with the Wticher 3(which I absolutely love and adore).
Click to expand...

it's because this game has the formulaic layout of ubisoft games that people always seem to trash. if i watched a bunch of gameplay without having ever heard of this game, i would come away thinking it's a new ubisoft ip.

i get it, the game is gorgeous and robo-dinos fun, it's just weird that it seems to escape the critisicms that ubisoft games get. i'm not even criticizing these kinds of games. i think ubisoft always gets way too much hate. i feel that open world burnout a lot too, but they make quality games. i just find the hypocrisy kind of weird. i'm curious to see if this changes after it comes out and people have sunk 10-15 hours completing checklists, collecting mats, filling in skill trees, unlocking areas of the map by climbing a tower (but the tower moves this time!), etc.
 
C

Chris Kay

Neo Member
Soulblighter31 said:
Play Stalker if you liked those aspects from Far Cry 2. Thats the actual good game that FC2 stoled elements from, but had no idea how to implement them
Click to expand...
I actually have played Stalker but quit after a few hours. Maybe I just played it too late, I tried it only a few years ago, or I just don't like playing games with M&K but I couldn't get into it. It didn't hook me in immediately. Maybe I should give it another shot. Do you know if it has controller support?
 
M

More_Badass

Member
17 Seconds said:
it's because this game has the formulaic layout of ubisoft games that people always seem to trash. if i watched a bunch of gameplay without having ever heard of this game, i would come away thinking it's a new ubisoft ip.

i get it, the game is gorgeous and robo-dinos fun, it's just weird that it seems to escape the critisicms that ubisoft games get. i'm not even criticizing these kinds of games. i think ubisoft always gets way too much hate. i feel that open world burnout a lot too, but they make quality games. i just find the hypocrisy kind of weird. i'm curious to see if this changes after it comes out and people have sunk 10-15 hours completing checklists, collecting mats, filling in skill trees, unlocking areas of the map by climbing a tower (but the tower moves this time!), etc.
Click to expand...
The game seems to revolve around quite involved combat and the interaction with the ecosystem. As several previews have mentioned, the game doesnt have mini-games and whatnot cluttering the world, opting instead for a more story-driven focus and on observing and learning the world and its robotic inhabitants.

An equally valid comparison might be Witcher 3, rathen than Far Cry
 
S

sackninja

Member
17 Seconds said:
it's because this game has the formulaic layout of ubisoft games that people always seem to trash. if i watched a bunch of gameplay without having ever heard of this game, i would come away thinking it's a new ubisoft ip.

i get it, the game is gorgeous and robo-dinos fun, it's just weird that it seems to escape the critisicms that ubisoft games get. i'm not even criticizing these kinds of games. i think ubisoft always gets way too much hate. i feel that open world burnout a lot too, but they make quality games. i just find the hypocrisy kind of weird. i'm curious to see if this changes after it comes out and people have sunk 10-15 hours completing checklists, collecting mats, filling in skill trees, unlocking areas of the map by climbing a tower (but the tower moves this time!), etc.
Click to expand...

The ubisoft criticism is just so ridiculous to me and I don't get how people could hate them and like skyrim. Besides the towers, everything you described is part of pretty much every wrpg.
 
S

Soulblighter31

Banned
Chris Kay said:
I actually have played Stalker but quit after a few hours. Maybe I just played it too late, I tried it only a few years ago, or I just don't like playing games with M&K but I couldn't get into it. It didn't hook me in immediately. Maybe I should give it another shot. Do you know if it has controller support?
Click to expand...


I dont think theres a game thats more impossible to play with a pad. Everything in its design is made just for mouse and keyboard. You should get used to M/KB and play it, its probably the best use of open spaces in any FPS and the gameplay is also richer that any other FPS. And the atmosphere simply has no rival, anywhere.


tumblr_mjeum9KOBu1qba4ipo1_500.gif
 
T

teokrazia

Member
Soulblighter31 said:
Play Stalker if you liked those aspects from Far Cry 2. Thats the actual good game that FC2 stoled elements from, but had no idea how to implement them
Click to expand...

Yeah.
Far Cry 2 was dumb at open world and sequels had more stuff going on, but were still dumb and 'fakey' like shit.

Shadow of Chernobyl still remains the best thing of that kind in the FPS space.
 
M

More_Badass

Member
To be honest, leave out "Ubisoft" and the elements one describes arent unique to Ubisoft games. Their games may follow a homeogenous structure that has grown very stale, but you can find the same DNA (and the same DNA done better) in Arkham Knight, in Witcher 3, in Shadow of Mordor, and others. Even State of Decay last gen had towers and vantage points you'd climb to pinpoint points of interest
 
wenaldy

wenaldy

Member
teokrazia said:
Yeah.
Far Cry 2 was dumb at open world and sequels had more stuff going on, but were still dumb and 'fakey' like shit.

Shadow of Chernobyl still remains the best thing of that kind in the FPS space.
Click to expand...

Sorry kinda brungin another Ubisoft topic but yeah there was no freedom in far Cry 2. The game is the definition of "corridor sandbox". All those wallled cliffs eugh not to mention retarded checkpoint post system.
 
F

FelipeMGM

Member
S

ShemhazaiX

Member
17 Seconds said:
it's because this game has the formulaic layout of ubisoft games that people always seem to trash. if i watched a bunch of gameplay without having ever heard of this game, i would come away thinking it's a new ubisoft ip.

i get it, the game is gorgeous and robo-dinos fun, it's just weird that it seems to escape the critisicms that ubisoft games get. i'm not even criticizing these kinds of games. i think ubisoft always gets way too much hate. i feel that open world burnout a lot too, but they make quality games. i just find the hypocrisy kind of weird. i'm curious to see if this changes after it comes out and people have sunk 10-15 hours completing checklists, collecting mats, filling in skill trees, unlocking areas of the map by climbing a tower (but the tower moves this time!), etc.
Click to expand...

*cracks knuckles*

Listen here bub. That same "Formulaic layout of Ubisoft games" also happens to be a part of Grand Theft Auto, the Witcher 3 and Skyrim. I don't know what Ubisoft games you've been watching, but this looks nothing like them. Even the things that people are saying are "Far Cry like" are things that aren't even the problems with Far Cry (it's pretty much just the crafting that people have compared it to).

There is zero hypocrisy here. This is as much of a "Checklist" game as the Witcher 3, GTA, and The Elder Scrolls. God forbid the developers put icons on the map to tell you where points of interest are.

And for the fiftieth time, the towers don't "unlock" anything. They just reveal points of interest. Like restaurants in FFXV, or notice boards in Witcher 3 (if I recall correctly).
 
R

Rodin

Member
Gitaroo said:
so does Zelda Breath of the wild. That game is even closer to farcry than Horizon.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. And how is Zelda even close to Far Cry?

Every or at least most open world games share some similarities, that doesn't mean that the core gameplay is the same.
 
M

Mr.Fletcher

Member
How's does the climbing actually work? From what I can tell, there is a dedicated jump button, but some of the GIFs show super silky movement more akin to an automated implementation.

Is the game just animated incredibly well?
 
O

onemanasylum

Banned
17 Seconds said:
it's because this game has the formulaic layout of ubisoft games that people always seem to trash. if i watched a bunch of gameplay without having ever heard of this game, i would come away thinking it's a new ubisoft ip.

i get it, the game is gorgeous and robo-dinos fun, it's just weird that it seems to escape the critisicms that ubisoft games get. i'm not even criticizing these kinds of games. i think ubisoft always gets way too much hate. i feel that open world burnout a lot too, but they make quality games. i just find the hypocrisy kind of weird. i'm curious to see if this changes after it comes out and people have sunk 10-15 hours completing checklists, collecting mats, filling in skill trees, unlocking areas of the map by climbing a tower (but the tower moves this time!), etc.
Click to expand...

Huh? You played it? What formulaic layout does it have? FAr Cry invented map markers? The far cry and ubisoft mentions when people come into these threads seems like the easy way for people to come into these threads and downplay it. It looks and plays nothing like far cry.
 
1

120v

Member
welp after some waffling i went ahead and pre ordered. i was a little wary with Guerilla's track record but previews were good enough i guess

i really don't mind the industry standard "ubi formula" as long as it's underscored by some fairly meaty mechanics, some variation in taking on "towers". since this hews more on the rpg side of things i can't see myself getting bored too easily
 
B

Blackthorn

"hello?" "this is vagina"
onemanasylum said:
Huh? You played it? What formulaic layout does it have? FAr Cry invented map markers? The far cry and ubisoft mentions when people come into these threads seems like the easy way for people to come into these threads and downplay it. It looks and plays nothing like far cry.
Click to expand...
Quoting myself from earlier in the thread:

I actually enjoy the Ubisoft house style of open world games and their loop of explore - discovery - conquest, so comparisons to Far Cry are only a positive for me.

I think a lot of people are against it because it is recognisable, like people who rattle off discoveries on TV Tropes as if it makes a movie bad for deploying them. If tropes are used effectively - both in story terms and game design terms - the game can still be high quality and have a presence of its own.

The Ubisoft house style doesn't work if the game and the systems that surround them aren't enjoyable. For example, Far Cry games, Black Flag, Ezio-era AC, AC Syndicate and Shadows of Mordor are all examples of the formula done well, whereas Unity fell flat because the discovery part of the loop was both overwhelming and dull, while exploration was marred by frustrating control and glitches, and conquest fell short because of limited combat and stealth options.

From what we've seen of Horizon, it seems the systems and content surrounding the explore - conquest - discovery loop are well crafted, so I see no reason to be concerned by the Far Cry-esque structure. The combat alone appears to be deep and dynamic, but we'll have to wait and see on the narrative side.

TL;DR: Horizon quite clearly iterates on Ubisoft's style of open world, and there's nothing wrong with that: it's an effective structure. It only fails when the systems supporting it aren't fun.
 
O

onemanasylum

Banned
Blackthorn said:
Quoting myself from earlier in the thread:

I actually enjoy the Ubisoft house style of open world games and their loop of explore - discovery - conquest, so comparisons to Far Cry are only a positive for me.

I think a lot of people are against it because it is recognisable, like people who rattle off discoveries on TV Tropes as if it makes a movie bad for deploying them. If tropes are used effectively - both in story terms and game design terms - the game can still be high quality and have a presence of its own.

The Ubisoft house style doesn't work if the game and the systems that surround them aren't enjoyable. For example, Far Cry games, Black Flag, Ezio-era AC, AC Syndicate and Shadows of Mordor are all examples of the formula done well, whereas Unity fell flat because the discovery part of the loop was both overwhelming and dull, while exploration was marred by frustrating control and glitches, and conquest fell short because of limited combat and stealth options.

From what we've seen of Horizon, it seems the systems and content surrounding the explore - conquest - discovery loop are well crafted, so I see no reason to be concerned by the Far Cry-esque structure. The combat alone appears to be deep and dynamic, but we'll have to wait and see on the narrative side.

TL;DR: Horizon quite clearly iterates on Ubisoft's style of open world, and there's nothing wrong with that: it's an effective structure. It only fails when the systems supporting it aren't fun.
Click to expand...

I am failing to understand how Ubisoft invented any of these things? You still have not elaborated on this "Formulaic layout"
 
D

Domcorleone

Member
17 Seconds said:
it's because this game has the formulaic layout of ubisoft games that people always seem to trash. if i watched a bunch of gameplay without having ever heard of this game, i would come away thinking it's a new ubisoft ip.

i get it, the game is gorgeous and robo-dinos fun, it's just weird that it seems to escape the critisicms that ubisoft games get. i'm not even criticizing these kinds of games. i think ubisoft always gets way too much hate. i feel that open world burnout a lot too, but they make quality games. i just find the hypocrisy kind of weird. i'm curious to see if this changes after it comes out and people have sunk 10-15 hours completing checklists, collecting mats, filling in skill trees, unlocking areas of the map by climbing a tower (but the tower moves this time!), etc.
Click to expand...

Elaborate on the formulaic layout you are describing. What aspects of the game are wholesale ripped from Ubisoft and are part of any WRPG?
 
D

Domcorleone

Member
Blackthorn said:
Quoting myself from earlier in the thread:

I actually enjoy the Ubisoft house style of open world games and their loop of explore - discovery - conquest, so comparisons to Far Cry are only a positive for me.

I think a lot of people are against it because it is recognisable, like people who rattle off discoveries on TV Tropes as if it makes a movie bad for deploying them. If tropes are used effectively - both in story terms and game design terms - the game can still be high quality and have a presence of its own.

The Ubisoft house style doesn't work if the game and the systems that surround them aren't enjoyable. For example, Far Cry games, Black Flag, Ezio-era AC, AC Syndicate and Shadows of Mordor are all examples of the formula done well, whereas Unity fell flat because the discovery part of the loop was both overwhelming and dull, while exploration was marred by frustrating control and glitches, and conquest fell short because of limited combat and stealth options.

From what we've seen of Horizon, it seems the systems and content surrounding the explore - conquest - discovery loop are well crafted, so I see no reason to be concerned by the Far Cry-esque structure. The combat alone appears to be deep and dynamic, but we'll have to wait and see on the narrative side.

TL;DR: Horizon quite clearly iterates on Ubisoft's style of open world, and there's nothing wrong with that: it's an effective structure. It only fails when the systems supporting it aren't fun.
Click to expand...

How is it like Far Cry? What makes it more Far Cry than Witcher 3 or Skyrim?
 
B

Blackthorn

"hello?" "this is vagina"
onemanasylum said:
I am failing to understand how Ubisoft invented any of these things? You still have not elaborated on this "Formulaic layout"
Click to expand...

Domcorleone said:
How is it like Far Cry? What makes it more Far Cry than Witcher 3 or Skyrim?
Click to expand...
The sequence of climbing a tower/capturing an outpost, which then uncovers content around it, started with Assassins Creed and has gone on to be used in Far Cry and other series within and outside of Ubisoft.

It may be similar to what's present in other games before, but as the main structure for progressing through an open world, the lineage can absolutely be traced through Ubisoft's games.

I have a question too: what's wrong with iterating from Far Cry's structure? I'm sure the designers of Horizon would openly admit they learned from what worked and didn't in those games, and in others.

I'm not saying Horizon is a ripoff, I'm saying it iterates from a proven and successful open world structure popularised by Ubisoft, which it clearly does - and, in my opinion, is a positive as I enjoy that structure.
 
O

onemanasylum

Banned
Blackthorn said:
The sequence of climbing a tower/capturing an outpost, which then uncovers content around it, started with Assassins Creed and has gone on to be used in Far Cry and other series within and outside of Ubisoft.

It may be similar to what's present in other games before, but as the main structure for progressing through an open world, the lineage can absolutely be traced through Ubisoft's games.

I have a question too: what's wrong with iterating from Far Cry's structure? I'm sure the designers of Horizon would openly admit they learned from what worked and didn't in those games, and in others.

I'm not saying Horizon is a ripoff, I'm saying it iterates from a proven and successful open world structure popularised by Ubisoft, which it clearly does - and, in my opinion, is a positive as I enjoy that structure.
Click to expand...

Umm that's all you got ? Towers? You know you don't need to use them in Horizon to uncover the map right? There is still a heck of a lot more to the structure of a game then this to be able to say it has the same "Formulaic Structure", that's reductionist. I think you need to read up on the longnecks on Horizon.
 
B

Blackthorn

"hello?" "this is vagina"
onemanasylum said:
Umm that's all you got ? Towers? You know you don't need to use them in Horizon to uncover the map right? There is still a heck of a lot more to the structure of a game then this to be able to say it has the same "Formulaic Structure"
Click to expand...
Ok.

Why is the idea that Horizon iterates from Ubisoft games so offensive to you?
 
B

Blackthorn

"hello?" "this is vagina"
onemanasylum said:
Umm it isn't? You said "It has the same formulaic structure", not that it iterates. All games take some things from other games, if anything horizon has more in common with the witcher.
Click to expand...
I specifically said it iterates and that there's nothing wrong with that.

I agree that it would and should borrow from The Witcher as well, as it should from Bethesda games, Monster Hunter, etc.

But the structure of progressing through the world is very Ubisoft-like, which I consider a positive. If they take that structure, add in Witcher style interaction, Monster Hunter style combat and so in, it could be great.
 
M

More_Badass

Member
Blackthorn said:
Ok.

Why is the idea that Horizon iterates from Ubisoft games so offensive to you?
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't. It isnt iterative of Ubisoft games, it's iterative of open world games and WRPGs. Nothing in the Ubisoft game design is unique to Ubisoft. Their style may seem more prevalant today because they release games every year, but everything from clearing areas/performing actions that reveal points of interest on a map to light RPG elements and so on has all been done in other games. It doesnt even trace back to Assassins Creed. You can that DNA in Bully, in Just Cause, in Scarface, and other PS2-era open world games

You describe it as "Ubisoft-like" as if Ubisoft invented these kinds of games and mechanics, when they just do them worse than other games in the genre. And I say that as someone who generally likes their games
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[Windows Central] Don't buy a PlayStation — Save money on the PC versions of Marvel's Spider-Man, Horizon Zero Dawn, and others instead
News Platform 3 4 5 6 7
335
23K
gokurho replied
Shin Megami Tensei V: Vengeance - New Trailer + Preview Thread
Opinion Trailer 2 3
102
4K
Thick Thighs Save Lives replied
Rumor: Horizon Zero Dawn Remaster in development as well as Multiplayer Project based on Horizon
13 14 15 16 17
807
39K
EDMIX replied
Final Fantasy VII Rebirth | Preview Thread
Event Analysis Hype 2
55
4K
Go_Ly_Dow replied
Guerrilla releases new images showing Horizon Forbidden West: Burning Shores
News
0
782
Draugoth replied
Top Bottom