OrbitalBeard
Member
I mean, it kind of is the new bar for open world gaming in a lot of ways. That's not really all that crazy of a thing to say and you don't have to be a fanboy to believe it.
BUT if you disagree, make your voice heard.
-
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.
For those who are playing Horizon and Zelda, which world do you enjoy exploring more?
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
I mean, it kind of is the new bar for open world gaming in a lot of ways. That's not really all that crazy of a thing to say and you don't have to be a fanboy to believe it.
BUT if you disagree, make your voice heard.
It would be easier to take your post serious if you didn't have a damn Zelda avy
OrbitalBeard
Member
Should I change it back to my Bloodborne avatar? Will you take me seriously then?
I mean, it kind of is the new bar for open world gaming in a lot of ways. That's not really all that crazy of a thing to say and you don't have to be a fanboy to believe it.
BUT if you disagree, make your voice heard.
Happy?
ffejeromdiks
Banned
That's because it is. Watch what open world games borrow from botw in the coming years, it's absolutely a paradigm shift for the genre.
Moff
Member
I am very much looking forward to play Horizon Dawn when I upgrade my ps4 to pro, but I expect it to be a very well done standard open world game we've had for years.
BOTW was just something I never experienced before, I'd be happy though if Horizon came close or was even better. Either way 2017 is shaping up to be another fantastic year like 2016, we truly live in the golden age of gaming.
BOTW was just something I never experienced before, I'd be happy though if Horizon came close or was even better. Either way 2017 is shaping up to be another fantastic year like 2016, we truly live in the golden age of gaming.
I have a Star Ocean avatar so you take this post more seriously, amirite?
Night Angel
Member
Exploration is obviously Zelda because there's not much of an exploration aspect to Horizon. You go everywhere during the story, minimal collectibles, etc. The games have different focuses.
Horizon gets the nod for better combat and story. Honestly I prefer Horizon as a game to Zelda, though that doesn't mean Zelda doesn't have its advantages.
Zelda's world is too big to the point where it is detracting from my enjoyment of the game. There's just not enough variety of content to fill such a big map. Horizon, on the other hand, never got boring to me. There were few enough collectibles to where I didn't get tired of them, and there was great diversity in the locations despite their relative smallness.
Basically in Zelda the world and exploration are the whole point of the game while in Horizon the world is just the setting for the story.
9+/10 Horizon
8/10 Zelda
Horizon gets the nod for better combat and story. Honestly I prefer Horizon as a game to Zelda, though that doesn't mean Zelda doesn't have its advantages.
Zelda's world is too big to the point where it is detracting from my enjoyment of the game. There's just not enough variety of content to fill such a big map. Horizon, on the other hand, never got boring to me. There were few enough collectibles to where I didn't get tired of them, and there was great diversity in the locations despite their relative smallness.
Basically in Zelda the world and exploration are the whole point of the game while in Horizon the world is just the setting for the story.
9+/10 Horizon
8/10 Zelda
Makes me take you less serious
Especially if you listen to actual devs talk about their experiences.
Derpy face must not be forgotten!
Horizon and Zelda are roughly about as good games (so hovering in 9/10 range for me). But they also have very different strengths and weaknesses.
The sense of exploration, discovery and just joy of wanderlust... that is Zelda's strength by far. So this is not even a fair contest between the two. But Zelda does fall behind in some other important categories.
The sense of exploration, discovery and just joy of wanderlust... that is Zelda's strength by far. So this is not even a fair contest between the two. But Zelda does fall behind in some other important categories.
Shady squirrel.
Zelda trumps horizons ass from the roof to the floor and back down town in exploration. But horizons got it beat in story and ranged combat. (Not just combat because human combat in horizon although rare is absolutely terrible)
Zelda BOTW and it isn't even close. Horizon is a really good game but Zelda is a masterpiece.
Jonneh3003
Banned
Why? It's a gaming forum and Breath of the Wild is one of the best games out there. Would his opinion be less valid if he was talking about RE4 with a Leon avatar? If anything it just shows that the user is passionate and has been impacted by the game.
yurinka
Member
I played 4-5 hours of Horizon and almost 200 of Zelda, and I'd say both for different reasons.
Both worls and games have their pros and cons. At the same time they are similar (they share many influences) in some things and very different in others (new IP vs nostalgia from a classic, old, stablished brand + a few different influences).
For me Horizon seems better in some things and Zelda in others. I would say none of them is better, they are just different approaches to a more or less similar concept.
Sames goes with the flaws. Some people act as if Zelda was a flawless masterpiece (it's awesome but it has many faws, some of them annoying) that invented many mechanics, when all the ones new to Zelda are copied from other sandbox games, and some of them are even common stuff in many of them.
Both worls and games have their pros and cons. At the same time they are similar (they share many influences) in some things and very different in others (new IP vs nostalgia from a classic, old, stablished brand + a few different influences).
For me Horizon seems better in some things and Zelda in others. I would say none of them is better, they are just different approaches to a more or less similar concept.
Sames goes with the flaws. Some people act as if Zelda was a flawless masterpiece (it's awesome but it has many faws, some of them annoying) that invented many mechanics, when all the ones new to Zelda are copied from other sandbox games, and some of them are even common stuff in many of them.
Chris_Rivera
Member
Why would anyone sensible try and compare the two anyway? Oh, they release around the same time...
Completely different outside of the "open world" moniker. This is thread made to instigate, I don't buy the "it's just conversation" deal. It's borderline trolling.
Completely different outside of the "open world" moniker. This is thread made to instigate, I don't buy the "it's just conversation" deal. It's borderline trolling.
I am referring to several of his post. I just replied to the most recent one
After playing numerous hours of HZD in the last days, I think the exploration could've been easily fixed to be on par with BotW. The only major difference between BotW and HZD is boldness. GG and most other Devs are not bold enough to implement true secrets in their games. For example: in HZD they had a really good idea. There are 6 or so hidden figurines hidden on the map. In the area of those figurines you'll find paintings on rocks. This should've been enough to draw the player's attention to explore this area more. Instead, you can buy maps for cheap early on which will put every location of the collectables on the map. This kind of design has to go and I hope this is the lesson learned after BotW. Lower the amount of stuff to collect and give the player meaningful rewards. Basically, shut down all map convenience features. Oh, and instead of tying collectables to trophies, give us trophies for completing the game on higher difficulties or other skill based aspects.
The Dude
Member
If this thread bothers you that much to such degree to where you need to try and throw jabs, I highly advise you step back and analyze your life a little bit. It's a game forum with discussions, get over it.
Primethius
Banned
Welp, I suck at reading lol.
I'm really enjoying Horizon, but the world in that game clearly isn't designed with exploration in mind the way BotW's world is.
Zelda seems much more "gamey" in the sense that there's loads of interesting activities placed within the world, while Horizon is more focused on believeability.
Zelda seems much more "gamey" in the sense that there's loads of interesting activities placed within the world, while Horizon is more focused on believeability.
The reason why I dislike these kind of threads is that they are essentially anti-game threads that encourage aggressive isolationist-type thinking. Some can claim these threads are about ''discussion'' but one look at 90% of the replies here it's plain to see these threads exist almost solely to confirm and strengthen a select group of peoples biases. I honestly feel like my intelligence is being insulted here having to explain myself like this and nor do I believe 90% of the people have even completed both games which would more importantly allow them to offer a far more more constructive opinion forming the basis of actually good discussion.
To me the quality of this 'discussion' and the logic that's barely propping it up is pretty garbage. The resulting behaviors and mindsets threads like these seem to propagate and encourage are pretty harmful toward the overall gaming community and should be addressed with moderation but that's just my opinion. I find it hard to support reductive instruments that trivialize games through the act of game vs game bashing. Just my opinion.
Those are the very same reasons I joined, this forum seemed to hold game discussion to a higher standard so I was kind of shocked to see these kinds of threads weren't blatantly against the rules.
Neoleo2143
Member
Zelda's world has a definite foot in being believable though, the detailed NPC schedules, the reaction to weather, temperature, the detailed animations depending on surface angles, the physics and friction. It's not just an abstract representation for pure gameplay ala mario.
More than just creating opportunities for gameplay, the flexible rules of Zelda enhance the believability of the playing space because fantastic elements (Sheikah Slate Runes, Paraglider, Zoras etc) are enhanced by the natural ones (physics, Weather, NPC schedules, wind, electricity etc).
The Dude
Member
Wow, I can't even...
Right now? Horizon. I'm deep in the story and mythology of the world, and every few moments there's some new scenery I stumble on or piece of lore I pick up that really moves me. The world is just that beautiful.
But I can definitely see how, as I play more of BotW, it will supplant Horizon in my mind. There's a lot of really small attention to detail things that are slowly adding up.
One things for certain - hell of a good job by both creators.
But I can definitely see how, as I play more of BotW, it will supplant Horizon in my mind. There's a lot of really small attention to detail things that are slowly adding up.
One things for certain - hell of a good job by both creators.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
I happen to think your thread was made in light hearted spirit and I'll admit that I haven't played both to have an opinion. I'm just a lurker but I do want to ask, do you in some way believe that full exploration is more of a huge premise in one game compared to the other which wasn't exactly build on the premise of full exploration?
I definitely want to enjoy both but I feel like Horizon vs The Witcher 3 is more 1:1 than Zelda and Horizon ....though the fact that Horizon is even being compared to Zelda in the first place is a huge compliment and a notable nod to what it does do great I guess
Perhaps "realistic" would've been a better word than "believeable". Horizon's world is realistic in the sense that much of the terrain doesn't really conceal anything of interest; it's just empty space, as it would be in the real world.
Zelda is certainly believeable in the way it has systems intersect, i.e. rain making surfaces slippery, weather requiring changes to clothing, etc.
dynamitejim
Member
The world of Horizon is drop dead gorgeous and feels so real. I barely used fast travel or mounts.
BotW just feels boring to explore. Yeah, I guess there's more "stuff" to find but none of it actually interests me or rewards you with cool stuff like in previous Zelda games. Too much aimless wandering in an ugly world for too little pay off.
BotW just feels boring to explore. Yeah, I guess there's more "stuff" to find but none of it actually interests me or rewards you with cool stuff like in previous Zelda games. Too much aimless wandering in an ugly world for too little pay off.
The Dude
Member
What I'm saying tho is how does a person know that one wasn't built on the premise as much without digging in to see?
Like for instance, guerilla didn't make an announcement and say "just to let folks know, our game isn't meant for exploration... Just a point a to B game with an open world" before the game launched.
When I bought horizon my excitement was simply to dig into that massive world. When you see all the clouding covering the map that screams to me "come, explore me"... Which means explore, see, do things, side quests, etc... That is exploration to me. There was no pretense of the world in horizon not being built for exploration like zelda persay.
So after 30 to 40 hours of horizon i came to love the game but then yes, realized the world wasn't as interactive as I thought it would be. Then comes zelda which once again is a massive world that needs opened up similar to getting onto tall necks and the exploration was more of what I was hoping horizon could of been like.
To me you have two worlds that are fairly huge, and two worlds that need a person to explore and view them. The gist is some might of enjoyed the world of horizon more for its lore and layout, some might enjoy zelda more... I love both but was bummed after time with horizon that the world didn't offer more interaction. But as I said I couldn't know that until i did actually explore the world.
Because even tho zelda wins horizon has tons of merit. I was playing more horizon today and this world is absolutely one of a kind gorgeous to see. Every nook and cranny and even city is a site to see.
It's not so much about interaction tho, it's about exploring and seeing the sites, the art directions... Which both games are amazing at in different ways. All In all I just talk Games and Im not worried about having some science behind my threads, I talk games and do so in many ways.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Ok, I understand your thinking here. However exploration is the backdrop to, what I see is, the overwhelming story you are trying to uncover. Hundreds of open world games have the feel to "explore" because I feel they don't want to box you in. It's not a linear game and there are areas to view as well which is why they give you all this environment. But foundations of the game matter which I feel like isn't what even gives these two games a fair shake. Of course GG didn't say, just go to point A and B but neither did the Witcher 3. Ironically, the marketing for both of these games were pretty much the same and from there it was very clear what you was going to be able to do. To be fair, the witcher is a sequel which did have 2 other games to really build it's entire world from, which Horizon is doing from scratch so the witcher had some sort of source material. Horizon is ultimately a new IP with no familiarity with any previous games and nothing to really trace back to something. It's story is pretty much the reason why the game exist and it's to get you to uncover that, which I how I feel it should be played.
And this is what I'm talking about in terms of premise. From this point before Zelda, there hasn't been a ton of games that have FULL interaction with any of the environments. The Witcher 3 wasn't a game that all of a sudden let you cut grass, climb trees, fish, and do all of that stuff. There were boundaries and the game let's you play up to whatever that was.
Zelda then takes that and amps it to 1000% in which full interaction with the world is it's entire identity and that was very clear from the beginning pretty much down to it's marketing. From all the let's plays and all of that, you were going to be able to do all these very detailed things in this massive world. There was not much attention given to the story and what it might have been because the game was mostly showing you the core gameplay of how deeply integrated this game would be in relation to the world.
That right there, is what uniquely separates the two. Had Horizon showed Aloy climbing trees and fishing, etc etc, then yes, I can agree that exploration was something it ultimately failed at because here was all these things she could do, and she couldn't. But the game already segmented it's identity from the minute it was showcased and it wasn't giving you the freedom that Zelda is giving you.
I like to talk games as well, I'm mostly worried that the games identities are blurring this line that wasn't intended or even evidently made blatant by the designers. The full interaction that Zelda gives you isn't fair to compare to Horizon because again, they weren't designed with that in mind. GG didn't build Horizon for full interaction, but for you to uncover the situation of that world within that world. Again, I haven't played it but this is what I took away from everything.
And Zelda didn't seem to be built off explaining the story of the world to you through these small intricate details for story building. From my point of view, It looks like it wanted you to move around, do these things and create your own memorable experience because of just how much it offers. And to truly survive....something that I don't think is even apart of Horizon's focus at all, in relation to sleep, and making food, etc etc.
I've truly wanted everything you can do in zelda in a game for so long and the closest to that has been GTA. The level of sandbox that game gives you is almost identical to Zelda, but that's exactly my point. I see where you are coming from, don't get me wrong....but I just don't feel its fair to give this illusion that Horizon was created off the backs of exploration when the very thing leading that exploration has a lot to do with the story and uncovering that through that world.
But, I completely understand your view in which the basic level of exploration was not something that moved you in Horizon compared to Zelda that did. I just didn't think that the comparison was really apt for what both games were doing in terms of "exploration".
great post, you made perfect sense of this thread and why comparing one and not comparing the other makes no sense.
primasaurus
Member
Zelda does do physics a LOT better, this alone makes the World seem more alive
The Dude
Member
But my issue is comparing the two doesn't negate or detract from one or another. I'm not comparing the two to for scientific facts to be logged, it's simply discussion. I mean I guess I'm from a different era or not of the breed of current forum gamers that have some sort of method in how they want to talk about a few games.
It's no different than me saying which game do you simply like more, Zelda or horizon... And people saying they're so different..But a person can still enjoy one slightly over the other and vice versa.
Or if I said what world was better, skyrim or witcher 3....again totally different styles of game but when it comes to gaming conversation of two games i love I really don't care about the rights and wrongs.
It's a thread, people will talk and it'll disappear once the thread is done. Who cares what sort of comparison is proper or not is my point of view when it all means nothing in the grand scheme of life.
I just think people need to chill with the it makes no sense to compare stuff because to me it makes perfect sense as im juggling two of the best games and loving both for different reasons while they both have their pros and cons.
If people are just so bothered by it, like to where it's a detriment I say then get a mod a lock it... I couldn't care less as I'm not here for anything else but to chat some games. Because it takes the fun out of a discussion when more are so anal about the topic rather than just the topic.
It's no different than me saying which game do you simply like more, Zelda or horizon... And people saying they're so different..But a person can still enjoy one slightly over the other and vice versa.
Or if I said what world was better, skyrim or witcher 3....again totally different styles of game but when it comes to gaming conversation of two games i love I really don't care about the rights and wrongs.
It's a thread, people will talk and it'll disappear once the thread is done. Who cares what sort of comparison is proper or not is my point of view when it all means nothing in the grand scheme of life.
I just think people need to chill with the it makes no sense to compare stuff because to me it makes perfect sense as im juggling two of the best games and loving both for different reasons while they both have their pros and cons.
If people are just so bothered by it, like to where it's a detriment I say then get a mod a lock it... I couldn't care less as I'm not here for anything else but to chat some games. Because it takes the fun out of a discussion when more are so anal about the topic rather than just the topic.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
I wouldn't say the thread makes no sense and I get that it's another paradise to point out what people enjoy about each one of them. It's fine and I like to read different perspectives, but some acknowledgement into the differences of the games go a long way for some honest discussion opposed to one saying, "I like Zelda." and close with a period. Where's the discussion? And let's be real, OP did not even want that type of discussion which is clearly why this thread was made. Even sometimes in between fighting, you can learn a thing or two. I like it sometimes.
Dude....the Dude lol Okay...This is disappointing but sigh........
....For someone who likes to talk about games, it shouldn't irritate you that some people would like to discuss in finer details the difference between the games than what's on the surface. That is the point of discussion. You can bring in the topic of the discussion and the people involved can voice their opinion on how they feel about it whether that be organically or inorganically. If you like discussing games, then you can take to discussion of people pointing out those difference regardless of how nonscientific you were being or how scientific you were trying to be. You asked a question, and people responded. I'm sorry to say but I believe it is you who needs to chill with trying to define how this should be discussed when it is you who started the topic. You didn't state that the two games could not be separated from what they were. If you didn't want this, then you should have stuck your opinion in a current thread about both of these games in which many people who are discussing them could glance over or respond to your opinion in which you might have gotten the type of discussion, it seems you wanted.
I appreciate the responses people have noted in this thread in regards to which one they explored more in rather vague or not vague detail, (since I'm an outsider who wants to play both). I didn't think there was an issue with welcoming conversation for deeper understanding of where you are coming from. I didn't think challenging that is harmful in any shape or form. But whatever....that was not the response I expected I guess. ✌🏾
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
What do you think the type of discussion that the OP wanted? Let's be frank, are you accusing him of a blind Zelda fanboy that tried to make Horizon look bad?
Dr. Black Jack
Member
Zelda.
We were ripping on Horizon like 5-10 minutes in, playing Green Hill Zone music and rolling everywhere. Shit is a joke in comparison to BotW, a glorified hallway so far. BotW throws you right in.
We were ripping on Horizon like 5-10 minutes in, playing Green Hill Zone music and rolling everywhere. Shit is a joke in comparison to BotW, a glorified hallway so far. BotW throws you right in.
I haven't played either, so take that into account, but I don't see how a world full of kinda techno natives, fighting robo-dinosaurs could be called boring.
Not that I am disparaging either games aesthetics.
Edit: Note, I am talking about artstyle not just pure graphics which are also excellent. The game looks amazing. I get the feeling that some people only consider cartoonish visuals as having a good artstyle.
Not that I am disparaging either games aesthetics.
Edit: Note, I am talking about artstyle not just pure graphics which are also excellent. The game looks amazing. I get the feeling that some people only consider cartoonish visuals as having a good artstyle.
hurricanes
Member
OP you asked an unfair question.
It is like "which game does range combat better? Horizon or Zelda?" The answer is almost definite one-sided.
It is like "which game does range combat better? Horizon or Zelda?" The answer is almost definite one-sided.
Similar threads
- Poll