Support NeoGAF

[Chinner]

Horizon is an infinitely better game than MGSV. Yes yes, I know MGSV has great core mechanics but it doesn't have the story, map design or missions to back it up. Horizon does all of that stuff really well, while MGSV is just stuck in an infinite look of fultoning people and destroying vehicles.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Why didn't you concentrate on the main quests then? I had a similar issue with NieR: Automata recently, where all the side stuff was just boring to me. So I concentrated on the main story and enjoyed it much more this way.

I did in the end but it took me a long time.

I'm one of those people who likes to exhaust every dialogue option and when I come to a fork in the road do my best to try and go down both paths. I'll take my time and explore nooks and crannies in even in the most linear "walk down this long, straight, corridor" type games and it drives my brother fucking NUTS when he watches me play anything.

At the start, I was enjoying the combat and the visuals so much that I was happy to go around trying to talk to every single NPC to see what would happen. Then I ran into the encumbrance limit and abysmal inventory management so I made it my goal to try and upgrade my resource limit ASAP so off I went hunting. While I was at it, I figured I may as well increase my quiver size and the rest of the equipment upgrades so I spent ages hunting various animals, all the while thinking I couldn't wait until it was over and "Far Cry did this better, at least those honey badgers could fuck you up."

Got all that done, got started on the hunting lodge challenges and did some side quests and it dawned on me that the game was trying it's best to make me dislike it so I bit the bullet and smashed through the rest of the main quest.

I think I can trace it all back to Dragon Age Inquisition, that was the game that really made me hate open world padding with a passion. Horizon doesn't come anywhere close to that game but I am more acutely aware of the bullshit that comes with most open world games nowadays and I really can't be arsed with it.

It's why I'm disappointed with Horizon as much as I was impressed with it, because it's an OK game with some unbelievable high points. I felt like I was pausing the game every two minutes to go and dick around in photomode and like many people have said, the machine combat is incredible.

My big beef with the game is all that other shit which gets in the way of the awesome stuff and drags it down. Like, if I had never played Far Cry 4, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Dragon Age: Inquisition or a bunch of other open world games then I probably would have loved the game. As it stands though, I have played all those games which means there was no escaping the "Oh, I climb a tower to uncover parts of the map", "Oh, I'm going to be collecting these branches that stick out of the ground every 100 metres aren't I?", "Time for a half-arsed hunting challenge or fifteen".

Horizon isn't a bad game by any means, I enjoyed quite a lot of my time with it and I don't regret playing it at all. I'm just a bit more vocal in my criticism because I think of what it could have been and I'm disappointed. It would honestly have been one of my games of the generation if they focussed even more on expanding the combat and not felt the need to add things just because every other AAA open world game seems to have them nowadays.

 

[Zakalwe]

I don't understand why you're dismissing open sand box combat as just a small part, it is the most important aspect in an open world game, an aspect that the vast majority of open world games fail at, they give you an open world to explore only to give you shitty shallow combat that can be done in linear games.

Horizon's combat only works in the open world.

Horizon's combat would work in a linear game too. It's not the open world that makes it great. The open world is literally just an arena for it.

It would be the same with large sandbox areas like, say, Crysis 3, especially as machines are tethered to their sites and when you wander too far they lose aggro and wander back to their starting points. The combat is actually hugely compartmentalised because of this fact. So no, the statement that 'Horizon's combat only works in the open world' is utterly false.

Combat is one element of a good open world game, TW3 doesn't have great sandbox combat and it's one of the best open worlds every created.

 

[Solid Shammy]

Holy shit, you'd say this while defending the open world design of MGSV?!

MGSV's biggest fault with its open world is traversal, it's the most redundant feature of the game, other than that, the level design of each base you infiltrate is excellent and are all open to multiple play styles. MGSV and Horizon are obviously fundamentally different games with very different goals, and I think comparing them at all is rather pointless.

 

[Zakalwe]

MGSV's biggest fault with its open world is traversal, it's the most redundant feature of the game, other than that, the level design of each base you infiltrate is excellent and are all open to multiple play styles. MGSV and Horizon are obviously fundamentally different games with very different goals, and I think comparing them at all is rather pointless.

Repetition is a huge downer in MGSV's open world, too, not just traversal.

 

[JP_]

Stuff like setting up an ambush for a convoy of tanks by placing your horse in front of the convoy, watching them stop and then setting a off a bunch of c4 or land mines while you watch from a nearby ridge. Everything works organically and realistically.

I mean, stuff like that is possible in both games, so...

 

[EGM1966]

I think your're comparing two very different beasts OP.

Neither game is really a classic open world (although ZD comes a bit closer). Rather they use the conceit of an open world for immersion and a sense of place IMHO.

ZD is really a very good classic linear SP experience whose structure leverages the open world as a single, huge level (and the location makes sense when the plot comes together). It provides some additional side quests but most relate back in some form or other to the core narrative - only errands really feel like true unrelated tasks. The approach also allows for the large, free form combat with the machines and essentially makes almost all encounters sand boxes for you to do with as you will. It strikes a nice balance between classic SP narrative and more emergent, player driven moment to moment combat and experiences.

MSGV is really a series of classic SP missions with that structure played out in an open world that allows you more freedom than classic levels to decide how you want to accomplish the missions. It retains classic MGS gameplay with lots of options/mechanics and let's you get to it with them. Like BOTW it's about experimentation with a focus on gameplay.

MSGV's flaws are in its narrative and plot, and in some really, really awful character decisions (Quiet) that just don't work. It has terrific gameplay but the narrative is particularly weak for a MGS. I think possibly using an open world level the way it does might not have been the best idea in hindsight: I think a series of larger levels a'la STALKER or Uncharted 4 might have fit it better.

Going forward, depending on how they continue the narrative I could see Horizon (ZD) needing to consider multiple locations a'la Witcher 3 vs sticking to one spot too but that'll depend on how they continue the narrative thread.

Anyway just seems very apples/oranges to me.

 

[Zakalwe]

I mean, stuff like that is possible in both games, so...

To some extend in Horizon, but it's nowhere near as open as MGSV in terms of potential sandbox scenarios.

 

[Solid Shammy]

I read that man but common you need to be really in love with the game to do all that connections and accept so many structures, it almost felt like I read an essay from a cultist.
Honestly, it's great that you think the game is a masterpiece in every front but personally I find the story to be really embarrassing (and yeah, I've listened every audio and stuff).

I don't think the game is a masterpiece in every front, but I do believe that it is a masterpiece to me. You also don't need to love the game to understand its themes, you merely need to finish it. The ending is incredibly blunt with its message, you are Big Boss, and Big Boss is you, now go build that private military.

 

[SomTervo]

Criticise MGSV all you want, but the game is only as repetitive as you personally play it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccJbSSMQjbU

7:05

Holllyyy

Shiiiiit

 

[SolidChamp]

MGSV's biggest fault with its open world is traversal, it's the most redundant feature of the game, other than that, the level design of each base you infiltrate is excellent and are all open to multiple play styles. MGSV and Horizon are obviously fundamentally different games with very different goals, and I think comparing them at all is rather pointless.

Is it though? Since Kojima very clearly wanted to make an open world game and lamented that he hadn't when he would play something like GTAV.

There are a lot of things I'm doing in Horizon that have a sort of MGSV feel to them (crouch-walking, stealth, different weapons for different situations, riding mounts, collecting plants and resources, etc).

Now that Kojima is using the Decima Engine, I think it warrants some discussion about where MGSV went wrong, and if he saw things in Horizon that he would have liked to have applied to MGSV.

I'm of the mindset that Horizon accomplishes everything it sets out to do, while MGSV only manages a few things while fizzling out before the rest of it can be fulfilled and end up feeling truly complete.

 

[mrlion]

Open world games need more than just great combat to be good open world games.

Horizon is a good game in that its open world supports the combat and works as an incredibly open and beautiful arena for that combat, but when you look at the open world itself and compare it to other examples at the top of the genre, it is immediately apparent how shallow it is in terms of the open world being this developed gameplay element by itself. It's crazy that people are trying to argue Horizon's open world isn't shallow... it is, and there's literally no evidence presented in this thread that it isn't.

Horizon doesn't even need a well developed open world /because/ it's primarily an incredibly strong action game. It's combat is so strong that it allows the shallow open world to exist without it becoming a major flaw.

Conversely, TW3's open world is so well developed that the game manages to be remarkable despite its lacklustre combat.

The games have different strengths and weaknesses, the most obvious being:

Horizon: amazing combat, shallow open world and RPG elements.
TW3: lacklustre combat, deep open world and RPG elements.

To argue otherwise is pretty insane.

I disagree. I don't get why people say TW3's combat is "lackluster". Its nowhere near the depth of MGS5 but its not "lackluster" either. There's literally dozens of tools that you can use to kill stuff, if you're only doing it one way its no wonder you thought it was "lackluster".

 

[Solid Shammy]

Repetition is a huge downer in MGSV's open world, too, not just traversal.

I disagree, the game is only as repetitive as you play it. The only genuinely repetitive things are the side ops, I feel as though there were way too many, and by the time I finished all of them I definitely needed a break. Either way though, Horizons gameplay loop is just as repetitive as MGSV, yet the big difference is the story has a larger emphasis to push you forward, which is great for a lot of players that aren't mechanically driven.

 

[Griss]

7:05

Holllyyy

Shiiiiit

Yep. Same reaction. That kind of thing is why MGS V is mechanically deeper and more interesting than Horizon by leaps and bounds.

 

[Alo0oy]

Horizon's combat would work in a linear game too. It's not the open world that makes it great. The open world is literally just an arena for it.

It would be the same with large sandbox areas like, say, Crysis 3, especially as machines are tethered to their sites and when you wander too far they lose aggro and wander back to their starting points. The combat is actually hugely compartmentalised because of this fact. So no, the statement that 'Horizon's combat only works in the open world' is utterly false.

Combat is one element of a good open world game, TW3 doesn't have great sandbox combat and it's one of the best open worlds every created.

Horizon can be done in a linear game, just like MGSV, or Hitman, but you'd lose the depth of the sandbox along with it.

 

[Moon_frogger]

Mgsv should have been another bog standard ubifsodt style collectathon with mediocre story and mechanics?

Come on now. I really liked horizon zero dawn too but really though, it's a good thing average joes don't have input on my Favorite games because wow people have some legit terrible ideas about game design

 

[phantasmic_glaive]

If I were to be reductive I'd say it's Rise of the Tomb Raider crossed with Far Cry 3/4.

Just off the top of my head it's got towers you climb to uncover areas on the map (Which is every Ubisoft game from Assassins Creed to Far Cry) and it's got hunting animals to get skins to craft equipment upgrades which is straight out of Far Cry.

If you're seriously saying Horizon doesn't resemble any Ubisoft games then either you're being deliberately obtuse or Horizon is the first open world game you've ever played.

Horizon has got some stunning high points but that doesn't change the fact that it's extremely derivative. It might be the best looking game I've ever played and it has awesome robot enemies but apart from that, everything in the game has been done many times over in the last 5-10 years.

It's basically a checklist of features that every open world game has nowadays.

EDIT: Bandit camps are lazy versions of Far Cry outposts

I understand the op's comparison can get people heated a lil bit. But, reducing Horizon to just a bunch of check boxes is bit much.

Yea it has similar gameplay elements as FarCry. FarCry has done a lot for open world games itself. Ubisoft games themselves, do tend to follow their own template, but all of them don't have towers, camps, etc.

That being said, so what. It's still an amazing freaking game. Other 2d fighters follow in SF footsteps and that don't make em no less of what they are. You get my point. But I totally feel what you are saying.

As far as MGS V go, I still didn't finish it all the way, I ain't gonna lie. But it still didn't feel like MGS to me.
MGS 3 is top 10 all time for me. I hope the future iterations stay true to what made the games dope to begin with.

 

[JP_]

To some extend in Horizon, but it's nowhere near as open as MGSV in terms of potential sandbox scenarios.

Didn't feel that way to me. I mean sure, MGSV had more gadgets but a lot of them had overlap in utility. Maybe MGSV had an edge but it didn't feel like it was on another level or anything.

Though I think part of why I enjoyed Horizon more was that the machines added a lot more variety to combat. It wasn't just that the machines had different attacks -- they had unique behavior profiles. All the AI in MGSV felt like they followed the same behavior patterns, so each engagement felt similar.

 

[Zakalwe]

Is it though? Since Kojima very clearly wanted to make an open world game and lamented that he hadn't when he would play something like GTAV.

There are a lot of things I'm doing in Horizon that have a sort of MGSV feel to them (crouch-walking, stealth, different weapons for different situations, riding mounts, collecting plants and resources, etc).

Now that Kojima is using the Decima Engine, I think it warrants some discussion about where MGSV when wrong, and if he saw things in Horizon that he would have liked to have applied to MGSV.

I'm of the mindset that Horizon accomplishes everything it sets out to do, while MGSV only manages a few things while fizzling out before the rest of it can be fulfilled and end up feeling truly complete.

The only thing Horizon does better than MGSV is story, and has Kojima even acknowledged he agrees MGSV has issues with story?

I mean, it's fairly obvious that both games have incredible combat, right? We could argue all day about which has the better combat, but I think we can agree that both had industry leading combat, right?

So what's left for horizon to teach MGS?

Open world design? Not really, Horizon doesn't really do more than MGSV here. Horizon's open world is shallow in comparison to industry leading examples, and really only serves as an arena for the combat and a spectacle in terms of technical achievement.

MGSV is the exact mirror here. Its open world is shallow in comparison to industry leading examples, and it really only serves as an arena for the combat and a spectacle in terms of technical achievement (60fps and open world Vs 30fps and open world but hugely beautiful).

RPG elements in Horizon are very shallow, too, so Horizon would not be the game to look toward here for inspiration.

The only thing that I see Horizon offering MGS is the technical achievement of its engine. Kojima was forced to leave Fox Engine with Konami right? So he's scouting out engines that he finds worthy to work with next, and Decima is the best he's seen.

I think that's all there is to it, I very much doubt he's got much to learn from Horizon in terms of gameplay.

 

[CharminUltra]

Looking forward to playing Horizon soon so I can see how it compares to MGSV.

I liked MGSV enough, but that game was such a mess. Great gameplay mechanics wasted on an unfinished campaign with a dubious mission structure that never reaches a proper sense momentum and just sorta... whimpers into a conclusion.

 

[Bold One]

I disagree. I don't get why people say TW3's combat is "lackluster". Its nowhere near the depth of MGS5 but its not "lackluster" either. There's literally dozens of tools that you can use to kill stuff, if you're only doing it one way its no wonder you thought it was "lackluster".

There is an inherent jank to TW3 which has some impact on its combat, its why you won't see youtube clips or gifs of takedowns in the same way as Horizon or MGSV. That and the fact that the other two games use a more cinematic camera in the action moments.

 

[MegaSackman]

Yep. Same reaction. That kind of thing is why MGS V is mechanically deeper and more interesting than Horizon by leaps and bounds.

Well, that works in Metal Gear because it's intentionally silly but as fun as that is, it's a ridiculous thing that wouldn't work in other games. Horizon is not the epitome of seriousness but I'm not sure something like that would work to beat a Stormbird.
I agree tho in that MGSV is mechanically deeper but the interesting bit is personal, I surely had much more fun in Horizon.

 

[Alo0oy]

To some extend in Horizon, but it's nowhere near as open as MGSV in terms of potential sandbox scenarios.

MGSV is peak Sandbox combat, every other game in existence isn't as deep, there is no shame in being beat by MGSV.

 

[Solid Shammy]

Is it though? Since Kojima very clearly wanted to make an open world game and lamented that he hadn't when he would play something like GTAV.

There are a lot of things I'm doing in Horizon that have a sort of MGSV feel to them (crouch-walking, stealth, different weapons for different situations, riding mounts, collecting plants and resources, etc).

Now that Kojima is using the Decima Engine, I think it warrants some discussion about where MGSV when wrong, and if he saw things in Horizon that he would have liked to have applied to MGSV.

I'm of the mindset that Horizon accomplishes everything it sets out to do, while MGSV only manages a few things while fizzling out before the rest of it can be fulfilled and end up feeling truly complete.

I think Hideo's true intentions for MGSV are irrelevant, what he personally succeeded at, what was cut or tinkered with by Konami, none of these things matter any more. The game is left to us the audience to evaluate, and by no means was it a failure. It was a critical and financial success. You're letting the reactions of a very obsessed fan base mire your perception of the games success. The game was always going to be controversial to the core fanbase, it's an incredibly different game from its predecessors, it was always going to alienate some.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

Didn't feel that way to me. I mean sure, MGSV had more gadgets but a lot of them had overlap in utility. Maybe MGSV had an edge but it didn't feel like it was on another level or anything.

Though I think part of why I enjoyed Horizon more was that the machines added a lot more variety to combat. It wasn't just that the machines had different attacks -- they had unique behavior profiles. All the AI in MGSV felt like they followed the same behavior patterns, so each engagement felt similar.

Yeah Horizon is one of few games period, and maybe the only open world game, where I've actually enjoyed the combat and actively sought it out. Usually combat is just their and I deal with it to get to the next story bit, beat the game and move on to something else.

 

[Zakalwe]

I disagree. I don't get why people say TW3's combat is "lackluster". Its nowhere near the depth of MGS5 but its not "lackluster" either. There's literally dozens of tools that you can use to kill stuff, if you're only doing it one way its no wonder you thought it was "lackluster".

Its a very common opinion that TW3 has lacklustre combat. Its also been well articulated why this opinion exists in the myriad threads on the game.

So you either didn't read those threads or you ignored those posts, because while you may not agree it's /very/ easy to understand why people say it's lacklustre because it's been articulated so well and so often.

Didn't feel that way to me. I mean sure, MGSV had more gadgets but a lot of them had overlap in utility. Maybe MGSV had an edge but it didn't feel like it was on another level or anything.

Though I think part of why I enjoyed Horizon more was that the machines added a lot more variety to combat. It wasn't just that the machines had different attacks -- they had unique behavior profiles. All the AI in MGSV felt like they followed the same patterns, so each engagement felt similar.

It's not anywhere near as open.

Google sandbox gameplay for both and the evidence is more than apparent, it doesn't matter how it felt to you at the point you actually consider the evidence.

i'm too lazy to do it myself, but there's plenty of incredible examples of emergent gameplay in MGSV that Horizon really can't come close to.

I disagree, the game is only as repetitive as you play it. The only genuinely repetitive things are the side ops, I feel as though there were way too many, and by the time I finished all of them I definitely needed a break. Either way though, Horizons gameplay loop is just as repetitive as MGSV, yet the big difference is the story has a larger emphasis to push you forward, which is great for a lot of players that aren't mechanically driven.

The game forces you to revisit areas too often. Again, this is a very common complaint from even the most ardent fans of the game, so while you personally may have not felt this repetition, it is something that's a common complaint and can't be hand-waved because you didn't feel it personally.

I mean, I can fully understand why people found FFXV repeitivie, shallow, etc... but I personally didn't experience that for some reason. I enjoyed almost every moment of the game from start to finish despite being able to see its flaws and understand them when others argued.

More than the sum, personal experience, etc... these things exist for us all but they shouldn't prevent us from seeing the bigger picture and understanding why common complaints are made. At that point, it just becomes close-minded.

 

[SomTervo]

Yep. Same reaction. That kind of thing is why MGS V is mechanically deeper and more interesting than Horizon by leaps and bounds.

Yup. I think Horizon and MGSV are both phenomenal games but they shouldn't be compares on this metric at all.

I disagree. I don't get why people say TW3's combat is "lackluster". Its nowhere near the depth of MGS5 but its not "lackluster" either. There's literally dozens of tools that you can use to kill stuff, if you're only doing it one way its no wonder you thought it was "lackluster".

Exactly, there's a huge spectrum of how well combat is done, in this conversation I'd say the titles are like:

|-------MGSV--------Horizon---------------TW3----------------------------MGS1-3-----Skyrim/Fallout 3----|

With loads of other stuff in between and at all points, obviously.

TW3's combat is still very solid, but obviously it's nowhere near as strong as Horizon's or MGSVs because it's far more important to those games. There's another spectrum where TW3 is at the very top for story content, with Horizon not far behind, and MGSV way behind that, etc.

These games are big and complex and each have their own pros/cons.

And that's fucking fine.

 

[MegaSackman]

The only thing Horizon does better than MGSV is story, and has Kojima even acknowledged he agrees MGSV has issues with story?

I mean, it's fairly obvious that both games have incredible combat, right? We could argue all day about which has the better combat, but I think we can agree that both had industry leading combat, right?

So what's left for horizon to teach MGS?

Open world design? Not really, Horizon doesn't really do more than MGSV here. Horizon's open world is shallow in comparison to industry leading examples, and really only serves as an arena for the combat and a spectacle in terms of technical achievement.

MGSV is the exact mirror here. Its open world is shallow in comparison to industry leading examples, and it really only serves as an arena for the combat and a spectacle in terms of technical achievement (60fps and open world Vs 30fps and open world but hugely beautiful).

RPG elements in Horizon are very shallow, too, so Horizon would not be the game to look toward here for inspiration.

The only thing that I see Horizon offering MGS is the technical achievement of its engine. Kojima was forced to leave Fox Engine with Konami right? So he's scouting out engines that he finds worthy to work with next, and Decima is the best he's seen.

I think that's all there is to it, I very much doubt he's got much to learn from Horizon in terms of gameplay.

You know that according to... I don't know, the press? the "leading" examples are actually two games, right? Another thing, people need to adjust their expectations in gaming in order to enjoy... well, gaming. Every game that doesn't have the content of The Witcher III or the level of interaction that BOTW has is not a disgrace or "shallow" or bad, is not everything black or white.

 

[mrlion]

Its a very common opinion that TW3 has lacklustre combat. Its also been well articulated why this opinion exists in the myriad threads on the game.

So you either didn't read those threads or you ignored those posts, because while you may not agree it's /very/ easy to understand why people say it's lacklustre because it's been articulated so well and so often.

So are you projecting what other people are saying or are you projecting your own experience?

 

[Zakalwe]

You know that according to... I don't know, the press? the "leading" examples are actually two games, right? Another thing, people need to adjust their expectations in gaming in other to enjoy... well, gaming. Every game that doesn't have the content of The Witcher III or the level of interaction that BOTW has is not a disgrace or "shallow" or bad, is not everything black or white.

You do realise that the term "shallow" doesn't mean "bad", right? I'm not shitting on Horizon by saying its open world is shallow.

Horizon's main focus is the combat, it's an incredible action game with an extremely beautiful open world to encase that combat. It's very fun, and if you follow the main narrative it's tightly scripted and very well paced.

It's only if you try to step outside that narrative and explore the RPG and open world elements as their own things that you realise these elements are too shallow to stand on their own.

This is a very fair critique, and I'm pretty certain GG would agree with me and are looking at ways to improve their open world for the next game.

It's weird that people get so defensive about this.

So are you projecting what other people are saying or are you projecting your own experience?

I'm not projecting anything, I'm stating the fact that enough people agree the combat is lacklustre for it to be a valid topic for discussion.

Of course some people like you will exists that don't agree, but if you're literally saying you see no value in the idea that TW3 has poor combat then you're being quite delusional.

You're free to love TW3's combat. I love FFXV's combat and I can fully understand why so many call it shallow or unresponsive etc...

 

[Solid Shammy]

Its a very common opinion that TW3 has lacklustre combat. Its also been well articulated why this opinion exists in the myriad threads on the game.

So you either didn't read those threads or you ignored those posts, because while you may not agree it's /very/ easy to understand why people say it's lacklustre because it's been articulated so well and so often.



It's not anywhere near as open.

Google sandbox gameplay for both and the evidence is more than apparent, it doesn't matter how it felt to you at the point you actually consider the evidence.

i'm too lazy to do it myself, but there's plenty of incredible examples of emergent gameplay in MGSV that Horizon really can't come close to.



The game forces you to revisit areas too often. Again, this is a very common complaint from even the most ardent fans of the game, so while you personally may have not felt this repetition, it is something that's a common complaint and can't be hand-waved because you didn't feel it personally.

I mean, I can fully understand why people found FFXV repeitivie, shallow, etc... but I personally didn't experience that for some reason. I enjoyed almost every moment of the game from start to finish despite being able to see its flaws and understand them when others argued.

More than the sum, personal experience, etc... these things exist for us all but they shouldn't prevent us from seeing the bigger picture and understanding why common complaints are made. At that point, it just becomes close-minded.

I'm not going to argue that people don't find MGSV repetitive, I'm only ever going to argue my perspective on something, and I do even find certain aspects repetitive as I previously stated. But I also believe MGSV is incredibly varied, especially so for an open world experience, and that its core loop is only as repetitive as the playstyle you choose.

 

[Zakalwe]

I'm not going to argue that people don't find MGSV repetitive, I'm only ever going to argue my perspective on something, and I do even find certain aspects repetitive as I previously stated. But I also believe MGSV is incredibly varied, especially so for an open world experience, and that its core loop is only as repetitive as the playstyle you choose.

Then I don't know why you're arguing with me at all when we're agreeing with each other...

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Horizon can be done in a linear game, just like MGSV, or Hitman, but you'd lose the depth of the sandbox along with it.

That's the thing, I don't think the sandbox has that much depth that couldn't be accomplished better in a hub world connected to individual levels. Apart from the gorgeous visuals, the machine combat is THE defining feature of the game and the game should have revolved around creating unique encounters that take advantage of that combat system.

Imagine cutting out 25 hrs of the same old shit you've done in all the other open world games and in return you get an encounter where you're stuck in a corner with a couple of stormbirds, thunderjaw and a behemoth all pissed off at you?

I understand the op's comparison can get people heated a lil bit. But, reducing Horizon to just a bunch of check boxes is bit much.

Yea it has similar gameplay elements as FarCry. FarCry has done a lot for open world games itself. Ubisoft games themselves, do tend to follow their own template, but all of them don't have towers, camps, etc.

That being said, so what. It's still an amazing freaking game. Other 2d fighters follow in SF footsteps and that don't make em no less of what they are. You get my point. But I totally feel what you are saying.

I agree with you in that a game can be great even if they take inspiration from other games and put their own spin on in but in Horizon's case it really does feel like they went down a checklist of "Things other open world games have" and just lifted them wholesale without innovating or improving on any of those mechanics.

Although I will give them kudos for splitting up the quests into Main quests, side quests and errands and letting you know what rewards you get for each mission. That's a really nice QoL feature that I genuinely appreciated.

Sorry, but the game literally shows us this isn't true.

You do realise that machines are tethered to their grounds, right? And if you move a certain distance away they'll ignore you and just return to their spawn points?

This makes the open world highly compartmentalised in reality, and proves the game would work in larger sandbox areas but laid out in a linear fashion a la Crysis 3.

Yep.

 

[Zakalwe]

Horizon can be done in a linear game, just like MGSV, or Hitman, but you'd lose the depth of the sandbox along with it.

Sorry, but the game literally shows us this isn't true.

You do realise that machines are tethered to their grounds, right? And if you move a certain distance away they'll ignore you and just return to their spawn points?

This makes the open world highly compartmentalised in reality, and proves the game would work in larger sandbox areas but laid out in a linear fashion a la Crysis 3.

 

[MegaSackman]

You do realise that the term "shallow" doesn't mean "bad", right? I'm not shitting on Horizon by saying its open world is shallow.

Horizon's main focus is the combat, it's an incredible action game with an extremely beautiful open world to encase that combat. It's very fun, and if you follow the main narrative it's tightly scripted and very well paced.

It's only if you try to step outside that narrative and explore the RPG and open world elements as their own things that you realise these elements are too shallow to stand on their own.

This is a very fair critique, and I'm pretty certain GG would agree with me and are looking at ways to improve their open world for the next game.

It's weird that people get so defensive about this.



I'm not projecting anything, I'm stating the fact that enough people agree the combat is lacklustre for it to be a valid topic for discussion.

Of course some people like you will exists that don't agree, but if you're literally saying you see no value in the idea that TW3 has poor combat then you're being quite delusional.

You're free to love TW3's combat. I love FFXV's combat and I can fully understand why so many call it shallow or unresponsive etc...

Oh ok, I wouldn't say "very" but we finally understand each other, or at least I get what you're saying now. Yeah sure, I don't know if we need more interaction in the world of Horizon but that there should be improvements in its open world content, totally.

 

[Xliskin]

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)

This but not really I would say Botw is MGSV full budget and time

 

[dancingphlower]

I disagree for a few reasons. For one, I think their goals are different. Horizon feels like it has a much stronger narrative focus than MGSV, although I haven't finished Horizon so I can't judge the quality of the storytelling just yet. But the gameplay goals are leagues apart. MGSV's focus on emergent gameplay and telling a story through your actions is way beyond what Horizon offers. The former is much more systems-driven, while the latter doesn't really offer much in the way of problem solving. Based on my time with both, I'd say MGSV really does deserve its praise as a masterpiece while Horizon is merely a really good game.

 

[Solid Shammy]

Then I don't know why you're arguing with me at all when we're agreeing with each other...

I'm not arguing, my statement simply meant that I'm not going to argue for what others think of MGSV, I know a lot of people find it repetitive, and that I personally don't. Me saying that I'll only ever argue my perspective isn't trying to imply that this is an argument, merely that if I were arguing, it would obviously only be my perspective I'm arguing from. I'm not even really having a specific conversation with anyone in this thread, just replying to a few dudes and expressing my opinion on why comparing Horizon with MGSV is rather pointless. I'm also trying to push for deeper conversation in regards to MGSV and its narrative ambitions, rather than just saying its story is shit, I want to talk about what its story was actually trying to do in regards to the overall experience. Too many people separate the narrative and mechanical aspects in videogame criticism, and are often afraid to discuss the contradiction that these two pillars present for so many games. I always love when the narrative and mechanical world gel together smoothly, it creates a more cohesive experience, and I think MGSV does this in some very interesting ways.

 

[Spinluck]

I feel like MGSV is a better game all its flaws aside.

 

[mrlion]

I'm not projecting anything, I'm stating the fact that enough people agree the combat is lacklustre for it to be a valid topic for discussion.

Of course some people like you will exists that don't agree, but if you're literally saying you see no value in the idea that TW3 has poor combat then you're being quite delusional.

You're free to love TW3's combat. I love FFXV's combat and I can fully understand why so many call it shallow or unresponsive etc...

What the hell are you talking about? So now disagreements are automatically delusions because it goes against what other people said.

Got it. I'll keep in mind.

 

[Spinluck]

Agreed. Horizon does the open world thing a lot better than MGS5. It's not even in the same league.

What is so great about Horizon's open world besides its visuals?

 

[Alo0oy]

That's the thing, I don't think the sandbox has that much depth that couldn't be accomplished better in a hub world connected to individual levels. Apart from the gorgeous visuals, the machine combat is THE defining feature of the game and the game should have revolved around creating unique encounters that take advantage of that combat system.

Imagine cutting out 25 hrs of the same old shit you've done in all the other open world games and in return you get an encounter where you're stuck in a corner with a couple of stormbirds, thunderjaw and a behemoth all pissed off at you?

I disagree, as much as I loved the story, it's not that part where the combat shined. The best were either random encounters in the open world, the corrupted zones, or the sidequests that use the enemies in the open world.

One my favorite encounters was a simple sidequest, a guy wanted me to retrieve 3 items in the middle of a tramplers camp (with maybe 5 of them), in the middle of that encounter two Thunderjaws showed up (they were always there, they only saw me with the mess I was making against the Tramplers). My second favorite was against a random shell-walker convoy and Behemoths interfered.

 

[black070]

What is so great about Horizon's open world besides its visuals?

The setting and lore are great, as well as it's overall diversity in locales. Providing great arenas for it's combat is also a strong point. It also rewards exploration through it's crafting system, encountering side quests, corrupted zones and trials to tackle, cauldrons to explore and yes, Tallneck locations to clear.

As I stated earlier, the term 'generic' gets tossed around a lot to dismiss a games merits simply because the mechanics have been used before. Horizon Zero Dawn's moment to moment gameplay compliments the way those mechanics are introduced to it's open world.

 

[Zakalwe]

What the hell are you talking about? So now disagreements are automatically delusions because it goes against what other people said.

Got it. I'll keep in mind.

No, as I wrote the dellusion here is the fact you can't seem to understand why people would consider it poor when this sentiment has been professed myriad times in great details.

Again, I love FFXV's combat, but I fully understand why people consider it bad because I've actually read the numerous, well articulated arguments explaining why its considered bad.

I'm not saying your delusional because your opinion differs. Please read my posts properly before replying.

I'm not arguing, my statement simply meant that I'm not going to argue for what others think of MGSV, I know a lot of people find it repetitive, and that I personally don't. Me saying that I'll only ever argue my perspective isn't trying to imply that this is an argument, merely that if I were arguing, it would obviously only be my perspective I'm arguing from. I'm not even really having a specific conversation with anyone in this thread, just replying to a few dudes and expressing my opinion on why comparing Horizon with MGSV is rather pointless. I'm also trying to push for deeper conversation in regards to MGSV and its narrative ambitions, rather than just saying its story is shit, I want to talk about what its story was actually trying to do in regards to the overall experience. Too many people separate the narrative and mechanical aspects in videogame criticism, and are often afraid to discuss the contradiction that these two pillars present for so many games. I always love when the narrative and mechanical world gel together smoothly, it creates a more cohesive experience, and I think MGSV does this in some very interesting ways.

Now you're arguing semantics while telling me you're not arguing. This is becoming a little silly.

Oh, and MGSV's story is shit, and there's really not much of a conversation to be had about that. It isn't shit because we don't understand what it was trying to do, it's shit because it's pearly paced and too sporadic.

There's not some alternative style of emergent story telling we're not understanding here, and if there is it does that even worse than the more traditional story telling it fails at.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Horizon's open world is not one of its strong points.

It's basically a huge arena for the combat, with very little reward for exploration (aside from a few items, the collectable stuff is very underwhelming in terms of reward)

This is BS. Outside of Fallout: New Vegas, it's the only open-world where I felt exploration was actually rewarding.

As for "a huge arena for the combat", well, I don't see much wrong with that because the combat is actually good. Prefer this over open-worlds with boring mundane tasks or "well-written" quests that lead to boring combat.

But anyway, as others have said, HZD's exploration leads not just to good combat encounters, but discovering new places, cool lore bits, great vistas, and so on.

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.

It's really not.

 

[dealer-]

Mgsv should have been another bog standard ubifsodt style collectathon with mediocre story and mechanics?

Come on now. I really liked horizon zero dawn too but really though, it's a good thing average joes don't have input on my Favorite games because wow people have some legit terrible ideas about game design

So much this. Horizon brought together a slew of game mechanics and did it competently. Once you dig a bit deeper though, there is nothing there. It's all surface level. The world is good for framing the battle encounters but even these don't really evolve into anything particularly interesting.

 

[Moon_frogger]

No, as I wrote the dellusion here is the fact you can't seem to understand why people would consider it poor when this sentiment has been professed myriad times in great details.

Again, I love FFXV's combat, but I fully understand why people consider it bad because I've actually read the numerous, well articulated arguments explaining why its considered bad.

I'm not saying your delusional because your opinion differs. Please read my posts properly before replying.



Now you're arguing semantics while telling me you're not arguing. This is becoming a little silly.

Oh, and MGSV's story is shit, and there's really not much of a conversation to be had about that. It isn't shit because we don't understand what it was trying to do, it's shit because it's pearly paced and too sporadic.

There's not some alternative style of emergent story telling we're not understanding here, and if there is it does that even worse than the more traditional story telling it fails at.

I love how you go from 'everybody's opinion is ok' to

'This is shit and there's no discussing it' lol

By the way mgsv has a brilliant story with infinitely more interesting and nuanced characters than horizon.

You can criticize the pacing but it all comes down to a matter of preference. The story is told through a mix of cut scenes and audio tapes. The tapes are a stand in for codec chatter and honestly it's a brilliant compromise.

As far as how the story is told, it's a matter of preference. Some people don't like souls games telling their story through item descriptions, some don't like mgsvs mix of cut scenes and cassette tapes.

 

[Zakalwe]

So much this. Horizon brought together a slew of game mechanics and did it competently. Once you dig a bit deeper though, there is nothing there. It's all surface level. The world is good for framing the battle encounters but even these don't really evolve into anything particularly interesting.

I wouldn't go as far as your last sentence, I thin there's quite a bit of emergent gameplay potential here in comparison to the norm, it just pales when compared to MGSV which is arguably one of the best examples of this in the entire history of gaming.

But yeh, your comment is pretty much on the money.

 

[BadWolf]

Love them both as they are.

 

[Zakalwe]

I love how you go from 'everybody's opinion is ok' to

'This is shit and there's no discussing it' lol

Except I don't do that...

I say everyone is free to their opinion of enjoying something in spite of the objective arguments that can be made against the quality of that thing. ie: more than the sum of its parts.

MGSV's story is is objectively poorly paced and sporadic, there are tonnes of well articulated arguments to support this already available online that do it better than I could. I honestly feel that you cannot argue against this, /but/ I also understand that some will enjoy the story /despite/ these issues and that's perfectly fine!

As I've said numerous times, I loved FFXV and it was my overall GOTY, but I'd probably give it a 7-8/10 overall and I can acknowledge all of its issues.

By the way mgsv has a brilliant story with infinitely more interesting and nuanced characters than horizon.

You can criticize the pacing but it all comes down to a matter of preference. The story is told through a mix of cut scenes and audio tapes. The tapes are a stand in for codec chatter and honestly it's a brilliant compromise.

As far as how the story is told, it's a matter of preference. Some people don't like souls games telling their story through item descriptions, some don't like MGSVs mix of cut scenes and cassette tapes.

Again, you're free to enjoy the way MGSV delivers its story, and you're free to enjoy the content of that story more.