Support NeoGAF

[potatohead]

I'll add to the strong disagreement.

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

Horizon is a very well done Ubisoft-style "open-world" game, with a neat setting. It's not even in the same league as MGSV / Far Cry 2 / BotW.

Agree though I didn't like Far Cry 2 as much and haven't played BOTW yet.

There's actually a lot of things I would like Horizon to borrow from MGSV also. Like not pausing movement to pick up items. Also make it easier to spot what item it is to pick up. I find it so annoying in Horizon when I just want to fill my health pouch and have to look so closely to find out which is the health items, because there's too much detail on screen. They should've differentiated health and other plant items with a different hud label.

In MGSV the plants look blatantly different so they don't even need to do that. Even from much further away.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

What applications were there? It always just seemed like a way to stun larger enemies, like electrifying smaller ones.

None of the weapons, taken individually, are that deep. The depth in combat comes from the ways you can combine the various weapons, five different players could approach the same encounter in five totally different ways.

People /do/ associate towers with Ubisoft.

This is apparent to anyone who's browsed gaf a lot over the last 10 years, this is a very common opinion.

Yes, more games have copied the Ubi formula, but the Ubi formula is still very much attributed to Ubi themselves.

I have no idea why anyone would be arguing this doesn't happen.

Are you sure you meant to quote me?

 

[Alo0oy]

What applications were there? It always just seemed like a way to stun larger enemies, like electrifying smaller ones.

1) make an enemy stay in a particular zone, you can use two ropes from two sides and make their movement zone very small.
2) Stun an enemy for 90 seconds if you use enough ropes.
3) Override an enemy.
4) Remove armor parts.

 

[SomTervo]

I'm also just enjoying Horizon a helluva lot more. Like, infinitely more.

But is that to do with your expectations or the merits of each game taken as they are?

I prefer Horizon and the earlier MGS games too fyi, but when you begin to play with MGSV on its own terms it's clear the thing is a masterpiece.

It took me time to shrug off my expectations for MGSV and see that.

 

[Drackhorn]

I'm also just enjoying Horizon a helluva lot more. Like, infinitely more.

Absolutely.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

I absolutely hated the broken up mission format of MGSV.

I get they're simulating how it'd be out "in the field", but that's just en excuse to shoehorn pick-up side missions and other open world game tropes.

An open world, story driven MGS game is not what MGSV was.

And yeah I was let down in that sense.

There was no sense of urgency like in previous MGS games.

 

[Roni]

Man, what you going on about in here? MGSV is the best Metal Gear in a lot of people's eyes. Including mine.

 

[Hindl]

People /do/ associate towers with Ubisoft.

This is apparent to anyone who's browsed gaf a lot over the last 10 years, this is a very common opinion.

Yes, more games have copied the Ubi formula, but the Ubi formula is still very much attributed to Ubi themselves.

I have no idea why anyone would be arguing this doesn't happen.

Because there are people arguing it here:

It's fine if you want to live in your own fantasy.
There are certainly Ubisoft open world games using it.
So do other open world games (non Ubi)

Not all Ubisoft games and not all Ubisoft open world games use it.

It's time some of you guys and girls become a bit more rational and reasonable.
Sure, they killed your first born baby and all and they downgraded Watch_Dogs1 from the presentation vid. But that's some time ago now.

Read more.

Ubisoft have begun a concerted effort to move away from this. We literally know that due to statements on their financial reports.

Watch Dogs 2, Wildlands and The Division do not have towers.

That's great, hopefully they move away from it. That doesn't suddenly mean that using towers to open up parts of the map has been predominantly a trait of Ubisoft open world games for the last 10 years. People associate that idea with Ubisoft, and for good reason. It'll take at least 3-4 years of Ubisoft not doing this along with other games continuing to do it for people to disassociate it with Ubisoft

 

[SomTervo]

Doesn't matter, they're still associated with the "Ubi open world formula" heavily because they designed it and championed it for so long.

Yeah I'm not disputing that they're associated with it (which I'm aware was the original point) but saying A) it's not black and white and B) this will change over time.

 

[Aselith]

The game structure was also in Horizons side. MGSV being level based really hurt it's openworld design, traversing it's world doesn't feel interesting, the outposts give you good gameplay possibilities, but it starts getting repetitive fast because it doesn't really mix it up. both in terms of encounters, and in terms of environment. Horizon made use of the benefits of the openworld, it actually painted a very interesting world, while MGSV's was grim, but also dull...

I actually agree with this but Horizon has the same problem but WAY worse because the outlaw bases are basically exactly the same as far as I could tell. There is zero sense of structure to them.

 

[Cramoss]

Disagree. Gameplay-wise, MGSV is THE best stealth-action game out there. Horizon is great and all but can't compete on the gameplay itself.

 

[Tomasoares]

Tallnecks only reveals the map, it doesn't unlock anything.

Horizon's open world is a shallow combat arena, there's very little else to it if you go off-track.

It's good in that it supports the action gameplay and looks stunning, but it's not great at producing a strong open world that stands on its own like TW3's.

It does what it needs to do. Also, calling a "shallow combat arena" makes everything outside the combat meaningless, which isn't the case lol There's a lot to explore, but there isn't collectibles everywhere or 23487 boring fetch quests which doesn't add anything to the experience. There's a strong narrative factor attached to Horizon's open world (which includes the main quest, environmental/visual lore, sidequests and collectibles) which IMO can't be simply ignored.

 

[Pilgrimzero]

MGSV's gameplay was great. It's the story that blew goats.

 

[MrJoobJoob]

FACT: Peace Walker was the game MGSV should have been.

While I loved Horizon, I hope Kojima isn't borrowing too many ideas from it for his next title. I'd rather Death Stranding involve bite sized gameplay segments, dozens of bosses, customizable gear, easily accessible co-op, a Mother-Base style progression system, etc.

 

[ckaneo]

I really don't see why MGS needs to be open world at all.

 

[Zakalwe]

Because there are people arguing it here:

Which is bizarre because people here /do/ routinely and very commonly attribute 'Ubi open world design' to Ubisoft.

Regardless of how much effort they're making to move away from it, its attributed to them very often because they pioneered it.

You can't have been on the gaming side that long if you don't know this (not you, the others arguing it)

Are you sure you meant to quote me?

Yes, I was agreeing with you.

Yeah I'm not disputing that they're associated with it (which I'm aware was the original point) but saying A) it's not black and white and B) this will change over time.

It will obviously change over time, but the 'Ubi open world formula' is a thing people say for a reason.

 

[Yopis]

MGSV destroys Horizon in gameplay dept. Horizon is a decent first try though. AI is really horrible though for human npcs.

 

[Zakalwe]

Tallnecks only reveals the map, it doesn't unlock anything.



It does what it needs to do. Also, calling a "shallow combat arena" makes everything outside the combat meaningless, which isn't the case lol There's a lot to explore, but there isn't collectibles everywhere or 23487 boring fetch quests which doesn't add anything to the experience. There's a strong narrative factor attached to Horizon's open world (which includes the main quest, environmental/visual lore, sidequests and collectibles) which IMO can't be simply ignored.

It is shallow though, in terms of actual interaction comparatively to other open world games with a high level of interaction. Calling it shallow doesn't "make everything outside of combat meaningless", it highlights the fact that everything outside of the main narrative is shallow which is is.

Nothing you're written in the post above proves otherwise.

I mean, feel free to love the game I get why people do, but its open world being shallow is not something you can really argue against.

 

[Alo0oy]

This is true but it's something that Ubisoft popularised and leaned into really heavily for quite a while. They didn't become associated with Ubisoft for no reason.

People associate it with Ubisoft because that's when most people feel comfortable to complain, nobody complains when other open worlds give you maps from outposts, billboards, podstations, power stations, or any other variation.

So when someone doesn't like another open world game, that person defaults to "Ubisoft structure" as a complaint, even though his/her favorite games are inFamous or Arkham City, and both of those games have variations of those "towers".

I'm not saying it's intentional, sometimes it's just confirmation bias.

 

[Archtreyz]

It is shallow though, in terms of actual interaction comparatively to other open world games with a high level of interaction. Calling it shallow doesn't "make everything outside of combat meaningless", it highlights the fact that everything outside of the main narrative is shallow which is is.

Nothing you're written in the post above proves otherwise.

I mean, feel free to love the game I get why people do, but its open world being shallow is not something you can really argue against.

How is the open world any less shallow then say The Witcher 3 or MGSV? All three of those games are "Get from this point to this point. There will be pockets of enemies along the way. It's up to you how you want to fight them."

 

[MegaSackman]

I have a hard time comparing the two and trying to fill either game with their unique characteristics it's even more difficult but I'm sure it can be done, but yeah, to me MGSV has really big problems in story and design. Mechanics are fantastic but they can only take you so far...

 

[Bold One]

Agreed OP.

MGSV was such a massive disappointment, sure it nailed the stealth element, but you were left to do it an empty and dull environment.

Horizon is infinitely more fun and engaging, every machine encounter is like a mini Metal Gear fight. Actually more rewarding and fun than most end-game metal gear fights in the metal gear games.

And LOOOOOOOOOOOOL at the Ubisoft comparison, clear to see who has played the game and who hasn't and is talking out of their derriere.

 

[Zakalwe]

How is the open world any less shallow then say The Witcher 3 or MGSV? All three of those games are "Get from this point to this point. There will be pockets of enemies along the way. It's up to you how you want to fight them."

Because TW3 has tonnes of side quests from NPCs actually living /in/ the open world, it has houses you can enter and speak with people who are living in the open world, it has people moving throughout the open world like travelling merchants and random quest givers, etc... Its a fully realised, lived in, RPG open world that feels alive when you move through it.

It's utterly bizarre that you're tying to argue this. TW3's open world has far, far more depth to it than both MGSV and Horizon.

 

[shnurgleton]

Not even close. MGS5 for all its missteps was a brilliant stealth sandbox. Horizon is simply an extremely competent Ubisoft-style open world game.

 

[LiK]

MGSV is pretty open, the main problem was the way the story was told was a complete mess compared to his previous games. The fact that Konami made working conditions so shitty and didn't allow him to finish the game was another reason. Horizon mixed in story with the open world gameplay really well.

 

[Ratrat]

Can someone post a video showing impressive/creative gameplay from Horizon? There should be lots of 'holy shit' stuff skilled players are doing right?

Need someone to disprove the Ubisoft claims. It looks like a less fun Lost Planet/Monster Hunter from trailers.

 

[Mudron]

In other news: this chicken parmigiana is the meal that the turkey dinner I had 2 years ago should have been.

 

[Yopis]

How is the open world any less shallow then say The Witcher 3 or MGSV? All three of those games are "Get from this point to this point. There will be pockets of enemies along the way. It's up to you how you want to fight them."

You can't even bump npc's in town or cities. They are stuck in animations. They don't even react to being run into or anything else. Really sterile world.

 

[LiK]

Can someone post a video showing impressive/creative gameplay from Horizon? There should be lots of 'holy shit' stuff skilled players are doing right?

Look at the Horizon/Sunhi gifs thread. He does a lot of insane stuff in them.

 

[Kin5290]

Today I learned that Zelda: BOTW is just a Ubisoft derivative. After all, it has towers that are climbed to reveal the map, and apparently all that matters are those peripheral mechanics instead of the core gameplay.

 

[Griss]

Horizon has nowhere near the mechanical complexity or level design brilliance of MGS V.

Sorry, can't agree with you OP. Horizon is a very good game, but ultimately just a derivative open-world, 'follow the quest marker' game. Outside of machine combat it does nothing special, though machine combat is worth the price of entry alone.

 

[Screaming Meat]

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.

Spot on.

 

[MegaSackman]

Because TW3 has tonnes of side quests from NPCs actually living /in/ the open world, it has houses you can enter and speak with people who are living in the open world, it has people moving throughout the open world like travelling merchants and random quest givers, etc... Its a fully realised, lived in, RPG open world that feels alive when you move through it.

It's utterly bizarre that you're tying to argue this. TW3's open world has far, far more depth to it than both MGSV and Horizon.

For as big The Witcher III is, is not really that much different than Horizon tho, travelling merchants? well, you have travelling soldiers in Horizon, grupo of hunters and bandist roaming the world hunting machines, you can even tag along with them. Ambushes from bandits hidden in bushes, trapts, decoys...
Yes, you can't enter buildings but you have quest givers, and... people living in the world, whatever that means.

 

[SomTervo]

Can someone post a video showing impressive/creative gameplay from Horizon? There should be lots of 'holy shit' stuff skilled players are doing right?

Need someone to disprove the Ubisoft claims. It looks like a less fun Lost Planet/Monster Hunter from trailers.

It's a bit hard to explain, but there are a few factors:

- combat that actually hits hard and requires strategy. You'll die if you're not careful
- but unlike Ass Creed etc, the combat is actually crunchy and snappy and responsive, closer to MGSV (although not quite THAT snappy and responsive)
- the game actually features abundant and decently designed side quests. Even if the game structure is sort of similar to Far Cry/Ass Creed, you actually find people to talk to, get to decide what to say to them, uncover quests with actual story lines, solve mysteries, etc
- basically it's halfway between The Witcher 3 and a Ubi game - it's a nice, unique middle ground

FACT: Peace Walker was the game MGSV should have been.

While I loved Horizon, I hope Kojima isn't borrowing too many ideas from it for his next title. I'd rather Death Stranding involve bite sized gameplay segments, dozens of bosses, customizable gear, easily accessible co-op, a Mother-Base style progression system, etc.

Fact: Peace Walker was originally called MGS5

 

[black070]

I will never understand why the term 'generic' is thrown around to describe gameplay mechanics simply because they've been used before. It's like every game has to reinvent the wheel to be given merit.

 

[QuantumZebra]

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.

This.

Horizon was meant to be open-world. Making MGSV open-world just diluted the game.

 

[Spieler Eins]

The beauty of MGSV is that it didn't turn itself into yet another exploration game. The barren overworld and the lack of questlines are good, because the game is not primarily about generic checklists like any other open world. It's about being given one specific goal at a time that you need to reach, which you can tackle in a plethora of new ways thanks to the open map (which additionally increases the atmosphere drastically).
Leaving your mission to search for secrets on the map is missing the point.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Agreed OP.

MGSV was such a massive disappointment, sure it nailed the stealth element, but you were left to do it an empty and dull environment.

Horizon is infinitely more fun and engaging, every machine encounter is like a mini Metal Gear fight. Actually more rewarding and fun than most end-game metal gear fights in the metal gear games.

And LOOOOOOOOOOOOL at the Ubisoft comparison, clear to see who has played the game and who hasn't and is talking out of their derriere.

"Someone said something that isn't 100% glowing about a game I like, they must not have played it. That's the only explanation!"

:jnc

Can someone post a video showing impressive/creative gameplay from Horizon? There should be lots of 'holy shit' stuff skilled players are doing right?

Need someone to disprove the Ubisoft claims. It looks like a less fun Lost Planet/Monster Hunter from trailers.

sunhi has posted a bunch of awesome gifs but I guess the counter to that is that he can make anything look amazing in a gif.

It's not Bayonetta or Revengeance in terms of combat but it pisses over any other open world game I've played. (Haven't played MGS V but is that even a proper open world game?) Even Kamiya struggled to make open world combat look interesting in Scalebound.

 

[Summer Haze]

Not with that human AI/combat...

 

[Zakalwe]

For as big The Witcher III is, is not really that much different than Horizon tho, travelling merchants? well, you have travelling soldiers in Horizon, grupo of hunters and bandist roaming the world hunting machines, you can even tag along with them. Ambushes from bandits hidden in bushes, trapts, decoys...
Yes, you can't enter buildings but you have quest givers, and... people living in the world, whatever that means.

I'm sorry, but if you're rationally trying to argue Horizon's open world is even close to the depth of TW3 then I can't argue with you any more.

It's a ridiculous idea.

 

[whalleywhat]

If Horizon is just building on Far Cry 3 the way people say it is (with more interesting combat scenarios, but nothing compared to the Monster Hunter encounters the initial reveal hinted at), NO THANK YOU. If these are the reasons people keep bitching about how disappointing MGSV was, I'll now find it much easier to write them off.

 

[MegaSackman]

I'm sorry, but if you're rationally trying to argue Horizon's open world is even close to the depth of TW3 then I can't argue with you any more.

It's a ridiculous idea.

It's just smaller, the game is smaller than The Witcher III that has an insane amount of content but the way they do things aren't that much different. The scale is the main draw.

 

[Bold One]

Horizon has nowhere near the mechanical complexity or level design brilliance of MGS V.

Sorry, can't agree with you OP. Horizon is a very good game, but ultimately just a derivative open-world, 'follow the quest marker' game. Outside of machine combat it does nothing special, though machine combat is worth the price of entry alone.

Mechanically complex on a stealth level, while Horizon has stealth elements, its not a stealth using that metric to beat it over the head is dishonest.

As a whole package, in terms of structure, story, characters, an actual living breathing open world and being a fully realised and complete game, Horizon beats it into submission. It is bizarre to see people call MGSV a masterpiece and then throw ubisoft-like narrative at Horizon whereas MGSV does literally NOTHING with its open world.

It pains me to say that as a massive MGS fan, seeing the franchise go out like that.

 

[Ratrat]

It's a bit hard to explain, but there are a few factors:

- combat that actually hits hard and requires strategy. You'll die if you're not careful
- but unlike Ass Creed etc, the combat is actually crunchy and snappy and responsive, closer to MGSV (although not quite THAT snappy and responsive)
- the game actually features abundant and decently designed side quests. Even if the game structure is sort of similar to Far Cry/Ass Creed, you actually find people to talk to, get to decide what to say to them, uncover quests with actual story lines, solve mysteries, etc
- basically it's halfway between The Witcher 3 and a Ubi game - it's a nice, unique middle ground


Fact: Peace Walker was originally called MGS5

Thats all fine. I dont even hate Ubisoft games in small doses. But the argument that its what MGSV should have been makes me expect a lot more.

Edit: not looking for pretty gifs. Videos showing creative and unexpected ways of completing missions that take skill.

 

[Zakalwe]

It's just smaller, the game is smaller than The Witcher III that has an insane amount of content but the way they do things aren't that much different. The scale is the main draw.

It's not just smaller, it's shallower too.

The open world is literally just an arena for combat.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

Nah, Hitman is the game MGSV should have been.

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

This. One hundred times this.

An MGS game in the style of Hitman would be incredible.

Imagine the next Bond game in the style of Hitman....*drools*

 

[black070]

If Horizon is just building on Far Cry 3 the way people say it is (with more interesting combat scenarios, but nothing compared to the Monster Hunter encounters the initial reveal hinted at), NO THANK YOU. If these are the reasons people keep bitching about how disappointing MGSV was, I'll now find it much easier to write them off.

Here's a bright idea, how about playing it yourself (if you even have the means to that is) and forming your own opinion.

 

[Archtreyz]

Because TW3 has tonnes of side quests from NPCs actually living /in/ the open world, it has houses you can enter and speak with people who are living in the open world, it has people moving throughout the open world like travelling merchants and random quest givers, etc... Its a fully realised, lived in, RPG open world that feels alive when you move through it.

It's utterly bizarre that you're tying to argue this. TW3's open world has far, far more depth to it than both MGSV and Horizon.

More content in it, sure. I wouldn't say depth. Horizon also has people traveling through it's open world and plenty of side quests from people living /in/ the world that give interesting and unique perspectives. But, that said, none of that changes how you interact with the world. You still interact with the world the exact same way in those games.

 

[Bold One]

"Someone said something that isn't 100% glowing about a game I like, they must not have played it. That's the only explanation!"

How does that statement make any sense in the context of judging the game as a Ubisoft clone?

 

[whalleywhat]

Mechanically complex on a stealth level, while Horizon has stealth elements, its not a stealth using that metric to beat it over the head is dishonest.

As a whole package, in terms of structure, story, characters, an actual living breathing open world and being a fully realised and complete game, Horizon beats it into submission. It is bizarre to see people call MGSV a masterpiece and then throw ubisoft-like narrative at Horizon whereas MGSV does literally NOTHING with its open world.

It pains me to say that as a massive MGS fan, seeing the franchise go out like that.

What's bizarre about it. They're specifically taking issue with jamming every part of the map full of collectibles and cookie-cutter 'content', and appreciate how the open world in MGSV simply exists as a context within which gameplay unfolds. Your clearly taking issue with one or of the premises of this line of thought, but there's nothing inconsistent about it.

Here's a bright idea, how about playing it yourself (if you even have the means to that is) and forming your own opinion.

1. I don't have the means to (oh shit, rekt), and even if I did, critical appraisal and my own tastes would land it very low on my 'to play' list. I still feel the need to comment if someone says a game I like a whole lot should be more like a game I doubt I'd like as much. 2. I'm very familiar with many of the games in this conversation, have heard this comparison made by numerous reliable sources, thus feel entirely qualified to wade into this conversation, especially having pointed out that I haven't played the game, so feel free to refute those comparisons, rather than just pointing out what I've already said, or trying to slam me as a poor or something.