Support NeoGAF

[terrier]

But they both have the purpose of discovery and exploration no matter what. That is why one creates open worlds, they don't create open worlds for linear experiences. This is the only scale I need to look at 2 games and compare. I find them both fascinating worlds in the long run.

I disagree. An open world does not necessarily mean explore it just because you can go almost anywhere, but it can fit the game to allow for alternative paths, or allow different pacing, or just a way to place side missions to level up or whatever the dev chooses to focus on.
I mean, what is the point for example to find always something ? Isn't that boring?, i'll go there because the will be a secret.... well not so secret since you know you will find something. The world is collapsing but i will spend all the time wandering around. Makes no sense for me.
As for Horizon, i see it as a story driven game just that happens in a wide world that allows for a number of different options, but not endless. It would be better if it was filled with little rewards all over the place? Not sure, for those that like to explore every inch probably, for others that play the main plot and occasionally do side quests not so much.
And Horizon is much more focused as an action game too. A bit monster hunter if you wish....
Just because both are set in open worlds, they do not seem really comparable. Maybe days gone would be, for what i've read so far, to Zelda approach

lol I'll never understand people's inability to play two games at once and appreciate both for different reasons. The story and combat and graphics and character made Horizon for me. Zelda it's the freedom, tools I'm given and the exploration.

We can enjoy both equally people

Yes and these two games are really different so you can explore in zelda for hours and then go fight dinos in Horizon.

 

[D6AMIA6N]

Zelda, just more rewarding in my opinion

 

[Vincent Grayson]

It will. Zelda's freedom is overwhelming in a good way. I sort of wish Horizon would be that open since it lends itself to that with the narrative it has (a isolated young adult roaming an unexplored land). I'm sure the sequel will have huge environments. It's their first try at an open world RPG and they pretty much nailed all the core aspects.

HZD has a strong story and characters though, which does not seem to be something Zelda was focused on. And I'm a story and characters kind of guy.

That said, the fact that I'm still interested in Zelda after a few hours is a testament to how refreshing it is. I haven't ever liked 3D Zelda.

 

[Nuszka]

I got a Switch as an unexpected birthday gift, I didn't even consider getting the console. Thank god I finished horizon before getting in to the new Zelda and mind it's not coming from a fanboy as my last one I played was OoT on N64 and I didn't even finish it.
Horizon was great but Zelda just exceeded any of my expectations.
As for explorationin horizon I finished a view side quests and main story , end result I don't have the urge to explore any more of it as it was getting boring at some stage. With Zelda though I often loose myself in the world with barely progressing the story and that's what I find amazing about it. The world in this game is something I haven't experienced in a very long time.

 

[The Dude]

I disagree. An open world does not necessarily mean explore it just because you can go almost anywhere, but it can fit the game to allow for alternative paths, or allow different pacing, or just a way to place side missions to level up or whatever the dev chooses to focus on.
I mean, what is the point for example to find always something ? Isn't that boring?, i'll go there because the will be a secret.... well not so secret since you know you will find something. The world is collapsing but i will spend all the time wandering around. Makes no sense for me.
As for Horizon, i see it as a story driven game just that happens in a wide world that allows for a number of different options, but not endless. It would be better if it was filled with little rewards all over the place? Not sure, for those that like to explore every inch probably, for others that play the main plot and occasionally do side quests not so much.
And Horizon is much more focused as an action game too. A bit monster hunter if you wish....
Just because both are set in open worlds, they do not seem really comparable. Maybe days gone would be, for what i've read so far, to Zelda approach


Yes and these two games are really different so you can explore in zelda for hours and then go fight dinos in Horizon.

Well I personally can compare them, that's just how we all view it differently. I view open worlds in the same light, I went into horizon hoping I could explore and really stretch the game further and was disappointed that exploration wasnt a stronger point for them.

 

[[NaK]]

Great post and its why I made the thread to see other opinions because I personally felt the same with horizon until I played zelda.. But I also feel that about horizon and the experience is still so very memorable..

I bought both games at release and have been trying to swith (no pun intended) between them.
I still enjoy Zelda, but I've felt a stronger urge to finish Horizon. It feels fresh, and the combination of Aloys character, a gorgeous world, really fun enemy encounters and a much more interesting story then I expected suited me perfect.

Zelda has another rendition of Link trying to save the world again, but with a really, really large map.
I can't help thinking its too large for the hardware its running on.
I don't usually promote graphics before gameplay, and while Horizon might be somewhat of a graphical honeymoon, it makes the traveling fun when I have to stop every minute to take a screenshot and talk out loud about how crazy good it looks

Zelda on the other hand had me trying to climb a mountain for 30 minutes, just to give me a muddy valley where I can barely make out what's in it.
Sure, the mere scope of the world us amazing, but I honestly spent roughly six hours trying to find a certain woody area.
While this might be pretty fun from one perspective, the graphics really hurt the experience and breaks the illusion for me.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

With Horizon being a more traditional RPG, with a much better / deeper story than Zelda, that is making me want to push on and explore the world to find the answers that Aloy seeks. Finding out why she was an outcast, who her mother was, where did the robots come from ect, all great reasons to explore this amazing world. The top end graphics really bring the world to life too.

As Zelda is more of a sandbox, survival game, sort of a "here's the world now go explore". The story is very basic (Ganon's back, go stop him again) but it's less story driven and more about freedom and discovering things on your own, with the tools (abilities) you are given and finding interesting ways to use them to solve a problem or defeat enemies. Being able to climb nearly everything also gives more freedom to the player too and is a great feature.

Both are brilliant games and I like the freedom Zelda offers but after playing a lot of both games now, I actually like Horizon slightly more because I prefer the more involved story and I find the combat with the robots to be more fun, plus robot dinosaurs / animals are far more interesting than Zelda's usual enemies. Zelda's Guardians are a nice addition but as they are all the same, they are still not as interesting as Horizon's dino bots.

 

[Spinluck]

Zelda and it's not even close.

Horizon's biggest thing is its combat, it sucks as an exploration game. The world is static and you cannot interact with it much aside from picking herbs and twigs, NPCs are rather generic and forgettable, towns are mostly meh, and there is no reward for exploring.

The scenery is nice though.

Zelda does away with this. The NPCs are charming and some are actually even funny; they are full of life too (they accomplish this without VO). There is always something around the corner, and the world feels somewhat dynamic. You can actually change and affect it in certain ways that fit the rules of the world.

There is almost no reason to explore in Horizon because you buy all of your weapons and any crafting material you need is from twigs or enemies. And the are always twigs around you and you see them from like 50 meters away. Horizon is also limited by the Uncharted like scripted climbing.

 

[terrier]

Well I personally can compare them, that's just how we all view it differently. I view open worlds in the same light, I went into horizon hoping I could explore and really stretch the game further and was disappointed that exploration wasnt a stronger point for them.

in my opinion that is a problem with expectations, and each of us wanting the game to be what it is not. And that is something i think most reviews sometimes do not give you enough information about the kind of game it really is.
I am not a huge openworld/rpg fan, i find them boring and unfocused most of the time, so Horizon, after reviews and impressions from players, was the kind of game for me, set in a openworld but with game play, plot, much more focused as it was a 'scripted' game.

I think Witcher maybe would be more comparable to Zelda, or as I mentioned before, Days Gone , that seems a huge world to do whatever you wish.
Horizon would somehow be more like Batman games (not the same but still....)

With Horizon being a more traditional RPG, with a much better / deeper story than Zelda, that is making me want to push on and explore the world to find the answers that Aloy seeks. Finding out why she was an outcast, who her mother was, where did the robots come from ect, all great reasons to explore this amazing world. The top end graphics really bring the world to life too.

As Zelda is more of a sandbox, survival game, sort of a "here's the world now go explore". The story is very basic (Ganon's back, go stop him again) but it's less story driven and more about freedom and discovering things on your own, with the tools (abilities) you are given and finding interesting ways to use them to solve a problem or defeat enemies. Being able to climb nearly everything also gives more freedom to the player too and is a great feature.

Both are brilliant games and I like the freedom Zelda offers but after playing a lot of both games now, I actually like Horizon slightly more because I prefer the more involved story and I find the combat with the robots to be more fun, plus robot dinosaurs / animals are far more interesting than Zelda's usual enemies. Zelda's Guardians are a nice addition but as they are all the same, they are still not as interesting as Horizon's dino bots.

I think this is it exactly. Very different approach , just because 'openworld' does not mean the same experience or objective.

 

[AzureFlame]

I just platinumed Horizen and played for more than 55 hours Breath of the Wild

Horizen world is very beautiful but kinda feels empty and small, while Breath of the Wild is the opposite.

 

[Spinluck]

I just platinumed Horizen and played for more than 55 hours Breath of the Wild

Horizen world is very beautiful but kinda feels empty and small, while Breath of the Wild is the opposite.

I wish Horizon's world was actually a little more condensed. Even before I played Zelda I felt that there was this emptiness to it.

I don't really understand why it's an open world game. It's gorgeous, but there is nothing to really do but fight.

 

[terrier]

I wish Horizon's world was actually a little more condensed. Even before I played Zelda I felt that there was this emptiness to it.

I don't really understand why it's an open world game. It's gorgeous, but there is nothing to really do but fight.

Because it fits the game. It is there, it is gorgeous just to watch , it gives you sense of scale and freedom (especially when you are going to fight those dinos, that probably if it was scripted like Uncharted or TR for example you would feel very different, like in a corridor, limited and probably claustrophobic.

 

[phantasmic_glaive]

Zelda and it's not even close.

Horizon's biggest thing is its combat, it sucks as an exploration game. The world is static and you cannot interact with it much aside from picking herbs and twigs, NPCs are rather generic and forgettable, towns are mostly meh, and there is no reward for exploring.

The scenery is nice though.

Zelda does away with this. The NPCs are charming and some are actually even funny; they are full of life too (they accomplish this without VO). There is always something around the corner, and the world feels somewhat dynamic. You can actually change and affect it in certain ways that fit the rules of the world.

There is almost no reason to explore in Horizon because you buy all of your weapons and any crafting material you need is from twigs or enemies. And the are always twigs around you and you see them from like 50 meters away. Horizon is also limited by the Uncharted like scripted climbing.

That's the dumbest bull I've ever read on this forum..
how come Zelda fans who played both can't praise Zelda without attacking Horizon or whatever game it's getting compared too?!

Lol it's Zelda, it don't need defending! The freaking worst..

Edit: made mistakes

 

[The Dude]

in my opinion that is a problem with expectations, and each of us wanting the game to be what it is not. And that is something i think most reviews sometimes do not give you enough information about the kind of game it really is.
I am not a huge openworld/rpg fan, i find them boring and unfocused most of the time, so Horizon, after reviews and impressions from players, was the kind of game for me, set in a openworld but with game play, plot, much more focused as it was a 'scripted' game.

I think Witcher maybe would be more comparable to Zelda, or as I mentioned before, Days Gone , that seems a huge world to do whatever you wish.
Horizon would somehow be more like Batman games (not the same but still....)


I think this is it exactly. Very different approach , just because 'openworld' does not mean the same experience or objective.

But some might simply find the world of zelda persay to much, or not enough with how there are sometimes spans of emptiness.. Both games I feel pending the player can be favored in one way or another. Like a friend of mine finds exploring just to see the sights exciting, and favors exploring in horizon more than zelda. And that's just his way of thinking... Can't say he's wrong, right? I mean people can interpret the word "explore" in different ways. Some expect to have hands on things to do, while others may be just want to see detailed atmosphere.. The comparisons can be what the players want.

 

[Gattsu25]

Off Topic: What a weird thread. These two games have almost nothing in common beyond a surface level 'well, they both open world stabby gaems'

On Topic: I preferred what little I played of BotW over HZD but I anticipated I'd bounce off of HZD anyway so that doesn't surprise me at all. I prefer Nier Automata and Witcher 3 over both. I know they're not comparable but that seems to be the theme of this thread.

 

[martino]

Being exclusive on realisation, having responsive control and really interesting dino encounters is not enougth to hide to me it's build on ubisoft open world formula not making exploration more interesting than in thoses games to me....
And yes zelda releasing same windows didn't help...
On exploration comparing the two is like da:i on rpg stuff post witcher 3

But it's still a great action adventure. A superior take on ubisoft formula in every way (story, lore, gameplay, realisation etc....)

 

[jim2point0]

Horizon is great. One of the best games I've ever played for sure. But the world is just not interesting to explore. It's gorgeous, but there's nothing to really interesting to find.

I haven't even played Zelda but it's hard to imagine that the game isn't stuffed with way more interesting sidequests and stuff stashed away in hidden places.

 

[The Dude]

Off Topic: What a weird thread. These two games have almost nothing in common beyond a surface level 'well, they both open world stabby gaems'

On Topic: I preferred what little I played of BotW over HZD but I anticipated I'd bounce off of HZD anyway so that doesn't surprise me at all. I prefer Nier Automata and Witcher 3 over both. I know they're not comparable but that seems to be the theme of this thread.

Nothing weird about it, what's weird is how insanely technical some are being as if the conversation can't exist or something, like law of life says this can't happen lol

 

[DieNgamers]

That's the dumbest bull I've ever read on this forum..
how come Zelda fans who played both can't praise Zelda without attacking Horizon or whatever game it's getting compared too?!

Lol it's Zelda, it don't need defending! The freaking worst..

Edit: made mistakes

Nah, it's a minority on both sides, actually. I have read more than enough defensive Horizon players bash Zelda...and vice versa.

Most people like both games for obvious reasons.

 

[Shamrock7r]

That's the dumbest bull I've ever read on this forum..
how come Zelda fans who played both can't praise Zelda without attacking Horizon or whatever game it's getting compared too?!

Lol it's Zelda, it don't need defending! The freaking worst..

Edit: made mistakes

Why are you getting so upset at someone comparing his experience of both games in a thread about comparing the experiences of playing both games?

 

[MarineMountie]

Nothing weird about it, what's weird is how insanely technical some are being as if the conversation can't exist or something, like law of life says this can't happen lol

Its like you wanted to get a certain reaction, and you are getting it.

Why isn't it..."What world tells the better story?" "What game has the better combat?" "What game has the more interesting lore?" "What game has better visuals?"

Could have gone many ways, but you picked the one thing Zelda does better. Exploration.

I'm loving BotW, but the Zelda fan club is beyond annoying at this point.

 

[terrier]

But some might simply find the world of zelda persay to much, or not enough with how there are sometimes spans of emptiness.. Both games I feel pending the player can be favored in one way or another. Like a friend of mine finds exploring just to see the sights exciting, and favors exploring in horizon more than zelda. And that's just his way of thinking... Can't say he's wrong, right? I mean people can interpret the word "explore" in different ways. Some expect to have hands on things to do, while others may be just want to see detailed atmosphere.. The comparisons can be what the players want.

There's nothing wrong per se, but , with my limited experience (mainly because of my age , +40, than the number of games played), knowing what kind of game and the approach the dev took will probably give your more satisfaction or prevent from being bored. And will also prevent pointless comparisons (some of them are valid, but most seem just obvious because those are on purpose since games were designed that way)
I will try zelda one day , for sure, but nothing that has been showed fits what i expect and find interesting from a game. Sometimes reading a few comments here it seems that some played horizon just to compare it to Zelda and say it can't hold a candle instead of trying to enjoy the game for what it is, something very different.

 

[phanphare]

I wish Horizon's world was actually a little more condensed. Even before I played Zelda I felt that there was this emptiness to it.

I don't really understand why it's an open world game. It's gorgeous, but there is nothing to really do but fight.

yeah I think Horizon could have benefited from being a bit more linear. it pretty much is anyway. something like Uncharted 4 where there are open areas but it's not necessarily an open world. seems like Horizon is a great game in spite of its open world instead of because of it. hopefully they improve on that aspect in the sequel, either by making the world more alive or by trimming the fat.

 

[Magic Mushroom]

Horizon does a couple of things very well, but exploration is not one of them. The latest Game Maker's Toolkit talks about the strength of Breath of the Wild's open world and compares it to Horizon at one point. If you see something interesting in Zelda's world you can go there. How you go there and what you do on the way is completely up to you. It's a true adventure in that sense. If you see something interesting in the background of Horizon's world - like the robo skeleton on a mountain mentioned in that video - it's often window dressing. You can't climb there and are being hit by invisible walls.

This is the video, it's well worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmIgjAM0uh0

 

[The Dude]

Its like you wanted to get a certain reaction, and you are getting it.

Why isn't it..."What world tells the better story?" "What game has the better combat?" "What game has the more interesting lore?" "What game has better visuals?"

Could have gone many ways, but you picked the one thing Zelda does better. Exploration.

I'm loving BotW, but the Zelda fan club is beyond annoying at this point.

I want people to simply discuss the actual topic, not if the topic is fair or not.

And it wasn't as If I made this to shit on horizon, I picked 2 of the most recent relevant games with gorgeous worlds and curious who enjoyed which one more and why, simple as that. I'm not condemning people who enjoy horizon more because I enjoy it greatly as well.

Zelda is amazing but as can be seen here it's not everyone's cup of tea.. Saying something that zelda does better is subjective, as there are folks who simply have different agendas in their game world explorations.

People are focusing on the word explore way to deep, it's just me being casual in conversation, explore, see, it's all the same to me. Someone could just compare the two for the art direction for all I care, it's up to the poster

 

[ReplacementPelican]

I've not yet felt massively connected to either. BOTW feels amazing and its way more fun to explore but I can't help feeling I'm just walking around an empty map with the occasional shrine or stable. Even the villages and towns didn't capture me that much, they're wonderful and have a sense of personality but none of them really feel 'alive' to me, they just feel like NPCs and buildings.

and yet I love the game. There's something magical about it that makes me not care.

 

[sj00]

Exploring Horizon's gorgeous map was fun, but yeah, like others have said- Zelda's is a lot more rewarding.

 

[martino]

Also i'm convinced zelda exploration (in pro mode) works very well in big part because it don't go for realism
And now i want more open world adeventure games not going realism.

 

[Primethius]

I wish Horizon's world was actually a little more condensed. Even before I played Zelda I felt that there was this emptiness to it.

I don't really understand why it's an open world game. It's gorgeous, but there is nothing to really do but fight.

I think that's an incredibly reductive way of looking at the world. Can't you reduce Zelda's world the same way?

Nothing to do but find shrines, fight and traverse empty land from point A to point B. That's like the bread and butter of open world games.

 

[Waji]

and hated climbing anything in zelda due to the slow speed and quit playing zelda after a few hours because I was bored and didn't want to explore anything due to those...

You're probably not climbing right then.
Most of the time I climb instead of anything else because it's actually far faster.

 

[terrier]

Also i'm convinced zelda exploration (in pro mode) works very well in big part because it don't go for realism
And now i want more open world adeventure games not going realism.

well, that is also something that is tied to the design of the game.and allows for more or less freedom .

For example, in Horizon , there are creatures that make sense,same for the gear Aloy uses, but in Zelda, there's much more freedom , at least from what i've seen in previous games, i mean enemies have different abilities and powers -and the same goes for weapons and gear- that aren't tied to a narrative and are just there and you do not question why, if they make sense or do not. That allows for much more options and combinations obviously.

 

[mattwhite924]

This thread has convinced me that I should wait for a bit after finishing Zelda to start Horizon. I really want to play it, but it sounds like playing it right after would do it a disservice.

 

[Markoman]

Its like you wanted to get a certain reaction, and you are getting it.

Why isn't it..."What world tells the better story?" "What game has the better combat?" "What game has the more interesting lore?" "What game has better visuals?"

Could have gone many ways, but you picked the one thing Zelda does better. Exploration.

I'm loving BotW, but the Zelda fan club is beyond annoying at this point.

Yeah, I'm kinda with you there. No one will argue that BotW is the open world game with the best exploration aspect. The game seems to be constructed with exploration in mind.
Things get annoying tho, when fans try to defend every single aspect of the game -music, story,...- like it's the second coming of Christ.

BotW with all of it's exploration greatness didn't keep me away from HZD and Nier: Automata for too long. I finished the second titan and haven't touched it for days. People will jump at me for saying this, but at this point, when I'm not in the mood to wander around aimlessly, the gameplay has come down to ticking off a to-do-list before I engage the next 2 titans.

Hell, I even think that Gravity Rush 2 easily did a better job at world building, lore and especially plot/story progression.

 

[The Dude]

I'll say when it comes to art direction and scenery horizon is absolutely amazing. There are moments where I'm looking out over an area and find myself in awe with how far gaming has come.

Comparisons aside the fact that remains true for me is that they are two of the best damn games in recent gaming history

 

[phanphare]

This thread has convinced me that I should wait for a bit after finishing Zelda to start Horizon. I really want to play it, but it sounds like playing it right after would do it a disservice.

I don't think that's the case. you might notice some annoying limitations of the world coming straight from Zelda but they are very much different games going for different things. Horizon is a much more story focused game so if you go in with that in mind I think you'll enjoy it quite a bit.

 

[dr guildo]

But some might simply find the world of zelda persay to much, or not enough with how there are sometimes spans of emptiness.. Both games I feel pending the player can be favored in one way or another. Like a friend of mine finds exploring just to see the sights exciting, and favors exploring in horizon more than zelda. And that's just his way of thinking... Can't say he's wrong, right? I mean people can interpret the word "explore" in different ways. Some expect to have hands on things to do, while others may be just want to see detailed atmosphere.. The comparisons can be what the players want.

This ! I completely agree with that statement. For my part, I have pleasure exploring HZD's world, just for the beauty of the landscape for the purpose of the photomode. And sometimes I find some extra and rare stuff.

 

[Spinluck]

Because it fits the game. It is there, it is gorgeous just to watch , it gives you sense of scale and freedom (especially when you are going to fight those dinos, that probably if it was scripted like Uncharted or TR for example you would feel very different, like in a corridor, limited and probably claustrophobic.

No way, Tomb Raider's and Uncharted's linearity totally fit the games narrative and gameplay.

My favorite part of Horizon are the cauldrons. I think it could've benefitted from a FFXIII type direction where it's a mix of linear and openness. But I understand that open world is the way to go now for some reason. It does add to the scale of the world and the combat since some of the things you fight are fucking huge.

I've just found there are very few open world games I've liked this gen. But Horizon isn't one of them, probably the best open world combat aside from MGSV. That game was far worse when it came to empty openness though. Conversely there are games like Witcher 3 that have an awesome and interesting world, with great characters and all but very weak combat.

That's the dumbest bull I've ever read on this forum..
how come Zelda fans who played both can't praise Zelda without attacking Horizon or whatever game it's getting compared too?!

Lol it's Zelda, it don't need defending! The freaking worst..

Edit: made mistakes

Yeah man, I'm wearing my Nintendo hat right now with my Switch shirt. I even have a Horizon Sucks poster on my wall. At work now so I can't take a pic.

 

[TheFuzz]

Ten years from now we will still be talking about how BOTW changed the entire landscape of video games in an open world.

 

[KevMan1815]

I don't feel like I really explore in Horizon, most things are simply marked on my minimap and I've never found any items of interest off the beaten path I can remember. Instead I feel like I'm always hunting because I'm trying to find more of the machines to fight and new types to fight.

Zelda though I feel like I'm exploring a world to see what's out there.

So for exploration I'd say Zelda easily is more fun to explore.

 

[The Dude]

This ! I completely agree with that statement. For my part, I have pleasure exploring HZD's world, just for the beauty of the landscape for the purpose of the photomode. And sometimes I find some extra and rare stuff.

Glad you see the point behind the thread man, good post. Everyone has different ideas behind their explorations and that's what and why I made this.

 

[Neoweee]

Zelda, by a lot. I fit 85 hours of Zelda in between my 20th and 21st hours of Horizon.

Horizon does fewer things, but it does that thing (ranged combat and stealth) very well. At least when it isn't being a total jankfest.

Horizon does have the advantage of difficulty levels. While Very Hard is one of the more inconsequential difficulty bumps I've seen in a long while, I would put it at least slightly harder than Zelda.

 

[terrier]

No way, Tomb Raider's and Uncharted's linearity totally fit the games narrative and gameplay.

My favorite part of Horizon are the cauldrons. I think it could've benefitted from a FFXIII type direction where it's a mix of linear and openness. But I understand that open world is the way to go now for some reason. It does add to the scale of the world and the combat since some of the things you fight are fucking huge.

I've just found there are very few open world games I've liked this gen. But Horizon isn't one of them, probably the best open world combat aside from MGSV. That game was far worse when it came to empty openness though. Conversely there are games like Witcher 3 that have an awesome and interesting world, with great characters and all but very weak combat.



.

I am sure Uncharted and TR linearity fits with them, but probably wasn't appropriate for Horizon. And a semi open world seems like a wasted opportunity.

For me, that i am not much of an open world guy, i think it just fits the game GG created. It is there, it is believable, but it not there to explore it(explore it to find little secrets and rewards i mean). At least not with this game. Maybe a sequel may focus on that, to discover the world and its secrets, but this one is clearly about Aloy's and her journey, much like Uncharted, but with an open field to wander around, fight robodinos, and do some sidequests, but the game is clearly an action adventure game, not a Wicher-like game at all.And Zelda seems to expand Witcher like open worlds.

 

[Primethius]

Zelda, by a lot. I fit 85 hours of Zelda in between my 20th and 21st hours of Horizon.

Horizon does fewer things, but it does that thing (ranged combat and stealth) very well. At least when it isn't being a total jankfest.

Horizon does have the advantage of difficulty levels. While Very Hard is one of the more inconsequential difficulty bumps I've seen in a long while, I would put it at least slightly harder than Zelda.

Wow, I feel like I played different games difficulty wise. Zelda is a really easy game so far (50 hours in, 2 dungeons down) but I wouldn't​ want to fight two corrupted Sawtooths in Horizon on very hard or any mixture of encounter like that without decent prep since the aim assist gets completely turned off.

Edit: Complete disagreement on the other posters discussion I regarding the size of Horizons world dicussuon. It was condensed and compact enough. I never travelled by mount due to how right the world's size felt. If any game needs to be condensed and reduced in size, it's BotW which is just needlessly big and features a lot of empty land.

 

[phantasmic_glaive]

No way, Tomb Raider's and Uncharted's linearity totally fit the games narrative and gameplay.

My favorite part of Horizon are the cauldrons. I think it could've benefitted from a FFXIII type direction where it's a mix of linear and openness. But I understand that open world is the way to go now for some reason. It does add to the scale of the world and the combat since some of the things you fight are fucking huge.

I've just found there are very few open world games I've liked this gen. But Horizon isn't one of them, probably the best open world combat aside from MGSV. That game was far worse when it came to empty openness though. Conversely there are games like Witcher 3 that have an awesome and interesting world, with great characters and all but very weak combat.



Yeah man, I'm wearing my Nintendo hat right now with my Switch shirt. I even have a Horizon Sucks poster on my wall. At work now so I can't take a pic.

Sorry man.. it's just like damn, why down Horizon like that? If you think Zelda is better fine, but try to make it look like that to prove your point?

I dunno, I try hard to stay out of Zelda threads until I play it.

Send it after work

 

[diablos991]

Zelda.
It just feels refreshing for an open world game.

Horizon feels like other open world games.

Don't know what element is responsible. Just the feeling I get from playing both.

 

[Domcorleone]

I think the sequel to Horizon should do away with marking Ruins on your map and Cauldrons on your map and force you to explore the environment. I also think they should make you buy a map that shows where the robot species are instead of having them littered on the map. Less is more and it will lend to making exploration more fun if you dont know whats around the corner.

 

[Markoman]

Ten years from now we will still be talking about how BOTW changed the entire landscape of video games in an open world.

Haha, no. In ten years GTA 6/7 will still be in every sales chart 3,4,5 years after release.
I'm not a big fan of this series anymore, but let's be realistic here, this is the big boy.
We won't be seeing BotW clones in the years to come. The best thing inspired by Botw we can hope for is less hand-holding and better rewards for collecting stuff in ow-games, I'll give you that.

 

[Neoweee]

Wow, I feel like I played different games difficulty wise. Zelda is a really easy game so far (50 hours in, 2 dungeons down) but I wouldn't​ want to fight two corrupted Sawtooths in Horizon on very hard or any mixture of encounter like that without decent prep since the aim assist gets completely turned off.

Edit: Complete disagreement on the other posters discussion I regarding the size of Horizons world dicussuon. It was condensed and compact enough. I never travelled by mount due to how right the world's size felt. If any game needs to be condensed and reduced in size, it's BotW which is just needlessly big and features a lot of empty land.

Wait, lower difficulties in Horizon have aim assist? I did not know that.

I'm not done with Horizon yet, but my strat for big encounters is to open up with Tearblast arrows, set proximity mines, and kite around, getting enemies stuck on terrain whenever plausible. The I-frames of the roll are absurd.

Zelda falls off in difficulty tremendously after about 30 hours, or even shorter if you're using a guide to break the game. But that 30 hours is about how long I will spend with Horizon, by the end of it.

There's also a discussion to be had how "Combat Difficulty" completely drowns out comparisons and discussion of other difficulty types. Zelda has more Puzzle difficulty (compared to Horizon's none), and more Explorational/Observational difficulty. There is nothing outside of combat in Horizon that has me spending time to think or strategize. Just follow the map markers. As soon as a game has combat, that is the only type of difficulty that people seem to even discuss, and becomes a proxy for the game's overall difficulty. That's totally unfair to RPGs that try to have exploration, quests, and puzzles.

 

[Tjamato88]

The story is way better in Horizon and I care about the characters more but I love exploring in Zelda and that I can just climb and go anywhere.

In Horizon I pretty much only go from point A to B during a quest but in Zelda everything catches my eye and sends me running in all over the map.

That being said both of them are some of the best games of the year. This has been a god tier Q1 with Horizon, Zelda and Persona 5 in two weeks.

 

[Primethius]

Wait, lower difficulties in Horizon have aim assist? I did not know that.

I'm not done with Horizon yet, but my strat for big encounters is to open up with Tearblast arrows, set proximity mines, and kite around, getting enemies stuck on terrain whenever plausible. The I-frames of the roll are absurd.

Zelda falls off in difficulty tremendously after about 30 hours, or even shorter if you're using a guide to break the game. But that 30 hours is about how long I will spend with Horizon, by the end of it.

There's also a discussion to be had how "Combat Difficulty" completely drowns out comparisons and discussion of other difficulty types. Zelda has more Puzzle difficulty (compared to Horizon's none), and more Explorational/Observational difficulty.

For me, Zelda fell off in difficulty as soon as I left Great Plateau. Aside from a couple of Lynel fights, I haven't come across anything challenging. The bosses in dungeons have been disappointing in that regard too.

Lower difficulties don't have aim assist in that it moves your reticule like a console FPS but arrows are more likely to do slight homing if you are near enough to a weak point on an enemy. On very hard, that's disabled (or you can disable it in options regardless) and you have to be really precise with the aiming and the game gives you absolutely no leeway.