HORIZON vs ZELDA!

Anything to do with games at all.
the eponymous bollock
Member
Joined in 2017

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by the eponymous bollock » Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:30 pm

Frank wrote:
the eponymous bollock wrote:the challenge of collecting them all


Does the challenge there come from the fact that thanks to the weapons breaking you'll never be able to collect them all?


No you photograph them to add them to your logbook.

And mic, learning what weapons to use against what enemies and balancing the risk/regard is part of the challenge of combat. It's fun.

User avatar
Karl
Consider The Following
Consider The Following
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by Karl » Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:59 pm

jiggles wrote:So you're saying you're forced to keep switching weapons because they always break, rather than choosing to keep switching weapons because it's actually enjoyable to do so.

Fun mechanic.


Just want to point out that you could use this argument to make literally any non-optional gameplay mechanic in any game sound silly. "Ugh, so you're forced to jump between platforms rather than doing so because you want to? How un-fun."

Zelda throws more weapons than you could possibly ever use at you, at the price of you having to make a decision about when to use each particular one, because it will only last one or two fights. That decision-making step adds a little bit of depth and strategy to each fight that otherwise wouldn't have been there, on both a resource-management level and in a rock-paper-scissors way (as certain weapon types are good against certain enemies).

There's no need to hoard cool weapons though, you just make an in-the-moment the decision of what weapon to use as you approach an enemy, and trust that the game will give you an equivalently cool weapon back for success, which it always does. (EDIT: And if it is actually a very low-level enemy that's going to give a low-level drop, then it'll be low-level enough that you can kill it easily without even using your weapons, and again making the decision is part of the strategy, which I find engaging.)

Obviously it's fine if you don't like the mechanic, but give it a chance. IMO it works.

User avatar
Green Gecko
Director
Joined in 2008
Location: Sussex
Contact:

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by Green Gecko » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:00 pm

I've had fairly normal weapons, shields and bows last several fights and you are constantly picking up weapons, I don't really see what the problem is with that. I normally have more weapons than I can carry. I think people just get bumpain because they want to have a relationship with a sword like Dark Souls.

Photek wrote:
jiggles wrote:So you're saying you're forced to keep switching weapons because they always break, rather than choosing to keep switching weapons because it's actually enjoyable to do so.

Fun mechanic.

It is a fun mechanic because you approach every battle differently. When your weapon is near to breaking you can elect to throw it and you get double damage if it connects, also, you can sneak up to enemy out posts and rob their weapons before you alert them leaving them no weapons to fight you with. Throw in holding wooden weapons/arrows near a fire to light them up to set enemies on fire or explode barrels and the whole weapon system makes something boring such as taking an outpost in FarCry (I hear horizon after a while is similar to Far Cry Primal - I like FCP tho) something different every time, that's just a few of the various ways to attempt to do this. During Lightning storms you have to use wooden only weapons, and shields, even bow and I unfortunately have to take off my cool knight armour but again it mixes combat up, constantly keeping options fresh.

If you use the stealth armour you can also one hit KO many enemies making your weapons last ages, and make good use of your sheika slate/physics powers/bombs to wear down enemies before finishing them off with just 1 or 2 blows of a weapon in close range combat. You can get tonnes of arrows for little rupees you can make easily selling loads of stuff (including food you cook) making little work of distant enemies and there are often explosive/environmental damages too. There are many ways the game encourages you to be resourceful like that instead of just ploughing into every enemy and mashing the attack button like every other game ever (except DS) in which case yes you will constantly loose weapons but are also kind of wasting the game imo.

Or you can always just walk past them..

It's just like getting used to dying in DS, it's part of the game and keeps you on your toes and also makes it easier to just shrug stuff off and keep exploring. It's generally true that the idea of a sword that lasts 100 fights is bollocks really, there are a few weapons in the game you can repair and replace relatively easily but I'd get really bored of using the same weapon for the entire game. In DS I use at least 2 or 3.

Support GRcade | t: @GRcade | FB: GRcadeUK | YT: GRcadeVideo | Twitch: GRcadeUK
"just put the button line about the message components div" - Official Errkal Sponsor 2017
User avatar
Parksey
Moderator
Joined in 2008

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by Parksey » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:45 pm

I was reading about the weapon degrading mechanic over on rllmuk and someone made a good comparison with the original Halo: CE weapon swapping.

Prior to that, most of the time you could carry a ridiculous number of weapons and ammo around, whereas Halo forced you to constantly juggle two.

You'd often really want to bring your pistol along with its scope and power, but have to trade it off with its relative lack of ammo, and then you'd find yourself picking up and using a needler or a plasma pistol because that was what was close at hand.

You'd maybe find a rocket launcher and a few rockets and then be forced to either hoard them across the level in the hope you'd need their firepower (thus using a weapon slot) or just use them on a regular group of enemies for an instant, but limited, effect.

Very rarely could you carry the same two weapons from the beginning to the end of the level, and you'd be forced to mix and match, improvise and make plans on the fly. You could bring that sniper rifle along, but after eight shots it's going to be useless and who knows if you'll find some more on that alien ship. The needler seems readily available but lacks a bit of punch. I've ran out of pistol ammo so I'll try this plasma one that every enemy is carrying.

I guess because Halo forced you to only carry two weapons that the game had already failed though.

I guess gamers are obsessive hoarders by design. I've recently played Dark Souls which has a weapon degradation system that is almost meaningless. It never really impacted on the game, but was just something I'd throw 100 souls in every few hours just to tick over. Never had to worry about it in combat really, and was more like admin at a bonfire. It didn't add fear, or tension or infringe on my weapon choice.

And whilst we're on weapon choice, quite often in a game like that, you just pick one weapon fairly early into the game and never switch. I had over 50 weapons in Dark Souls, but I stuck with the Black Knight Sword from the Undead Burg until the end.

That's fine, but does every game have to be like that? Zelda is offset by the fact that there are fucktons of weapons everywhere and ones that you are supposed to pick up and use. You're meant to take this into account with combat and have to face some fights unprepared after a weapon break. This is offset by the fact that weapons breaking give you double damage, so you can factor it in with your killing blow. Weapons also break faster doing different things, so hammering a rock is better with... hammer, and chopping trees is better with an axe. Lances are better on horseback and a standard one-handed sword is better when you need to keep your shield up.

But in keep with the game's fairly hostile nature, it doesn't want you to just rely on the same two or three weapons, and wants you to have to sometimes scramble for something in the middle of a fight, or have to improvise, or have to gamble that your final swing is going to kill whatever is about to twat you over the head.

I'm not for such a system in every game, but Zelda's been designed around it. I feel that, like Jim Sterling in his latest video, some people have just got something against weapon degradation systems and automatically dislike them, instead seeing how the game has been designed around it and what it brings.

You aren't meant to have a massive inventory full of high powered weapons. You aren't meant to have loads of things on you that you're never meant to use. You're meant to use them, lose them and move on. It's not a Fallout game where you're a walking arsenal with a mini nuke on you for any skirmishes. It's not a Dark Souls where you generally just use one type of weapon or one thing through the entire game, and you just repair your weapon at 5pm each Tuesday.

In Zelda, you're meant to be always on the look out for new stuff, and to generally use whatever is close at hand to help you out. These are often fleeting, temporary resources to get you out of one or two situations and that's it. You have to unlearn some of what other games have taught you, but that doesn't make Zelda's systems bad.

Some weapons you will like more than others, but the game also wants you to make do with what you find, if you have to, and to encourage you to not have an inventory you never use. Jim Sterling moaned and said it led him to avoid combat... which is sometimes also what the game wants you to do. It tells you this in the loading tips. It's another way you weigh up your options.

Again, it's very similar to Halo in that regard. You could avoid firefights or use stealth if you wanted to conserve your two weapons.

I did like that pistol though.

User avatar
mic
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: I'm on my way...

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by mic » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:54 pm

the eponymous bollock wrote:...And mic, learning what weapons to use against what enemies and balancing the risk/regard is part of the challenge of combat. It's fun.


I couldn't agree more, as detailed by Karl, Gecko and Parksey above. I think what I was after was a more direct comparison of the combat in both Zelda and Horizon...

User avatar
jiggles
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: pyxl-8

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by jiggles » Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:26 pm

Karl wrote:
jiggles wrote:So you're saying you're forced to keep switching weapons because they always break, rather than choosing to keep switching weapons because it's actually enjoyable to do so.

Fun mechanic.


Just want to point out that you could use this argument to make literally any non-optional gameplay mechanic in any game sound silly. "Ugh, so you're forced to jump between platforms rather than doing so because you want to? How un-fun."


Not at all. You're forced to keep switching because they break is what I'm saying. You're hardly ever switching from one sword, bow or shield to another because one is better to use in a specific situation, it's mostly because the one you wanted to use instead broke. It's rarely ever because you wanted to. Just because something is mandatory doesn't mean it's not what the player wanted to do. Jumping between platforms is a challenging means for you to get where you wanted to go.

A challenge, like forcing you to use a more effective weapon for the job, is fine, but the game doesn't do that anywhere close to as often as it just decides "that's enough of that item" and it's gone forever. The only thing it's challenging you to do is to equip another item. gooseberry fool, even regular weapon degradation systems are fine, because you have the choice of continuing to use a worn-down weapon until it breaks, or setting the weapon aside to repair and use later. An almost-broken weapon in Breath of the Wild isn't worth the inventory slot it's taking up, so you might as well keep swinging until it's gone.

Also, can we not pretend that it's simply the fact that weapons break is what the issue is. They break at an utterly alarming rate. Like, a handful of swings and it's gone. It's ridiculous how fast they degrade.

Karl wrote:Obviously it's fine if you don't like the mechanic, but give it a chance. IMO it works.


I beat the game. It had its chance.

Streaming: YouTube Gaming | Tweeting: Twitter
User avatar
Karl
Consider The Following
Consider The Following
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by Karl » Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:33 pm

jiggles wrote:I beat the game. It had its chance.


Oh, OK, sorry. I didn't pick up on that, should have read more closely.

I honestly think your opinion is downright baffling, but if you've finished the game I guess there's nothing I can say to convince you! ;)

User avatar
Knoyleo
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by Knoyleo » Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:56 pm

Horizon :
    On PS4, which I don't have

Zelda :
    On Switch, which I don't have

As you can see, the similarities are striking.

As such, I rate both games will probably never play/10

User avatar
mic
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: I'm on my way...

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by mic » Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:07 pm

jiggles wrote:Not at all. You're forced to keep switching because they break is what I'm saying. You're hardly ever switching from one sword, bow or shield to another because one is better to use in a specific situation, it's mostly because the one you wanted to use instead broke. It's rarely ever because you wanted to...


In spite of your having beaten the game, I'm not sure you were fully engaging with the mechanic if you were just using your weapons to destruction with no situational forethought, in which case it's hardly surprising that they all broke so swiftly.

Actually, I just said that yo wind you up - they DO break very quickly. Then again, it's occurred to me a few times that link would be invincible if they didn't, since due to the free form nature of the game, enemy life doesn't seem to scale the further along you get, and the bigger weapons make for one-hit kills.

Anyhoo... Horizon - is the world as big as Zelda's? Is there a similar number of enemy types? With the possible exception of Knoyleo's striking similarity above, in what other ways are the two comparable?

User avatar
NickSCFC
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by NickSCFC » Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:29 pm


Image Image
User avatar
Rex Kramer
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: rich_brad29

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by Rex Kramer » Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:51 pm

I made the mistake of reading the comments in that article. :fp: The Internet is just full of complete bellends.

Image
Current castaway: Rax can be found here. All the previous contributors can be found here.
Tackling the pile of shame part 2 - http://grview.grcade.co.uk/articles/the-7-commandments-of-tackling-the-pile-of-shame/
User avatar
mic
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: I'm on my way...

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by mic » Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:07 pm

Unbelievable. I mean... just wow. I'm glad I made this thread before seeing Jim's article or I mightn't have bothered.

User avatar
Karl
Consider The Following
Consider The Following
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by Karl » Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:25 pm

"Tiny subset of fans of x were mean to controversial internet figure y" is such a boring news cycle. No-one should have to deal with shrieking turbomorons on Twitter, but if we insist on making them the story - by arguing the toss with them, then writing articles about the argument - all we do is empower them, fan the flames, and give them the attention they crave.

Jim's been around the block enough times to know how internet trolls work. I think his language is pretty petty and divisive, and he's clearly picking fights on purpose. Is it funny? Absolutely, the linked article is very amusing. Do I have much sympathy for him, given how gleefully he's gone about all this? Not really.

User avatar
Death's Head
Member
Joined in 2009

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by Death's Head » Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:39 pm

I didn't even know people strawberry floated about with the user scores! Shame that they can't be used as meaningful data and a shame that people are so childish.

Yes?
User avatar
jawafour
Member
Member
Joined in 2012

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by jawafour » Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:30 pm

Rex Kramer wrote:...The Internet is just full of complete bellends.

Present company excepted, of course :toot: .

Ah... right, Rex?

... :shifty: .

User avatar
Rex Kramer
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: rich_brad29

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by Rex Kramer » Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:42 pm

jawafour wrote:
Rex Kramer wrote:...The Internet is just full of complete bellends.

Present company excepted, of course :toot: .

Ah... right, Rex?

... :shifty: .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:shifty:

EDIT: Only kidding, you're too nice to dislike. I mean, I live just downstairs from you and you've never once complained about the music or noise or whatever. How nice is that!

Image
Current castaway: Rax can be found here. All the previous contributors can be found here.
Tackling the pile of shame part 2 - http://grview.grcade.co.uk/articles/the-7-commandments-of-tackling-the-pile-of-shame/
User avatar
Rubix
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol
Contact:

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by Rubix » Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:57 pm

more heat than light wrote:Great time to own an Xbox One. 8-)

:dread:


:lol:

Playing: Everybody's Golf (PS4), GTAV (PS4)
Watching: Buffy S4
Reading: Freakonomics 69/315, Beren and Lúthien - 25/288
The RPG Thread | Top Gear | Star Wars
User avatar
jawafour
Member
Member
Joined in 2012

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by jawafour » Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:17 pm

Rex Kramer wrote:...I mean, I live just downstairs from you and you've never once complained about the music or noise or whatever. How nice is that!

:lol: .

User avatar
Octoroc
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Europa

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by Octoroc » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:59 pm

"It all depends on what you like really",
said Octoroc sagely.

User avatar
rudderless
Member
Joined in 2009

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA!
by rudderless » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:25 pm

It depends what you're after from an open world game, really.

I found the comment about Guerrilla trying something radically outside their comfort zone interesting, as well as a headline I saw today where Horizon was described as "risky", because so many of its ideas are variations on things we've seen several times before. I mean, its skill tree could have been ripped straight from a Far Cry game, it's got its own version of detective vision, and a weirdly perfunctory crafting mechanic redolent of about a dozen other games. Combat with machines is good fun, if weirdly reminiscent of both Far Cry Primal and to a much lesser extend Monster Hunter, but once you've hit upon a workable tactic you can just repeat it every time. Combat with human opponents, on the other hand, is sub-Tomb Raider stuff. Then you've got your three dialogue flavours in conversation, which we've obviously seen before, the climbing along sticky and clearly marked handholds...it's like an amalgam of every open world game ever made, and if you've played a lot of them it's going to feel pretty familiar. It has to be said that it does all that stuff at worst competently, and at best really well. Technically speaking, it's remarkable, boasting fewer bugs and glitches than almost any of its peers, which is worthy of praise. If you are happy to play a sandbox game where you spend a lot of time following waypoint markers and doing stuff you've done in a bunch of other games but all in one package then you will have a good time with Horizon.

Some people don't get on with Zelda because they like a bit more guidance in their games, because they want to feel a greater sense of ownership of items they find, because they don't appreciate strong art direction so much as technical excellence (though Zelda is technically excellent in certain ways). Which is absolutely fine, of course. For me, all the design choices Breath of the Wild makes are in service of a very clear and focused vision for what an open world adventure game can be. It innovates more within both a series and its chosen genre much more than Horizon does, despite the latter being ostensibly a 'new' property. I fully understand why some might prefer Horizon, but for me it's a quite distant second.

Photo mode's lovely, mind.

[iup=3595962]KB[/iup] wrote:People like Glen Whelan have a proper face!

Return to “Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: andythevillan, Meep, Met, Monkey Man, Seven, the eponymous bollock, Xeno and 62 guests