Support NeoGAF

[vanDoughnut]

I kinda get ya OP.

MGSV 10/10 gameplay was dope but I haven't gone back to play it. For me a great MGS game needs more than that, which is why I found it dissapointing as well.

MGSV world is sterile, while Horizon's seems full of character.
Whether it's the interesting sci-fi premise, Aloy, or the mystery of its world theres a hook to help drive you forward.
In MGSV the characters, world, and the narrative didn't seem to build any momentum after awhile, which is what MGS1, 2, 3, (and arguably even 4) do really well.

I think Death Stranding will rectify that problem

 

[Bold One]

The stealth systems in Horizon do not hold a candle tin MGSV. Horizon has a simple stealth mechanic involving bushes, MGSV has a stealth system that involves much more than just line of sight. MGSV could have benefited from having more to do in the open-world, but that wasn't it's goal. The open world served as a canvas for which you plan infiltration of bases with 100% freedom. A purpose it achieved remarkably. MGSV from a gameplay standpoint is stealth game Nirvana.

Honestly, I think MGSV is a better game overall than Horizon.

What an absurd concept, for one Horizon is a completed game with actual characters, and a competent well-told story.


MGSV is a better stealth game than Horizon because Horizon is not a stealth game, it merely has stealth elements.

 

[Exploratory]

What an absurd concept, for one Horizon is a completed game with actual characters, and a competent well-told story.


MGSV is a better stealth game than Horizon because Horizon is not a stealth game, it merely has stealth elements.

Well MGSV is a better GAME. As in gameplay, mechanics, systems etc. From what little I've played mind you which is about 2 hrs.

 

[Z..]

Well, I don't understand MGS2 fans.
But I agree 4 is not a masterpiece, not even close, more close to a "good" game.
5 is not a masterpiece to me but it's a very good game, it has moments of brilliance but a lot of disappointing aspects. 1 and 3 remain the best imo.

2 has one of the best narratives in the medium ever. Ridiculously good on that end. Phenomenally well written.

5 has the best gameplay in the series.

Agreed on #1 and #3 being the best. But I'd include 2 as well. Nothing like it.

 

[Floody]

Yeah, I hear what you're saying. It's not identical to one, and where there are similarities it improves upon those areas compared to Ubi's stuff. But it still doesn't go far enough to distance itself from those games, so that I don't get hit with the usual fatigue after several hours. For me, I would love to see a sequel go deeper into the RPG systems in place, and to incentivize me to explore outside of where an icon or marker was telling me to go -- I never really felt like their was a reason to go off the beaten path, because everything of value was already marked on my map. All I would ever find was a pretty vista, or possibly a datapoint. It would have been really exciting to find rare enemies, weapons, or armor.

I definitely agree there, wasn't really a fan of almost all the weapon and armour sets being sold, they should have made the Shadow sets even more unique and powerful and scattered them about the map, though they'd have to make the shield-weaver much harder to get. Also having a few super machines would be a great addition, wouldn't be surprised if they add those in 2 or the expansion.

 

[Bold One]

Well MGSV is a better GAME. As in gameplay, mechanics, systems etc. From what little I've played mind you which is about 2 hrs.

The chap I am quoting says MGSV is a better game OVERALL. This is wrong.

 

[Z..]

I think 4 was a sincere attempt in a way for Kojima to try and give closure for the fans. He really tried his best to make something his hardcore base would love. I think he succeeded in making something crazy and fun, and I always love replaying it. Sure it does a lot of silly things, but everything about it just screams being a love letter to the fans. It might not be that necessary in the grand scheme of things, and even undermine certain aspects of previous games, but I still love it for what it is.

It's a decent game. But by far the worst, imo. Too much retcon but no constructive payoff. All for entertainment value. The reason I don't like is precisely because it was made for the fans, it lacks Kojima's vision.

 

[poodaddy]

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)

Nice to see someone else feels this way. Breath of the Wild is just an incredibly fun physics sandbox that gives creative control over how to proceed through mission parameters completely over to the player, and that's exactly what MGSV was. Both games succeed marvelously at what they set out to do, and while I adore Horizon Zero Dawn I just don't see how the games are comparable in gameplay or intent at all.

Oh and 60 fps > 30 fps with better visuals, every time. MGSV controls like a dream, and while Horizon Zero Dawn does control quite well, they're not even in the same league in terms of playability.

MGSV's biggest flaws are the microtransaction encouraging timer based busy work game design and the sleezy misogynist design of Quiet; only one of those things were Kojima's fault, and they're both rectifiable on PC.

 

[Drillary Clinton]

What an absurd concept, for one Horizon is a completed game with actual characters, and a competent well-told story.


MGSV is a better stealth game than Horizon because Horizon is not a stealth game, it merely has stealth elements.

Horizon's characters are inconsistent and the story is passable. We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Also, I definitely touched on how Horizon has a basic stealth mechanic and isn't a stealth game.

Meant to put this in my earlier post but the fox engine is incredible. MGSV is a beautiful game and runs at 60 FPS. Not as beautiful as Horizon, but 60 > 30.

 

[ooteeni]

Horizon Looked pretty but i found it pretty much like any other open world game after the opening hours, I also enjoyed MGS5 a lot more.

 

[swearing-circle]

Can't say I agree. Horizon was great but I enjoyed MGSV a hell of a lot more.

Horizon's writing wasn't great even though the story was interesting. MGSV'S plot wasn't great either but it wasn't the focus.

I prefer MGSV's approach to freedom and gameplay possibilities. Didn't care for Horizon's ubisoft style world. I usually find myself ignoring side activities and just cutting straight through the plot.

 

[Lingitiz]

The comparison is interesting, I don't think it's completely invalid in a more indirect sense. BotW and MGSV are more focused on systems - BotW in creating a world centered on exploration and discovery, MGSV centered on clockwork stealth systems and AI manipulation. You could make an argument that both sacrifice strong characters and stories to achieve this, with MGSV being far worse in that regard. Zelda's story is great, but definitely falls into the background - IMO the right choice for the game they made.

Horizon on the other hand is very focused on delivering a smaller scope open world, strong combat, a very compelling story that is intended to be the main driver and will probably have a higher completion rate than the other two games.

I'm curious who will be the developer to capture these two approaches in the same game. That is, to build a truly open world that allows for a huge amount of freedom and dynamic systems, while also delivering a super compelling story that drives the action forward.

 

[duckroll]

What an absurd concept, for one Horizon is a completed game with actual characters, and a competent well-told story.


MGSV is a better stealth game than Horizon because Horizon is not a stealth game, it merely has stealth elements.

The chap I am quoting says MGSV is a better game OVERALL. This is wrong.

Opinions are like assholes, yours smells just as bad!

 

[Ban Puncher]

 

[Offline]

I think it's pretty important to consider why MGSV felt incomplete content wise and I think it's due to Konami and budget constraint rather than Kojimas talent as a game maker which I think alone defeats the validity of this comparison seeing as Horizon was a game that had been given the time, freedom and budget it needed.

I don't know what went on behind closed doors but obviously something happened and Kojima wasn't able to fully realize MGSV but he still did manage to deliver something great regardless and that is proven through the core gameplay mechanics alone. I think given more time and obviously money MGSV would've been something truly extraordinary. I have zero doubts Death Stranding will deliver on everything Kojima wants to create.

 

[Bold One]

Opinions are like assholes, yours smells just as bad!

You lost me there, chief....

 

[eyeball_kid]

I completely agree, a more refined MGSV with Peace Walker style co-op is my dream game. Oh and your idea for the side ops being essentially random events to run into instead of a monotonous checklist has been my exact thought for awhile now. Another awesome thing that I wish was in the game was actual conflict between the Soviets and rebels dynamically taking place in the open world, the emergent possibilities with just that one addition would've been incredible.

Yeah, seeing the rebel conflicts play out as a dynamic element would have been amazing, though I can see how that could complicate the missions.

I also wish civilians were in the world, trying to survive in the middle of a warzone. Kojima's theme of the cost of war feels neutered when there's no moral consequences for your actions. It feels too safe, too tidy.

And on-topic, comparing Horizon to MGSV is weird. Mechanically there are only loose connections. I've only watched streams of Horizon, but in terms of sandbox shooter gameplay, MGSV seems to wipe the floor with Horizon. But their open world concept is fundamentally different. MGSV's world exists primarily as a playground for tactical combat and infiltration, not for exploration.

 

[Garlador]

MGSV pales in comparison to its predecessors and disappointed me in the end, even if I liked it.

Horizon exceeded even my lofty expectations of it.

But the two are as similar as a Mario and Zelda title are. Both play well, but excel at different things.

 

[SomTervo]

"A great many theories about what its trying to say"

I think this sentence alone proves that the game isn't successful in telling the story it wants to when even those who love the story need to argue about theories regarding what its "trying to say".

Don't disagree with your posts on the whole, but seriously, this is an absurd and arbitrary metric with which to gauge the quality of a story. Hundreds of the best stories in history have been ambiguous, hard to read, and multilayered. Countless great works have left audiences completely baffled or have incited broad and extensive analytical conversations. You'll note that the person you're responding to didn't say "people don't know what it's about" but that basically "people have discussed what it's about a lot".

A story doesn't have to be clear or one-note to be good.

Quick example: I just watched Under the Skin which is a clear masterpiece in my eyes. It can arguably be about the human condition; about the food industry; about expectations and cultures surrounding sex; about advanced technology; etc. I go online and read about what audiences thought and it's basically all just "what". Most critics seemed to get it but a not insubstantial number of them were also like "what" and "the film failed at its premise/was too unclear and confused". The film got booed and cheered at its premier. This sort of divisiveness is a good thing. I think MGSV absolutely has a place in that conversation.

I completely agree, a more refined MGSV with Peace Walker style co-op is my dream game. Oh and your idea for the side ops being essentially random events to run into instead of a monotonous checklist has been my exact thought for awhile now. Another awesome thing that I wish was in the game was actual conflict between the Soviets and rebels dynamically taking place in the open world, the emergent possibilities with just that one addition would've been incredible.

Yeah, seeing the rebel conflicts play out as a dynamic element would have been amazing, though I can see how that could complicate the missions.

I also wish civilians were in the world, trying to survive in the middle of a warzone. Kojima's theme of the cost of war feels neutered when there's no moral consequences for your actions. It feels too safe, too tidy.

You're both pretty much describing Ghost Recon Wildlands. Just the other day in Wildlands I got spotted infiltrating a city to collect intel; gunfire breaks out towards me and my team. I'm on the hardest difficulty (pretty much 2-3 shots to death) so I peg it into backstreets. The gunfire attracts the military faction (UNIDAD) who come careening around the corner in an APC. They don't see me; they do see the Santa Blanca Cartel goons chasing me. The two forces get wrapped up in a massive conflict that spans several blocks. A chopper gets called in. Meanwhile I'm still crouching through backstreets and buildings. A civilian woman sprints past and into a house to shelter. Another civilian comes driving down a street, hears the gunfire, turns and drives away. Almost every building in Wildlands has a rendered interior; I go ducking into houses, seeing people and children huddling in the corner or breaking for it when they see me. I find a cage with a few rebels in it - I break the padlock. They thank me, grab some nearby weapons, and head into the fray themselves. Eventually the SBC and UNIDAD lose me and our team rides off into the night – but the two factions stay at war with each other and the rebels, explosions and gunfire in the distance ringing our ears until we're miles away.

Seriously. Get Ghost Recon Wildlands.

It's awesome.

 

[Solid Shammy]

Don't disagree with your posts on the whole, but seriously, this is an absurd and arbitrary metric with which to gauge the quality of a story. Hundreds of the best stories in history have been ambiguous, hard to read, and multilayered. Countless great works have left audiences completely baffled or have incited broad and extensive analytical conversations. You'll note that the person you're responding to didn't say "people don't know what it's about" but that basically "people have discussed what it's about a lot".

A story doesn't have to be clear or one-note to be good.

Quick example: I just watched Under the Skin which is a clear masterpiece in my eyes. It can arguably be about the human condition; about the food industry; about expectations and cultures surrounding sex; about advanced technology; etc. I go online and read about what audiences thought and it's basically all just "what". Most critics seemed to get it but a not insubstantial number of them were also like "what" and "the film failed at its premise/was too unclear and confused". The film got booed and cheered at its premier. This sort of divisiveness is a good thing. I think MGSV absolutely has a place in that conversation.



You're both pretty much describing Ghost Recon Wildlands. Just the other day in Wildlands I got spotted infiltrating a city to collect intel; gunfire breaks out towards me and my team. I'm on the hardest difficulty (pretty much 2-3 shots to death) so I peg it into backstreets. The gunfire attracts the military faction (UNIDAD) who come careening around the corner in an APC. They don't see me; they do see the Santa Blanca Cartel goons chasing me. The two forces get wrapped up in a massive conflict that spans several blocks. A chopper gets called in. Meanwhile I'm still crouching through backstreets and buildings. A civilian woman sprints past and into a house to shelter. Another civilian comes driving down a street, hears the gunfire, turns and drives away. Almost every building in Wildlands has a rendered interior; I go ducking into houses, seeing people and children huddling in the corner or breaking for it when they see me. I find a cage with a few rebels in it - I break the padlock. They thank me, grab some nearby weapons, and head into the fray themselves. Eventually the SBC and UNIDAD lose me and our team rides off into the night – but the two factions stay at war with each other and the rebels, explosions and gunfire in the distance ringing our ears until we're miles away.

Seriously. Get Ghost Recon Wildlands.

It's awesome.

I got a little frustrated with the conversation I had with Zakalwe, I obviously disagree with their assertions that a story has to be told in such a way to be clear and understandable to a general audience for it to be objectively good. In fact, I think arguing for an objectively good or bad way to tell a story in the first place is incredibly limiting to storytelling in all forms of media. I have no actual problems with their criticism of MGSV's storytelling, and I can even understand where they're coming from in a lot of areas. I merely have a problem with them stating their opinion as an objective truth just because the aspects they criticise do in fact exist. The existence of the things they criticise is not deniable, but those things (method of storytelling in this case) are not inherently negative by default, that is up to the individual to decide if they like the way a story is told or not. I think labelling a story or the way it's told as an objectively good or bad thing is a cheap way to limit the discussion on why the story is what it is and why it was told the way it was told, and that's all I really want with MGSV, is to have a discussion. To speculate what was thematically deliberate, or a potential side effect of the whole Konami fiasco, to ask questions about some very interesting things the game does, and try and figure out what it all means. Not just label something as 'shit' just because I didn't personally like it, and then try and shut down discussion because I think my opinion is an objective truth. There are so many different types of experiences that can be had in fiction across all different types of mediums, and even though I might fundamentally hate some of those things, I'll never try to claim my personal interpretation as an objective fact.

Anyway, in regards to Ghost Recon, I was really hoping that game might scratch the itch I have when fantasising about an MGSV co-op mode, but obviously the somewhat negative reception deterred me away. I might actually look into it with your praise, I doubt it'll hold up mechanically to MGSV, but that definitely sounds like some fun potential tactical emergent gameplay right there.

 

[Nameless]

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."

Only it's not "Ubisoft style structure". In 50+ hours I cleared 4 bandit camps(2 of which were apart of fully fleshed out side quests), climbed one "tower", and didn't seek out a single figurine, metal flower, etc.. It's much closer to The Witcher 3 in that regard, as all those sorts of tasks exist only to fill out the world with stuff the do, they aren't a core part of the gameplay loop and nor are tied to progression, which is the case with the Ubi formula or something like Mafia 3.

 

[Panajev2001a]

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.

Agreed... my most played PlayStation game of all time according to the PSN stats (so the stats do not take into account PS1 and PS2).

 

[FrankWza]

MGSV has some of the best gameplay you could ever hope for and looks really good for what it is able to do gameplay-wise. It was also held back by needing to be on ps3 and 360. HZD looks great but has no gameplay aspect that is great. Some of it is actually below average. If you take away how HZD looks and the easy platinum it would be rated much lower. It would be in the shadow of mordor or mad max class of games.

 

[Nameless]

MGSV has some of the best gameplay you could ever hope for and looks really good for what it is able to do gameplay-wise. It was also held back by needing to be on ps3 and 360. HZD looks great but has no gameplay aspect that is great. Some of it is actually below average. If you take away how HZD looks and the easy platinum it would be rated much lower. It would be in the shadow of mordor or mad max class of games.

What a silly thing to say. Nevermind the combat is easily one of the game's main strengths, but the story, characters, world building, and overall writing are orders of magnitude better than what you get in Shadow of Mordor or Mad Max. Like I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around that comparison.

 

[Drillary Clinton]

MGSV has some of the best gameplay you could ever hope for and looks really good for what it is able to do gameplay-wise. It was also held back by needing to be on ps3 and 360. HZD looks great but has no gameplay aspect that is great. Some of it is actually below average. If you take away how HZD looks and the easy platinum it would be rated much lower. It would be in the shadow of mordor or mad max class of games.

Yeah this post is wild. Horizon is definitely better than Mordor in world-building and storytelling. Mad Max is an awful game, I won't even go into detail

 

[Exploratory]

What an absurd concept, for one Horizon is a completed game with actual characters, and a competent well-told story.


MGSV is a better stealth game than Horizon because Horizon is not a stealth game, it merely has stealth elements.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/metal-gear-solid-v-the-phantom-pain

93

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/horizon-zero-dawn

89

Story and characters are not the predominant factors in how good a videogame is. It's clearly not that absurd since it's a higher rated game than Horizon.

 

[FrankWza]

What a silly thing to say. Nevermind the combat is easily one of the game's main strengths, but the story, characters, world building, and overall writing are orders of magnitude better than what you get in Shadow of Mordor or Mad Max. Like I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around that comparison.

Yeah this post is wild. Horizon is definitely better than Mordor in world-building and storytelling. Mad Max is an awful game, I won't even go into detail

Mad max is at 69% and SoM is at 87%. Take the graphics away from HZD @89%. Where does it go? Right in between. Sure its better than mad max. But it would get lost in the mix of those "open" style games. Theres nothing that separates it the way the graphics do.

 

[phantasmic_glaive]

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/metal-gear-solid-v-the-phantom-pain

93

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/horizon-zero-dawn

89

Story and characters are not the predominant factors in how good a videogame is. It's clearly not that absurd since it's a higher rated game than Horizon.

Yea... if Horizon was only rated by 86 critics (MGSV) instead of 110 (Horizon) it would've rated higher, per MC. Point is moot.

 

[Exploratory]

Yea... if Horizon was only rated by 86 critics (MGSV) instead of 110 (Horizon) it would've rated higher, per MC. Point is moot.

Lol okay. You have no way of proving that. Maybe the hype was at an all time high and it would've been higher. Even if it were a full 4 points lower, which I highly doubt, that'd still be equal. Which means what I said is still true the idea that MGSV is a better game isn't absurd. It ranges from popular opinion to maybe.

 

[Conciliator]

I'm glad we live in a world where both Horizon and MGS V exist

 

[mrlion]

The chap I am quoting says MGSV is a better game OVERALL. This is wrong.

Never heard of opinions?

 

[eso76]

tbh i fail to see what's so great about Horizon's story or characters. Or writing.

As weird and inconsistently paced as MGSV story was, it still managed to include themes that try to go beyond the usual videogame tropes and has Kojima detailed and well thought out political fiction as background.
A lot of work and research went into it. Clever ideas and symbology and a much more personal approach where the author uses the medium to give his views on several, more or less related, matters.
It might be a convoluted, pretentious mess, but it's still so much more valuable than the formulaic shit videogames usually get.

 

[ZOONAMI]

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.

Yeah should have had more of just a mission structure that dropped you closer to the missions, and then just find new weapons and upgrades in the field.

 

[jsnepo]

I don't agree with the OP. HZD never had an emergent gameplay moment for me.

 

[PeterLegend]

Considering MGSV had the worst boss battles of an MGS id agree

 

[Drillary Clinton]

Mad max is at 69% and SoM is at 87%. Take the graphics away from HZD @89%. Where does it go? Right in between. Sure its better than mad max. But it would get lost in the mix of those "open" style games. Theres nothing that separates it the way the graphics do.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas.

I'm not one of the people who think's Horizon's story is incredible (a lot of people do), but it is still miles better than SoM. The characters are better than SoM (again, I'm not crazy about the characters either). Mordor's story, setting, and characters are just there. It's a good game, but Horizon is a great game.

Mad Max? Lol

 

[phantasmic_glaive]

Lol okay. You have no way of proving that. Maybe the hype was at an all time high and it would've been higher. Even if it were a full 4 points lower, which I highly doubt, that'd still be equal. Which means what I said is still true the idea that MGSV is a better game isn't absurd. It ranges from popular opinion to maybe.

The proof is in the pudding fam, lol. It has a couple of outliers that had some weight to em. But if you say so...

It isn't absurd, but I think Horizon is better. I don't think there is a whole lot that can say it is better than Horizon. It being a new ip, and being compared to all the greats, is all the better to me. It doesn't have to be better than none of em really. It stands great on its own.. and the next one will be amazing too.

Like, Kojima even paired himself with GG after seeing this game and engine. It's special.

Sorry for late and quick responses.. on mobile and at work.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Fucking LOL, we're digging up Metacritic scores now. -___-

GTA IV is a better game than Fallout New Vegas, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Deus Ex, DOOM, etc. confirmed

Spoiler

/s

Horizon is a Ubisoft game if Ubisoft did it right, lacked most of the fluff, had actual great combat and mechanics, a legitimately good variety of quests, polish, a great story, and just respected your time and recognized quality is better than quantity.

... so very little like most modern Ubisoft games.

Haha, pretty much.

HZD looks great but has no gameplay aspect that is great.

WTF? The machine combat is fantastic, as is the exploration.

Some of it is actually below average. If you take away how HZD looks and the easy platinum it would be rated much lower. It would be in the shadow of mordor or mad max class of games.

You forgot the great story and lore, the fantastic protagonist, rewarding exploration, etc.

 

[SomTervo]

I got a little frustrated with the conversation I had with Zakalwe, I obviously disagree with their assertions that a story has to be told in such a way to be clear and understandable to a general audience for it to be objectively good. In fact, I think arguing for an objectively good or bad way to tell a story in the first place is incredibly limiting to storytelling in all forms of media. I have no actual problems with their criticism of MGSV's storytelling, and I can even understand where they're coming from in a lot of areas. I merely have a problem with them stating their opinion as an objective truth just because the aspects they criticise do in fact exist. The existence of the things they criticise is not deniable, but those things (method of storytelling in this case) are not inherently negative by default, that is up to the individual to decide if they like the way a story is told or not. I think labelling a story or the way it's told as an objectively good or bad thing is a cheap way to limit the discussion on why the story is what it is and why it was told the way it was told, and that's all I really want with MGSV, is to have a discussion. To speculate what was thematically deliberate, or a potential side effect of the whole Konami fiasco, to ask questions about some very interesting things the game does, and try and figure out what it all means. Not just label something as 'shit' just because I didn't personally like it, and then try and shut down discussion because I think my opinion is an objective truth. There are so many different types of experiences that can be had in fiction across all different types of mediums, and even though I might fundamentally hate some of those things, I'll never try to claim my personal interpretation as an objective fact.

Fair play.

Anyway, in regards to Ghost Recon, I was really hoping that game might scratch the itch I have when fantasising about an MGSV co-op mode, but obviously the somewhat negative reception deterred me away. I might actually look into it with your praise, I doubt it'll hold up mechanically to MGSV, but that definitely sounds like some fun potential tactical emergent gameplay right there.

That's the thing about GR Wildlands. Mechanically it's never going to match MGSV. But in terms of the sandbox, in terms of the freedom of approach, in terms of co-op, in terms of the world design... It's arguably leagues ahead.

Unfortunately the mechanics and some degree of repetition seems to have killed it for critics.

 

[MisterMac]

Disagree in the strongest sense. I enjoyed a lot Horizon but outside of a better narrative and graphics(MGSV is cross plat) Horizon isn't a scratch on MGSV.

Horizon has a nice open world but the possibilities that exist in MGSV for varied gameplay and encounters are not comparable in Horizon. Any random outpost in MGSV is more fun and compelling to tackle than the best bandit camp in Horizon. I also disagree massively with the assement that the freedom of infiltration model didn't pan out. I played that game in a party chat with friends and it was so much fun to listen to other people's completely different approaches and tactics to infiltrating or attacking enemy fortifications. I've had as much fun taking out or sneaking passed an enemy encampment in MGSV as I did any of the robor
fights in Horizon. A lot of which were very bullet spongy.

Horizon's open word doesn't really contain a sense of liveliness at all. The sterile robot spawn locations were IMO a massive disappointment. Even the few trucks that traveled between bases in MGSV beat out Horizon's robot spawns. The reveal trailer made it seem like there was a big robot ecosystem where thunderjaw attacks could happen spontaneously and that isn't the case at all.

As for thematic complexity I think you are off there too. MGSV has a lot going on thematically with the relationship between the player and the game, myth and reality, belief. It's a deep game themetically even if the top layer of the narrative wasn't as robust as its predecessor's.

That said I think Kojima's game in Horizon's engine has a chance to blow both out of the water. A story freed from the shackles of MGS continuity and expectations might be real enjoyable too

 

[Drillary Clinton]

Fucking LOL, we're digging up Metacritic scores now. -___-

GTA IV is a better game than Fallout New Vegas, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Deus Ex, DOOM, etc. confirmed

Spoiler

/s[/SPOILER.

Spoiler

But... it is ☹️

 

[Exploratory]

I got a little frustrated with the conversation I had with Zakalwe, I obviously disagree with their assertions that a story has to be told in such a way to be clear and understandable to a general audience for it to be objectively good. In fact, I think arguing for an objectively good or bad way to tell a story in the first place is incredibly limiting to storytelling in all forms of media. I have no actual problems with their criticism of MGSV's storytelling, and I can even understand where they're coming from in a lot of areas. I merely have a problem with them stating their opinion as an objective truth just because the aspects they criticise do in fact exist. The existence of the things they criticise is not deniable, but those things (method of storytelling in this case) are not inherently negative by default, that is up to the individual to decide if they like the way a story is told or not. I think labelling a story or the way it's told as an objectively good or bad thing is a cheap way to limit the discussion on why the story is what it is and why it was told the way it was told, and that's all I really want with MGSV, is to have a discussion. To speculate what was thematically deliberate, or a potential side effect of the whole Konami fiasco, to ask questions about some very interesting things the game does, and try and figure out what it all means. Not just label something as 'shit' just because I didn't personally like it, and then try and shut down discussion because I think my opinion is an objective truth. There are so many different types of experiences that can be had in fiction across all different types of mediums, and even though I might fundamentally hate some of those things, I'll never try to claim my personal interpretation as an objective fact.

Anyway, in regards to Ghost Recon, I was really hoping that game might scratch the itch I have when fantasising about an MGSV co-op mode, but obviously the somewhat negative reception deterred me away. I might actually look into it with your praise, I doubt it'll hold up mechanically to MGSV, but that definitely sounds like some fun potential tactical emergent gameplay right there.

If you want a game that holds up to MGSV mechanically you're out of luck. No game does especially not Wildlands. But I would say it's the greatest cooperative game of all time so that's definitely something.

 

[Spinluck]

tbh i fail to see what's so great about Horizon's story or characters. Or writing.

I'm with you here. Nothing so far has stood out to me when it comes to Horizon's storytelling and writing. Still need to finish it. My expectations were a little high after posters here told me the main quest is better written than Witcher 3's after I criticized the game a bit.

 

[MegaSackman]

I'm with you here. Nothing so far has stood out to me when it comes to Horizon's storytelling and writing. Still need to finish it. My expectations were a little high after posters here told me the main quest is better written than Witcher 3's after I criticized the game a bit.

I wouldn't say better written but much more interesting/intriguing. How far are you on the story?

 

[Spinluck]

People keep saying this, but I'm not seeing it beyond "I used X to stop Y in their tracks and then blew them up with Z."

There's that neat gameplay vid someone posted a few pages back. But that wasn't some mind-altering, revelatory gameplay mechanic akin to, say, forwarding your system's internal clock several years so that an old man sniper dies of extreme old age.

Try again MGSV.

Yet Horizon doesn't seem to have this either.

 

[Drillary Clinton]

I'm with you here. Nothing so far has stood out to me when it comes to Horizon's storytelling and writing. Still need to finish it. My expectations were a little high after posters here told me the main quest is better written than Witcher 3's after I criticized the game a bit.

WHEW that's some hot takes you were seeing.

How is HZD's mechanical depth+breadth compared to MGSV?

MGSV has so many more intricacies to its gameplay that this was honestly a disingenuous comparison from the start.

 

[Renekton]

How is HZD's mechanical depth+breadth compared to MGSV?

 

[KyanMehwulfe]

MGSV has so many more intricacies to its gameplay that this was honestly a disingenuous comparison from the start.

i think it's hard for any game not purely focused on combat (e.g. has important rpg or questing features) to focus on the raw combat mechanics as much as MGS V does...

e.g. the things your character can do in mechanically in MGS V, or the mechanical depth of its npc systems from how they communicate based on your tactics (and also equip, represented by Preparedness on the iDroid map) and also send reinforcements between bases directly connected (not just randomly) to specific radio calls ....(e.g. had you taken that guard post 1, the radio would say 'we cannot send reinforcements' or 'we cannot get hold of delta 1; you're on your own') instead of sending those reinforcements. "Zulu 2" is an actual soldier, too, manually making the radio call; had you been sniping, you could have prevented it.

most of the mechanics are fully acted out in a linear fashion, not just triggers (e.g. it doesn't just enter a generic 'aggro' phase and automatically reinforcements spawn). there's a process that the npcs in the game world actually have to act out from making the radio call to having a nearby outpost that hasn't been captured to the actual reinforcements arriving.

broader supplies and Preparedness (those icons on the map that represent night infiltrations, long range alert/not alarm attacks, fultons/stolen resources, etc) levels also react directly to your actions every single time you Deploy... I once used smoke grenade spam for a side op and quite a few outposts and the next time i came back into the map from the ACC all the guards had gas masks (the previous deployment obviously they had none). mechanically, supplies (and Preparedness) are not just something you can remove via Deployments; the supplies enemies use (and their conversations) also react to your tactics via Preparedness, e.g. to sniper fire or night infiltration, reacting to either your tactics (increasing if you always infiltrate at night, engage in sniper fire, use smoke grenades) or your supply raid deployments (e.g. preventing flash light supplies or helmet supplies).

 

[Drillary Clinton]

i think it's hard for any game not purely focused on combat (e.g. has important rpg or questing features) to focus on the raw combat mechanics as much as MGS V does...

e.g. the things your character can do in mechanically in MGS V, or the mechanical depth of its npc systems from how they communicate based on your tactics (and also equip, represented by Preparedness on the iDroid map) and also send reinforcements between bases directly connected (not just randomly) to specific radio calls ....(e.g. had you taken that guard post 1, the radio would say 'we cannot send reinforcements' or 'we cannot get hold of delta 1; you're on your own') instead of sending those reinforcements. "Zulu 2" is an actual soldier, too, manually making the radio call; had you been sniping, you could have prevented it.

most of the mechanics are fully acted out in a linear fashion, not just triggers (e.g. it doesn't just enter a generic 'aggro' phase and automatically reinforcements spawn). there's a process that the npcs in the game world actually have to act out from making the radio call to having a nearby outpost that hasn't been captured to the actual reinforcements arriving.

broader supplies and Preparedness (those icons on the map that represent night infiltrations, long range alert/not alarm attacks, fultons/stolen resources, etc) levels also react directly to your actions every single time you Deploy... I once used smoke grenade spam for a side op and quite a few outposts and the next time i came back into the map from the ACC all the guards had gas masks (the previous deployment obviously they had none). mechanically, supplies (and Preparedness) are not just something you can remove via Deployments; the supplies enemies use (and their conversations) also react to your tactics via Preparedness, e.g. to sniper fire or night infiltration, reacting to either your tactics (increasing if you always infiltrate at night, engage in sniper fire, use smoke grenades) or your supply raid deployments (e.g. preventing flash light supplies or helmet supplies).

You went into a lot more detail and are 100% correct. Horizon does not have a single mechanic that is advanced as most of the systems in place in MGSV. Not that that is inherently a bad thing, they're really two totally different games.

The open world even serve two completely different purposes. Horizon's open world serves the same assumed purpose as any other open world. MGSV's open world's purpose is to augment the stealth systems. It works as a channel that enables you to approach missions from nearly any angle. Much less of a story/immersion building device as it is just another piece of the gameplay systems.

 

[Basketball]

yeah no

mgsv gameplay shits on Hzd

that's all that matter 2me