Horizon: Zero Dawn [PS4]

[mid_gen]

Just finished the game.

They've just raised the bar that TLOU set for single player games imo. Absolutely brilliant all the way through, the story alone is some excellent sci-fi.

You could pick at a few minor niggles but ultimately there's nothing that detracts from the experience.

Looking forward to more! If you haven't played it and you have a PS4, you need to sort it out. In fact even if you don't have a PS4, get one and play HZD and TLOU

 

[AStaley]

Just finished the game.

They've just raised the bar that TLOU set for single player games imo. Absolutely brilliant all the way through, the story alone is some excellent sci-fi.

You could pick at a few minor niggles but ultimately there's nothing that detracts from the experience.

Looking forward to more! If you haven't played it and you have a PS4, you need to sort it out. In fact even if you don't have a PS4, get one and play HZD and TLOU

I have to concur, finding most games "meh" at the moment, but I can't put this one down. I spent a long time just wandering around looking at the scenery and seeing where I could go and what I could find. Thought I had done a good job exploring but as I played through the story I kept finding huge chunks I had missed hidden away by some climbs.

And has to be said they've really done a fantastic job with the sound, when I was exploring I can remember hearing a distant clunking so went off to find it as I rounded a crop of rocks saw my first Thunderjaw....it was like "Wow" < Imagine an excited Oweo squeal ;

 

[V F]

I wish there were even bigger nastier robots.

 

[Kerplunk]

Agreed, when I first saw the Thunderjaw, I thought i'm never gonna be able to kill one of them Now im like, bring on something way more powerful!

 

[Peew971]

I would put it nowhere near TLOU simply because I find linear games provide much better stories by design and TLOU was just something else. But HZD is indeed a great game, I was completely put off by open world games because there are so many of them it's sickening but this one has me hooked.

 

[I cant post photos]

I would put it nowhere near TLOU simply because I find linear games provide much better stories by design and TLOU was just something else. But HZD is indeed a great game, I was completely put off by open world games because there are so many of them it's sickening but this one has me hooked.

Whereas I'm the opposite. I love being able to explore and get lost. I do enjoy corridor games but open world is king for me.


//6 hours played yesterday. 2 quests completed. Killed my first Thunderjaw, was surprisingly easy actually, just took forever. Spent an hour and a half hunting foxes for a fox skin, got it eventually so I could get the unlimited fast travel pack. I spend so much time just faffing about it's unreal. Still loving every moment of this game.

 

[Peew971]

I used to love open world when it was something you would find in a couple of games per year, I spent countless hours in the Elders Scrolls games. Now I feel many games are open world just for the sake of it, they just give you a gigantic map with a billion markers and they call that a game. I'm an official Ubisoft hater now and I was their biggest fan a decade ago, I'm dreading the day they announce the inevitable open world Splinter Cell to finally put me off my possibly favourite franchise ever.
Ghost Recon didn't need to be open world, it's really just a jungle expansion for The Division. Also did we need Zelda, Ghost Recon, HZD, Mass Effect and Nier to all release within a month? Not to mention the upcoming Crackdown, State of Decay, RDR2, Shadow of War, plus whatever Bethesda has to announce all coming this year. I think that's why I liked The Order 1886, simple and straight to the point.

 

[Jae-So]

Gotta agree with you there. Struggling to get on with MGS V. No doubt it is a good game but very different to the MGS I grew up loving.

 

[TheVoice]

Gotta agree with you there. Stufffling to get on with MGS V. No doubt it is a good game but very different to the MGS I grew up loving.

MGS5 is one of the most disappointing games I've ever played. It completely betrayed almost everything that made the earlier games so good, in favour of a (frankly rather barren and boring) open world and an incoherent, patchy storyline. And don't get me started on Quiet's incessant humming.

I've replayed 1-4 many times and will continue to do so, but I'll never touch 5 again. The series ended with Ground Zeroes for me.

HZD is brilliant though, I'm enjoying it even more than I thought I would.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Personally I think HZD lacks in internal spaces and towns just feel tacked on and not at all life like. They remind me very much of Skyrim's towns but actually worse.

Compared to Witcher 3 and something like AC Unity the towns and cities lack both detail and believability. In meridian the life feels quite static and 1 dimensional. I also find the languqge and voice acting a little bemusing. Phrases like "we kicked their asses" just seem out of place and comical in a post apocalyptic world of savage tribes. The language and script feel modern and in my head clashes completely with the theme of the game.

The lack of internal spaces to explore in terms of towns and also in the wild in the form of caves and ruins is also somewhat disappointing. I think they could have done so much more with this game.

I like HZD and it is fun to play but I do feel it is limited in scope. I found the world of the witcher 3 to be far more vibrant and the open landscape of caves / dungeons / castles of skyrim to more engaging.

In terms of story I cant yet comment as I havent finished it. However I havent really felt engaged with this like I did with TLOU, or even with the Witcher 3 or something like DA Inquisition.

Combat is OK but no ability to really tailor a character build. Combat feels less tricky than witcher 3. Less focused as Aloy can pretty much kill anything with a sharpshot bow and good positioning / stealth.

I do feel this game has astounded people graphically but they seem to be overlooking the glaring short comings. Still a great game but I personally do not feel as connected or as interested in it as I have with other games.

 

[I cant post photos]

I used to love open world when it was something you would find in a couple of games per year, I spent countless hours in the Elders Scrolls games. Now I feel many games are open world just for the sake of it, they just give you a gigantic map with a billion markers and they call that a game. I'm an official Ubisoft hater now and I was their biggest fan a decade ago, I'm dreading the day they announce the inevitable open world Splinter Cell to finally put me off my possibly favourite franchise ever.
Ghost Recon didn't need to be open world, it's really just a jungle expansion for The Division. Also did we need Zelda, Ghost Recon, HZD, Mass Effect and Nier to all release within a month? Not to mention the upcoming Crackdown, State of Decay, RDR2, Shadow of War, plus whatever Bethesda has to announce all coming this year. I think that's why I liked The Order 1886, simple and straight to the point.

Well there's a good reason for this. You seem to play most main titles, whereas I play at most 6-7 games a year

Currently playing Destiny, GTA Online, Overwatch, HZD & 7 days to die. My judgement will be horrendously skewed by this limiting factor. I'm sure if I played many more games I'd have a lot more context to go with.

 

[TheVoice]

I do feel this game has astounded people graphically but they seem to be overlooking the glaring short comings.

Or they're a bit more forgiving given it's the first entry of a new IP by a developer that's seemingly never attempted anything on this scale before.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Or they're a bit more forgiving given it's the first entry of a new IP by a developer that's seemingly never attempted anything on this scale before.

Perhaps. But this dev is clearly capable of great things. So why arent they in the game? Perhaps because they went balls deep with graphics and there wasnt enough left for many of the other things? Perhaps it was time constraints?Its not about being forgiving or not forgiving - its about looking at something objectively and making relevant comparisons to other market leading titles and also simply asking why things are missing.

Dont get me wrong, I like HZD but that isnt going to stop me looking at it with a critical eye instead of blindly riding the hype train.

 

[I cant post photos]

Well, as someone who's about as far away from any hype trains as he is the ISS, I went in to this game based on a recommendation from a couple of friends, and that was it. I loved it from the get go, the story, the lore, the crafting, the combat, it's all sublime. Graphics barely matter to me, I enjoy games for what they are, not what they look like. That said, as I mentioned above I don't play all that many games so have very little to compare it to. My last single player game I completed was Wolfenstein (2013?) and Far Cry 1.

Then again, I got bored of Fallout 3&4, I got bored of RDR, Bioshock and loads more, so my opinion should be taken with a hefty dose of salt.

 

[TheVoice]

Perhaps. But this dev is clearly capable of great things. So why arent they in the game? Perhaps because they went balls deep with graphics and there wasnt enough left for many of the other things? Perhaps it was time constraints?

Time, money, resources, or perhaps just not part of the vision they had for the game. These are obstacles which every dev faces; content and features were cut from Uncharted 4 for example, and they're considered at the top of their game when it comes to that particular genre.

Its not about being forgiving or not forgiving - its about looking at something objectively and making relevant comparisons to other market leading titles and also simply asking why things are missing.

The comparison becomes somewhat one-sided when it's against sequels in IPs produced by veterans of the genre, though. CDPR have a lot more experience at this than GG has.

Dont get me wrong, I like HZD but that isnt going to stop me looking at it with a critical eye instead of blindly riding the hype train.

By no means am I saying it should, there are things I agree with you on as both observations and criticisms, but I also think you're also being a bit harsh in expecting it to have everything that ever other big game in the genre has.

 

[V F]

Well, as someone who's about as far away from any hype trains as he is the ISS, I went in to this game based on a recommendation from a couple of friends, and that was it. I loved it from the get go, the story, the lore, the crafting, the combat, it's all sublime. Graphics barely matter to me, I enjoy games for what they are, not what they look like. That said, as I mentioned above I don't play all that many games so have very little to compare it to. My last single player game I completed was Wolfenstein (2013?) and Far Cry 1.

Then again, I got bored of Fallout 3&4, I got bored of RDR, Bioshock and loads more, so my opinion should be taken with a hefty dose of salt.

I actually knew very if at all about this game a few months or so before release. I saw a trailer on TV and went, ohhh! Jungle world. Must have. So pre-ordered it. Didn't go scouring for more information but loved the fact it was another female character and a bow. Besides, it wasn't just an ordinary bow.

 

[Amatsubu]

Personally I think HZD lacks in internal spaces and towns just feel tacked on and not at all life like. They remind me very much of Skyrim's towns but actually worse.

Compared to Witcher 3 and something like AC Unity the towns and cities lack both detail and believability. In meridian the life feels quite static and 1 dimensional. I also find the languqge and voice acting a little bemusing. Phrases like "we kicked their asses" just seem out of place and comical in a post apocalyptic world of savage tribes. The language and script feel modern and in my head clashes completely with the theme of the game.

The lack of internal spaces to explore in terms of towns and also in the wild in the form of caves and ruins is also somewhat disappointing. I think they could have done so much more with this game.

I like HZD and it is fun to play but I do feel it is limited in scope. I found the world of the witcher 3 to be far more vibrant and the open landscape of caves / dungeons / castles of skyrim to more engaging.

In terms of story I cant yet comment as I havent finished it. However I havent really felt engaged with this like I did with TLOU, or even with the Witcher 3 or something like DA Inquisition.

Combat is OK but no ability to really tailor a character build. Combat feels less tricky than witcher 3. Less focused as Aloy can pretty much kill anything with a sharpshot bow and good positioning / stealth.

I do feel this game has astounded people graphically but they seem to be overlooking the glaring short comings. Still a great game but I personally do not feel as connected or as interested in it as I have with other games.

It's funny you should talk about overlooking flaws, yet compare Horizon, which wasn't even supposed to be a typical RPG of an enormous scope, to one of the most overrated games in recent years, with many flaws people overlook just because;p
Witcher 3 has one of the most simplistic combat systems ever and you don't really need to do anything to kill most monsters, not far into the game almost all gear you find is useless and so are the oils etc. so I find it weird you're actually using it as a standard to set Horizon's combat against.
About the world, Witcher 3 has two major cities with fairly limited interaction. You can't kill anyone or interact with most civilians. What's outside doesn't seem terribly lively to me. Mostly copy-paste villages and empty fields. The map could've been 1/3 of its current size and we wouldn't have lost much in terms of meaningful content. Also, the dungeons are super-boring. It's a nice world but certainly less visually interesting than Horizon's. Even the story was padded out like hell and incredibly slow. IGN gave the game a 9.3 and still admitted the plot wasn't terribly interesting.

Talking about glaring shortcomings, I'm actually surprised you're so harsh on Horizon but let Witcher 3 off this easily, seeing as it's a game from a developer well-established in the genre.

 

[V F]

I despise if you run too far the AI will reset or stop chasing you then reset. As if there is an AI boundary.

 

[V F]

Yours and truly, SunhiLegend.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

It's funny you should talk about overlooking flaws, yet compare Horizon, which wasn't even supposed to be a typical RPG of an enormous scope, to one of the most overrated games in recent years, with many flaws people overlook just because;p
Witcher 3 has one of the most simplistic combat systems ever and you don't really need to do anything to kill most monsters, not far into the game almost all gear you find is useless and so are the oils etc. so I find it weird you're actually using it as a standard to set Horizon's combat against.
About the world, Witcher 3 has two major cities with fairly limited interaction. You can't kill anyone or interact with most civilians. What's outside doesn't seem terribly lively to me. Mostly copy-paste villages and empty fields. The map could've been 1/3 of its current size and we wouldn't have lost much in terms of meaningful content. Also, the dungeons are super-boring. It's a nice world but certainly less visually interesting than Horizon's. Even the story was padded out like hell and incredibly slow. IGN gave the game a 9.3 and still admitted the plot wasn't terribly interesting.

Talking about glaring shortcomings, I'm actually surprised you're so harsh on Horizon but let Witcher 3 off this easily, seeing as it's a game from a developer well-established in the genre.

Some fair comments, others not so.

Combat in witcher 3 is not as simple as you make out. Granted, a lot of combat is timing sword strikes and moving properly, but oils, decoctions, potions and spells have to be managed properly, as does your decision to fight in the first place. There are plenty of things you cant kill from the off until sufficiently levelled up.

I really dont think you can compare the level of detail in witcher towns and cities to that of HZD. It wins hands down, both in terms of attention to detail and overall believability. But I do accept your points on limited interaction with NPC's. A system more akin to GTAV would have been better!

I also agree the story elements can drag on a little and it suffers somewhat with pace. That said some story elements are outstanding as is the voice acting and script which suit the game perfectly, unlike HZD.

I never said Witcher 3 was perfect, far from it, but it does in my opinion have more depth than HZD overall.

Im not being harsh on HZD - just pointing out elements that I believe could have and arguably should have been done better.

HZD has a lot going for it, theres no doubting it is a cracking game. It runs a lot smoother than many games for a start! Its an interesting concept and the art direcion is good but I cant help feeling like Im playing farcry 4 with robots every time I play it.