By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Where Horizon ZD fails

ClassicGamingWizzz said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Is just as surprising as you doing the opposite. And yes, certainly they have worse problems since on Zelda invisible walls are not a problem to beggin with.

Yes sure but now tell me how many times in the last 2 years you got banned trying to defend nintendo and attacking sony ? Yea, right , better move along.

For attacking Sony? That's a big fat lie.

I got banned several times but not really for defending Nintendo, but for losing my nerves going against the extreme stupidity that can be found in this place, a stupidity that gets specially epic when talking about Nintendo.



Around the Network
BraLoD said:
Goodnightmoon said:

You can't see the difference between a map with invisible walls inside and a map with not a single invisible wall outside the very edge of the world? Ok then

And the bold part is actually a huge difference that shows how much better designed as an open world one of them is. 

Horizon doesn't have invisible walls inside, it has story based events, you can go everywhere while playing the game, you'll get to walls when going on the edges of the world. The bold and the first part are the same, it's not better design, it's different design.
Horizon doesn't exist in a rectangle as you said Zelda does, and Horizon has a much greater focus on the story, while still proving an open world to be explored when you want to.

Zelda is not better designed than Horizon because of that, maybe it is better designed, but not because of that.

How can you say that's not a worse desing? So you can't go to visible and playable areas of the game because you are not supposed to go there until another event happens? And the way the game stops you from going there is an invisible wall? That's not nice at all. In Zelda if you can see it you can go there, it doesn't matter when, nothing is stoping you, it feels completely free which is what you want when you make an open world.



pokoko said:
Cloudman said:

The only invisible walls are the edges of the map, and lacking the stamina to climb to the top of something.

Oh, and there's disabling climbing in the shrines and main dungeons. I suppose that's only done to keep players from just climing to the main objectives.

Thank you.  The other guy didn't seem to want to answer my question.

Mnementh said:

No, there is an end to it. But geography makes it really hard to reach that borders. I tried because I was nosy, and it was actually hard to get to the border. It is far outside. I was going through a sandstorm, that deactivates the map, I didn't try at the other sides.

In Horizon it seems not so hard to hit these walls and it is pretty near a settlement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWwI2KfP3sE

But basically: If Zelda had invisible walls at every step, would that change it how to look at Horizon?

Personally, I don't mind invisible walls if they are were you expect them to be.  In Skyrim, when I'd reach the top of the map and just keep swimming north, I knew I had to reach the edge eventually.  It's just a logical limit.  It's when I run into them in the interior of a map that I find bothersome.  New Vegas, for example, which had them at odd places.  I haven't played Horizon but it sounds like it does this.

In some ways, I don't think they're worse than manipulating geography, though.  So many game worlds seem to have moutains all the way around them, which can feel artificial.  Others can't and shouldn't go that route because they're not set in mountain regions.  And, honestly, after playing Skyrim, New Vegas, and the Far Cry games, I'm sick of open worlds set in mountain regions--it's like a trick that's been used way too often.

As for going anywhere, I've been spoiled by my jetpack in Fallout 4.

Yea I got super pissed playing FF15 multiple times where I wanted to go somewhere and a fucking bush is in my way. I run around the entire freaking giant cirlce of where I want to go to only find out that this bush is surrounding the whole damn place. I hate restriction things in games ,when it don't make sense. I remember in Witcher 2 many times thinking I can climb this thing, but no. Only lets you climp up certain ridges, even if some are smaller than others.

BotW got a dig at if for its "ubisoft" towers. Yet where is th huge dig at Horizon for its "bird poop" ledges that you can only climb on.



BraLoD said:

As I said, it's different design, not better design.
Aloy is not supposed to be there, so she won't go there, like she is not allowed to go there (before the Nora accept her, they block her); she shouldn't stray far away while doing a mission in some place depending on the mission for obvious reasons, she is there, she'll do it; Aloy can't go to a city she is wanted so she'll obviously avoid it (to later get access to it, to lose it again, to get it again while disguised)...

Horizon has a different desing than Zelda, that's about it.

Well damn... i wish i didnt read that.



BraLoD said:
Goodnightmoon said:

You can't see the difference between a map with invisible walls inside and a map with not a single invisible wall outside the very edge of the world? Ok then

And the bold part is actually a huge difference that shows how much better designed as an open world one of them is. 

Horizon doesn't have invisible walls inside, it has story based events, you can go everywhere while playing the game, you'll get to walls when going on the edges of the world. The bold and the first part are the same, it's not better design, it's different design.
Horizon doesn't exist in a rectangle as you said Zelda does, and Horizon has a much greater focus on the story, while still proving an open world to be explored when you want to.

Zelda is not better designed than Horizon because of that, maybe it is better designed, but not because of that.

This is what makes me scratch my head.  Looking in from the outside, it seems obvious to me that the two games had different design objectives.  Unless I'm mistaken, Horizon seems to have a more linear, story-based progression system.  It's perfectly fine to prefer one or the other but it feels silly to attempt to prove that one is "better".

Games don't have to use the exact same design.

One of my favorite franchises of last generation, Borderlands, used a semi-open approach and it worked very well.  I have no interest in trying to prove it was or was not a better approach to building a game world than, say, Skyrim.  All I care about is that both games were enjoyable.  



Around the Network
pokoko said:
BraLoD said:

Horizon doesn't have invisible walls inside, it has story based events, you can go everywhere while playing the game, you'll get to walls when going on the edges of the world. The bold and the first part are the same, it's not better design, it's different design.
Horizon doesn't exist in a rectangle as you said Zelda does, and Horizon has a much greater focus on the story, while still proving an open world to be explored when you want to.

Zelda is not better designed than Horizon because of that, maybe it is better designed, but not because of that.

This is what makes me scratch my head.  Looking in from the outside, it seems obvious to me that the two games had different design objectives.  Unless I'm mistaken, Horizon seems to have a more linear, story-based progression system.  It's perfectly fine to prefer one or the other but it feels silly to attempt to prove that one is "better".

Games don't have to use the exact same design.

One of my favorite franchises of last generation, Borderlands, used a semi-open approach and it worked very well.  I have no interest in trying to prove it was or was not a better approach to building a game world.  All I care about is that both games were enjoyable.  

Well, when you are making an open world you are trying to give freedom to the player, making a linear open world doesn't really sound like great game design, which doesn't mean the game is automatically worse, but seems to be approaching the open world concept in a less interesting way than it could.



Haven't played Horizon, but played enough open world games to guess what the difference is as below.

Then toss in invisible walls preventing one from certain areas due to items/story on top of the Horizon map.



irstupid said:

Haven't played Horizon, but played enough open world games to guess what the difference is as below.

Then toss in invisible walls preventing one from certain areas due to items/story on top of the Horizon map.

Yeah and it shows, same for whoever did that image because the invisible walls arent dead center in the middle of the map, they are arround the edges and yes i am talking about the story progression ones not the edges of the world.



Goodnightmoon said:
pokoko said:

This is what makes me scratch my head.  Looking in from the outside, it seems obvious to me that the two games had different design objectives.  Unless I'm mistaken, Horizon seems to have a more linear, story-based progression system.  It's perfectly fine to prefer one or the other but it feels silly to attempt to prove that one is "better".

Games don't have to use the exact same design.

One of my favorite franchises of last generation, Borderlands, used a semi-open approach and it worked very well.  I have no interest in trying to prove it was or was not a better approach to building a game world.  All I care about is that both games were enjoyable.  

Well, when you are making an open world you are trying to give freedom to the player, making a linear open world doesn't really sound like great game design, which doesn't mean the game is automatically worse, but seems to be approaching the open world concept in a less interesting way than it could.

That makes no sense.

When making a game, world design should reflect your goals.  If you want the story to be important then you won't have the main character marching up to the end boss with zero build.  That would be terrible design for an RPG.



estebxx said:
irstupid said:

Haven't played Horizon, but played enough open world games to guess what the difference is as below.

Then toss in invisible walls preventing one from certain areas due to items/story on top of the Horizon map.

Yeah and it shows, same for whoever did that image because the invisible walls arent dead center in the middle of the map, they are arround the edges and yes i am talking about the story progression ones not the edges of the world.

The random middle of the map I tossed in as a random mountain or something. Always something in open world games like a mountain or ravine or something in the middle that adds to the world look ,yet it just another invisible wall. From the map I have seen of Horizon, it looks like it is surrounded by mountains, and from what I've heard/seen you can not climb anything, and thus many moutnain tops you can not reach. You have to go AROUND the moutain to reach the other side.

Zelda and SKyrim you can go anywher ein side the rectangle. No limits. Zelda is more finess about it. IN Skyrim you might be jumping backwards up a mountainside to cheat your way up, but still doable.

Horizon seems from what I've seen more like an assassins creed where you can not do stuff like that. YOu need to find your poop ledge or else you can't do it