HORIZON vs ZELDA!

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **Fade** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:08 am

To be fair, you can pick apart any game by comparing it to other ones. No game is 100% original, they build off of what works.

Every artform is the same.

Maybe when you get super over levelled you can abuse one tactic, but right now I struggle to take down some beasts, although I am playing on hard.

Also, NO game is different. Every game every made has exploitable AI, or patterns/tactics that you can learn.

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **rudderless** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:30 am

Fade wrote:To be fair, you can pick apart any game by comparing it to other ones. No game is 100% original, they build off of what works.

Every artform is the same.

Agreed, though Horizon doesn't really build meaningfully on any of those elements so much as it puts them all in one game. That's not to say it's a bad game - far from it. It's just that a lot of it feels very familiar.

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **Mafro** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:44 am

rudderless wrote: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.

This is absolutely spot on.

I take it you're referring to the Glixel article describing it as "risky"? Pretty ridiculous of them to describe a AAA Sony exclusive as that, especially one that had their full marketing and PR campaign behind it. Risky would have been Guerrilla doing another Killzone game.

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **Boo!** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:33 am

mic wrote:
Of course I'm routinely blown away by Zelda, like Kakariko villiage in the rain

5 fps is pretty mind blowing

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **Oblomov Boblomov** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:54 am

I have always strongly disliked weapon degradation, but for some reason it doesn't bother me in BotW. Battles are genuinely exciting and dangerous. The cleverly designed weapons must be changed around depending on the circumstances and you really appreciate the (admittedly very short) time you get to spend with a special weapon, knowing that you'll never be waiting too long before you find something even better.

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **mic** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:04 pm

Boo! wrote:
mic wrote:
Of course I'm routinely blown away by Zelda, like Kakariko villiage in the rain

5 fps is pretty mind blowing

Not sure what version you're playing or if you just enjoy hyperbole, but my switch in docked mode has only suffered very occasional frame rate issues, none of which were Kakariko villiage in the rain and none of which have even slightly affected my enjoyment of the game.

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **chalkitdown** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:57 am

mic wrote:
Boo! wrote:
mic wrote:
Of course I'm routinely blown away by Zelda, like Kakariko villiage in the rain

5 fps is pretty mind blowing

Not sure what version you're playing or if you just enjoy hyperbole, but my switch in docked mode has only suffered very occasional frame rate issues, none of which were Kakariko villiage in the rain and none of which have even slightly affected my enjoyment of the game.

WiiU version runs very badly in villiages, Kakariko villiage is one of the worst offenders.

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **jiggles** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:19 pm

Korok Woods was the worst for persistently shite performance for me. But Death Mountain had the worst isolated drops (to 0 fps when killing moblins while it's trying to work out its ragdoll). What's most curious about Zelda's performance to me is how reviews (like EDGE's) were framing any framerate drops as rare or unintrusive, when in actuality they were prevalent throughout, and due to the nature of how the engine handles them (dropping to 20fps and locking it there if it can manage it) felt particularly nasty.

Horizon, on the other hand, runs rock solid, despite having *excellent* antialiasing, pushing out at checkerboarded 4K resolution and being literally the most graphically impressive console game ever.

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **mic** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:00 pm

See, what (it seems) you've done there, jiggles, is compared the best version of Horizon (pro) to the worst version of Zelda (wiiU). It is certainly very interesting that both games essentially have two versions (ps4/ pro, and wiiU/ switch), and far be it from me to decide whether this thread should focus on the superior versions when comparing the titles (as opposed to the inferior ones), but I don't think it particularly helpful to compare the wiiU version to the PS4 pro version.

Again, I have had no drastic framerate issues on switch, the art style in fact conspiring with the hardware to make Zelda one of the best looking games ever.

From the little I've seen, I can agree with your point about Horizon being "the most graphically impressive console game ever", but does Horizon's world support as much activity as Zelda's, or are gameplay elements ever somewhat restrained in order to maintain solid performance (such as reducing the number of enemies on screen, for example)?

Should hardware-dependant performance even be a factor in the discussion, since switch can't really hope to compete with ps4 pro?

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **Fade** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:03 pm

Just so you're aware both versions of Horizon run at 30fps 99% of the time, with the odd 1 dropped frame.

https://youtu.be/qTH8OnQKWeY?t=365

I haven't played Zelda, but I think it looks nicer for the most part, the art style is fantastic.

And Horizon is missing a lot of basic stuff (psychics on some objects, water ripples) that you'd come to expect.

But I'm guess they did this to keep a stable frame rate, as you have to consider it's an open world game where nothing can be on screen one moment
and then the next moment a giant 20 foot robot T-rex who's weapons and armour panels can all individually be shot off while setting off a gooseberry fool load of particle effects

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **jiggles** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:55 pm

mic wrote:See, what (it seems) you've done there, jiggles, is compared the best version of Horizon (pro) to the worst version of Zelda (wiiU). It is certainly very interesting that both games essentially have two versions (ps4/ pro, and wiiU/ switch), and far be it from me to decide whether this thread should focus on the superior versions when comparing the titles (as opposed to the inferior ones), but I don't think it particularly helpful to compare the wiiU version to the PS4 pro version.

Again, I have had no drastic framerate issues on switch, the art style in fact conspiring with the hardware to make Zelda one of the best looking games ever.

From the little I've seen, I can agree with your point about Horizon being "the most graphically impressive console game ever", but does Horizon's world support as much activity as Zelda's, or are gameplay elements ever somewhat restrained in order to maintain solid performance (such as reducing the number of enemies on screen, for example)?

Should hardware-dependant performance even be a factor in the discussion, since switch can't really hope to compete with ps4 pro?

Some clarifications:

- I've not played the Wii U version of Zelda. Only Switch.
- It *isn't* fair to compare them graphically. But in a thread titled HORIZON vs ZELDA, the comparison must be made.

Any developer should be commended for prioritizing stable performance before graphics, and the Zelda team should be criticized for not. That Guerrilla have done so *and* pushed the boundaries for visuals on a console is remarkable.

I posted about Zelda's incredible interconnected physics systems as one thing it wins on in my first post, but this most recent post was speaking to the conversation on Zelda's performance, which isn't as good as I've come to expect from the series, and kind of flies in the face of what made the last new Zelda game (A Link Between Worlds) feel so great to play.

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **HSH28** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:25 pm

jiggles wrote:Korok Woods was the worst for persistently shite performance for me. But Death Mountain had the worst isolated drops (to 0 fps when killing moblins while it's trying to work out its ragdoll). What's most curious about Zelda's performance to me is how reviews (like EDGE's) were framing any framerate drops as rare or unintrusive, when in actuality they were prevalent throughout, and due to the nature of how the engine handles them (dropping to 20fps and locking it there if it can manage it) felt particularly nasty.

Horizon, on the other hand, runs rock solid, despite having *excellent* antialiasing, pushing out at checkerboarded 4K resolution and being literally the most graphically impressive console game ever.

How are you playing Zelda, because its definitely not as much of an issue in handheld mode. I've also never seen the framerate drop to 0fps, don't know how you can possibly tell what kind of figure its actually dropped to though. There are momentary drops to relatively low figures sure and some more sustained drops to what I assume is 20fps. The thing is though the latter which is actually an issue doesn't really happen that often.

jiggles wrote:Any developer should be commended for prioritizing stable performance before graphics, and the Zelda team should be criticized for not.

I don't think I agree with that at all. Developers should be commended for making games that keep you interested and that play well, on that front Breath of the Wild deserves all the commendations it has gotten.

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **jiggles** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:30 pm

It's easy to tell when a game drops to 0fps because it doesn't update the screen for more than a second. Go kill a moblin on the run to the Death Mountain dungeon and you'll see the game straight-up freeze for a second or two

Also, and this may blow your mind, but it's possible to criticize a developer for their missteps while also commending them for their achievements. Breath of the Wild is easily one of the greatest games I've ever played, and comfortably the better of these two titles, but it feels like whenever I point out bits of it I don't like I'm just getting told I'm wrong.

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **HSH28** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:47 pm

jiggles wrote:Also, and this may blow your mind, but it's possible to criticize a developer for their missteps while also commending them for their achievements. Breath of the Wild is easily one of the greatest games I've ever played, and comfortably the better of these two titles, but it feels like whenever I point out bits of it I don't like I'm just getting told I'm wrong.

What might blow your mind is that other people might not have the same opinion as you when it comes to this.

I don't think this is a 'misstep' (and to be honest I'm not sure there are any that have been made in BotW), yes the framerate sags occasionally (sometimes a lot). But I don't think I'd go for a completely stable 30fps with some of the features that cause those drops cut from the game. To me that would be a misstep.

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **jiggles** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:17 pm

I'm not talking about dropping features, but rather optimizing and sticking to their frametime budgets. It's not like, say, Korok Woods runs bad only when some specific set of circumstances align or when anything of note is happening with gameplay. Are all those light sources that's tanking the frame rate adding to my enjoyment? When the prevailing thought I'm having is "this bit feels bad to play", the answer is no.

For me, the game would have been even more enjoyable had either the visual effects or resolution chosen been appropriate for the hardware to maintain the frame rate. The developers evidently thought otherwise, and that was, in my opinion, absolutely the wrong choice.

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **Fade** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:41 pm

In my opinion it's always the wrong choice, smooth framerate > everything else

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **mic** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:45 pm

Fade wrote:Just so you're aware both versions of Horizon run at 30fps 99% of the time, with the odd 1 dropped frame...

How many fps is Zelda?

jiggles wrote:Some clarifications:

- I've not played the Wii U version of Zelda. Only Switch.
- It *isn't* fair to compare them graphically. But in a thread titled HORIZON vs ZELDA, the comparison must be made...

I appreciate you having made the comparison, but assumed you were referring to the wiiU version because, frankly, my experience hasn't been anything like yours. This is a pickle. Can our experiences of the same game on the same hardware really differ so greatly? I suppose the point at which slowdown or reduced framerate becomes an issue is subjective, but I haven't had any game-breaking frame reduction AT ALL...

jiggles wrote:It's easy to tell when a game drops to 0fps because it doesn't update the screen for more than a second. Go kill a moblin on the run to the Death Mountain dungeon and you'll see the game straight-up freeze for a second or two...

Yeah, that didn't happen for me. Death Mountain has remained issue free. In fact, the slow-down you describe has happened precisely ONCE, it seemed entirely randomly in a grassy area, and didn't affect my enjoyment of the game at all. I am, however, open to accept that it has happened more frequently to you - could it possibly be something along the lines of the switch choosing that moment to carry out an auto-update or some-such?

jiggles wrote:Also, and this may blow your mind, but it's possible to criticize a developer for their missteps while also commending them for their achievements. Breath of the Wild is easily one of the greatest games I've ever played, and comfortably the better of these two titles, but it feels like whenever I point out bits of it I don't like I'm just getting told I'm wrong.

Well, that is absolutely the point of the thread - to point out what works and doesn't work in comparison of both games. Also, I totally appreciate that your view is balanced and that you enjoy both - I can't wait to play Horizon!

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **Fade** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:58 pm

Well there are parts of Zelda that drop to 20FPS according to Digital Foundry

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **finish.last** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:34 pm

I'm doing Death Mountain this evening having just lowered the bridge earlier on. The bit before that involved fighting two big moblin things and there was definitely momentary freezes as I smacked them about (that was in docked mode).

It doesn't really bother me but it did happen for me.

PostRe: HORIZON vs ZELDA! by **HSH28** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:40 pm

Fade wrote:Well there are parts of Zelda that drop to 20FPS according to Digital Foundry

I don't think he's suggesting that isn't the case.

I honestly think its a case of some people having more of an issue with it than others. It might happen slightly more or slightly less depending on circumstances that are hard to pin down, but at the end of the day I think there are some people who will either not notice or notice but just get on with it and it won't effect their enjoyment of the game at all and others for whom it'll happen and then stick in their head, or whenever it does happen it'll really bother them.

I lean more towards the former of those groups, unless framerate has a persistent and definitive impact on my enjoyment of a game to be honest it doesn't bother me. To the point that if someone asked me about Breath of the Wild, I probably wouldn't even mention framerate unless they brought it up. It just doesn't have an impact on the game in any significant way, as such its not an important factor when comparing the game with Horizon.

I have a hard time even understanding why anyone would think that was an important thing to discuss when talking about the two games to be honest.

HORIZON vs ZELDA!

Who is online

Affiliates