Support NeoGAF

[Neoleo2143]

id contest that, and at the very least say that we've only scratched the surface. Outside of that fact that we've seen how most environmental elements can effectively be weaponized, we've seen evidence of but very few gameplay examples of various sizes and shapes of melee weapons that can be further imbued with elemental damage buffs

I mean that there's really only three basic weapon movesets in the game. I wasn't counting the weapons with special properties like the elemental rods and the Korok leaf. But the game does allows you access to potentially all three movesets at any time which is what prevents it from being too detrimental.

 

[Joeshabadoo]

i see isee, you're talking strictly the two handed large sword type, the one-handed sword type that might also include stuff like the fire rod, and then spear type weapons?

Yea, those appear to be the three main types seen so far, Im expecting some more that introduce different animations and hit properties

 

[MoonFrog]

I agree about healing. They actually showed off how Horizon's healing worked in a Japanese gaming showcase and it's instant but it doesn't break the flow which is smart and much appreciated.

I can't help but feel that having low durability on items is the only way to make loot more consistently valuable in these sorts of games. Which encourages exploration in the game. You want to find these things because they can improve your arsenal and you're encouraged to engage with the other mechanics so as to not wear down more valuable tools. Of course this is assuming a lack of ability to repair stuff (which is why durability mechanics in most games fail to do anything).

There are only really a couple weapon types in BoTW. So in general, I don't think you'd be deprived of a weapon style that often if at all unless you choose to break your own stuff with the throw mechanic. So really rather than weapons being "trusty", it's the movesets that are constant.

I guess a large part of where I'm coming from is a) I get sentimental about equipment in games, b) I don't like too much inventory clutter, especially inventory that you actually use rather than just stuff that disappears to the back and gets forgotten, and c) I'm not into the idea of playing Zelda for this shifting sandbox combat thing in the first place.

What you are saying goes after why what they are doing could be very good design as to c), and I hadn't really thought about that. Perhaps, I will appreciate it when I play the game (a and b will always pose an issue with respect to it for me, I'm assuming, but beyond that), but right now I'm leery of it and anxious that this is what BotW is about, rather than just being the surface of the game.

Think about it this way, they were able to keep people interested in just watching hours of gameplay from just the tutorial area and tutorial shrines. They even mentioned that the shrines will get involved and there's a rumor each one has a different designer so repetition shouldn't be a big problem besides maybe aesthetically. And ALBTW already got them feedback on how to make free roam Zelda engaging.

They already fixed pretty much the main issue with ALBW's open structure. The fact that they couldn't assume which items you had from the start led to a flat complexity curve in every dungeon. However, they give you most of your main puzzle items right off the bat in this game which allows them to make complex puzzles immediately when you get off the plateau and if they want to they can just put another item with the intended property as needed in the shrine(so they could just toss a Korok leaf in a shrine where you have to blow things around which they could not do in ALBW).

Hmmm, you need to get those items to progress? That would be good.

 

[Elfstruck]

How can Zelda have less combat variety when you can pick up a giant metal door with magnetism and beat enemies to death with it? Or knock on enemy off a cliff with a gust of wind from a giant leaf?

Horizon looks great but it doesn't look like it will have as much variety as Zelda given what we've seen so far.

You can pick off parts from the dinos and kill them with it.

 

[Stider]

Guerilla is a mediocre studio that has a history of releasing mediocre to awful games. I don't have much faith in their ability to develop games. Especially in genres they have never developed in.

We know what we are going to get with Zelda. Not all Zelda games are amazing, but all main series Zelda games are good. Except for maybe those DS games.

I have no idea why anyone would put faith in a studio that has a history of releasing mediocre games. How it looks before launch is more often than not irrelevant to the quality of a game.

True, but this could be exactly what they needed. There was once another studio that put out games that didn't do too well/weren't too good. Then they made Final Fantasy. All it takes is to find that genre that matches well with you and the setting draws in the consumer. Now will this become the next FF, I doubt it, but there is potential there and most of the previews have been positive.

 

[Gsnap]

You can pick off parts from the dinos and kill them with it.

Cool. Like I said, Horizon looks really fun. But in terms of shear numbers and variety Zelda has shown more and will likely have more in the end product. Practically every loose item and natural element in the game is a tool you can use in combat.

Hell, it also has enemies that you can take parts off of and use as weapons.

 

[MoonFrog]

Yeah, maybe it is because I'm not invested and not interested, but I think Horizon will turn out at least good enough to please many but not all those hyped for it. Just seems to be where the previews, footage, etc. is atm, again looking from the outside.

I think BotW will do the same, but I am interested, so I'm quite worried from time to time as to how I'll take to it personally. Usually, I'm on board with where Zelda is going and the narrative Aonuma and co. are taking of change from previous entries. This time, I'm not. So I'm a bit concerned.

It makes sense. I loved SS, and the (spoken) fan reaction seemed largely negative.

 

[Neoleo2143]

I guess a large part of where I'm coming from is a) I get sentimental about equipment in games, b) I don't like too much inventory clutter, especially inventory that you actually use rather than just stuff that disappears to the back and gets forgotten, and c) I'm not into the idea of playing Zelda for this shifting sandbox combat thing in the first place.


Hmmm, you need to get those items to progress? That would be good.

I completely understand the inventory clutter. I'm not too worried about it when if comes to most tools because of the throw mechanic and the quick select (it would be awful if they didn't have a quick select but with it switching items should be the same speed as in previous zelda games). You can literally throw away weapons in this game which is honestly pretty funny to think about.

In general, I don't think it'll be too problematic but it might be a tad annoying.

On the last part, it's not that you need to "get" those items to progress (as they're not permanent items), it's more that they can design puzzles with those items in mind without worrying too much about the player's tool kit going in besides the player having sharp objects, a bow, the paraglider and the Runes.

 

[nycgamer4ever]

I don't really expect them to be alike. Horizon Zero Dawn seems like the typical ARPG.

And zelda looks like a typical zelda game, with open world tropes. Like come on. Why are we even comparing a long standing beloved franchise with a new IP?

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

Horizon seems far more similar to Rise of the Tomb Raider than Zelda to me.

I say that in the best possible way. I adored RotTR

 

[Afrocious]

I have no idea where the love for Horizon comes from.

 

[Neoleo2143]

Horizon seems far more similar to Rise of the Tomb Raider than Zelda to me.

I say that in the best possible way. I adored RotTR

I really liked RotTR too. The first snowy forest section of that game is one of the best moments of the generation for me.

I don't dispute that claim though I think Rise would have probably better traversal on average because it borrows more from the movement of the prince of persia games.

And zelda looks like a typical zelda game, with open world tropes. Like come on. Why are we even comparing a long standing beloved franchise with a new IP?

It's a typical Zelda game which breaks most of the tropes that the series has become associated with. Which makes it atypical.

 

[Joeshabadoo]

I do hope that some sort of quick use item slot comes in to play at some point in BotW, mainly to queue up food or potions, help avoiding being in menus too too often

 

[Vader1]

Wow, couldn't disagree more about the environments. I mean, I would say Horizon's are much more dense and Zelda's much more barren, but you say that like it's a bad thing. Less atmospheric? How? I don't get that.

Because in nature, environments do have less "going on" in them, it's more about the scenery and feeling/vibes. Too much going on makes me feel restricted and blocks any potential for scenic views. I say atmospheric because of the art style, Horizon looks very ultra-polished and shiny while BotW looks more like an impressionist art painting.

 

[MoonFrog]

I completely understand the inventory clutter. I'm not too worried about it when if comes to most tools because of the throw mechanic and the quick select (it would be awful if they didn't have a quick select but with it switching items should be the same speed as in previous zelda games). You can literally throw away weapons in this game which is honestly pretty funny to think about.

In general, I don't think it'll be too problematic but it might be a tad annoying.

On the last part, it's not that you need to "get" those items to progress (as they're not permanent items), it's more that they can design puzzles with those items in mind without worrying too much about the player's tool kit going in besides the player having sharp objects, a bow, the paraglider and the Runes.

Okay, I thought you were talking about the runes. You're talking about using standard drops in puzzles? That is a benefit of the interactive environment and physics stuff. It does raise worries about how tight and specific the puzzles are, but it helps furnish a basic tool set. I am worried about the runes and the shrines though, how much are they going to be able to play with those outside their own dungeon? Especially with the more open environmental manipulation they risk people either not needing them or it not being obvious they need them and need to go look for more runes.

It is good that they have throwing and that it is incentivized by extra damage if I understand it correctly.

As to sentiment, it's attachment to the character and character growth. Attachment to I had kokiri sword but now I have the master sword. There is a progressive structure to old Zeldas that has developed meaning over time and also just has meaning as any progression system does. I'm worried about a lack of growth of Link, which is funny because I'm also leery of too much RPG in my Zelda.

I bet the Master Sword is in the game, armor seems durable, they said items get more durable iirc, etc. but still not an aesthetically pleasing game system to me, at least from here.

 

[Lady Gaia]

I have no idea where the love for Horizon comes from.

The original concept art and core idea captured a lot of attention. The lush visuals helped build momentum. Positive reports from hands-on time with basic exploration and combat have been consistently positive, and that all adds up to a fair bit of hope for the title. Some key hires have helped lessen fears that Guerrilla won't have any idea how to deliver a compelling story, but we won't really know until people dig into the finished game.

Still, why shouldn't people be hopeful about something that intrigues them? Sure, there's always the potential that it falls apart in some key aspect of execution, but I'd rather hope we get another developer capable of delivering compelling games than the contrary. Guerrilla are certainly capable enough on the technology front, and they seem at least aware of the nature of the challenge in taking another step.

Sony has a reasonable track record of growing this kind of talent. Naughty Dog made great strides over the course of a single generation, so we know it's possible.

Because in nature, environments do have less "going on" in them, it's more about the scenery and feeling/vibes. Too much going on makes me feel restricted and blocks any potential for scenic views.

That's one of the most absurd claims I've heard. Nature produces infinite levels of detail, even in apparently barren environments. There will be plenty of open, scenic vistas in both games, and doubtless some close-quarters environments as well. Both developers are playing to their strengths with the capabilities of their platforms in mind when it comes to choosing an artistic style. What appeals to you is a matter of personal preference, not objective judgement.

It's obvious to everyone that the Zelda franchise has a richer history and Nintendo's tradition of gameplay excellence. That doesn't mean it appeals equally to everyone, or that there isn't plenty of room for other developers and other games. The two titles are my #1 and #2 most anticipated games for 2017. I'll be playing, and hopefully enjoying both from beginning to end – but I expect rather different experiences from them. That's great, as I happen to like diversity in my gaming.

 

[VeryNicePerson]

Horizon graphics are good but it looks too similar to killzone shadowfall especially the first semi open world level. Same lighting, colors, rocks and stuff. Other than that it might ne goid but then again its GG..

Is this a bad thing?

 

[Kenzodielocke]

Is this a bad thing?

They have always had great art design imo.

 

[wenaldy]

I have no idea where the love for Horizon comes from.

Lead writer of New Vegas. Not to mention lot of good impressions based on demo.

 

[FATALITY]

Comparison

Horizon plays better than Zelda
Horizon looks better than Zelda
Horizon has voice acting
Horizon has more enemies variety


Overall yeah Zelda is not in the same league.

 

[Mango Positive]

Both games are going to be amazing and probably not all that similar. Speaking only for myself (duh), I'm more looking forward to Horizon, but that might just be my new PS4 Pro and 4K HDR capable TV talking.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

Comparison

Horizon plays better than Zelda
Horizon looks better than Zelda
Horizon has voice acting
Horizon has more enemies variety


Overall yeah Zelda is not in the same league.

It's impossible to believe Guerrilla Games could make a game on par or better than a blue blood like Zelda. Ironically enough I noticed the comparisons were started by diehard Zelda fans. Comparing the two games makes no sense to me. It's like they feel threatened that their open world game might not be the only darling of 2017.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Guerilla "have yet to make anything above decent in our entire career" Games will make a better video game than Nintendo's Zelda team

wow, bold stuff here

 

[FATALITY]

wow, bold stuff here

wtf is this?
since when i said that?

 

[pastrami]

wow, bold stuff here

Oh come on. Is this kind of shit really necessary?

Like, is it really that big of a deal if someone believes Horizon looks better than Zelda?

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I'm excited for both. Definitely much more for Horizon though as it's a new IP (where as I've been playing Zeldas for 25+ years) and I vastly prefer the art style.

 

[SolidSnakex]

The shrines are like absolutely not comparable to the tombs from the Tomb Raider reboot. Not even close. The first few plateau shrines were merely tutorials for the abilities you get in them but we got a glimpse of the later ones not seen on the plateau and they were easily more complex, involved and longer.

I'm just talking about what we've seen. They're very straight forward physics based puzzles. During their big E3 stream I saw around five or so shrines completed. The longest was probably Kam Yatakh. It was longest not because the puzzles were now more complex, but because there were simply more of them in the shrine.

Like I said, i'm sure that there are going to be more complex puzzles down the line. But they haven't shown them. But what they've shown so far is very much on the level of a tomb in the reboot of TR.

 

[SmokedMeat]

On one hand, Zelda never shines in the combat aspect, on the other hand, Nintendo have placed great emphasis on how to approach combat situation in Botw. Let's use the TGA footage as an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na1cIOmfBlU

When walking into the ruin area, Bill was immediately spotted by two snipers who have insane detection range.





As Bill stayed on ground level, he was quickly shot to death by those snipers. When the gamepad was handed to Nate, he decided to go a different way, which is apparently the area on the left hand side of the second image.



He climbed up the cliff so that he was able to avoid detection and to sneak up on the sniper.





He also gain an altitude advantage that the sniper far away had difficulty to snipe him.



While the combat of Botw may seem lacking variety, this short video proves that the game is in fact challenging if you are not prepared for a combat. I think this create much depth in respect of combat, which is why I am really looking forward to Botw.

This is not an example of challenging combat and depth. Maybe for Zelda this is fresh and new, but It's routine in other games.

 

[DriftingSpirit]

It's impossible to believe Guerrilla Games could make a game on par or better than a blue blood like Zelda. Ironically enough I noticed the comparisons were started by diehard Zelda fans. Comparing the two games makes no sense to me. It's like they feel threatened that their open world game might not be the only darling of 2017.

I don't get it. One has to be (considerably) worse than the other and in Horizon's case, there isn't any reason to be interested at all, apparently.

 

[Tripolygon]

While the combat of Botw may seem lacking variety, this short video proves that the game is in fact challenging if you are not prepared for a combat. I think this create much depth in respect of combat, which is why I am really looking forward to Botw.

This is one of the simplest gaming mechanic, and Its used in a lot of games. Sniper with perfect vision on a hill

Oh I wasn't referring to your post. The poster who put up the horseback gifs said horizon had more variety. And I think we kind of have to all agree that's false based on what we know of both games. It's possible that poster hasn't seen all the e3 footage, though.

Actually no, we don't have to kinda agree on anything. I created those gifs from E3 footage, i've watched almost 3hrs worth of E3 Zelda footage and BoTW looks to be one of, if not the best Zelda game to date and the only Zelda game i've liked is Wind Waker. That being said, Horizon appeals to me more than Zelda and i find its combat more varied.

The reason why i say that is when dealing with a Boss like in the gif i posted, Zelda is more constrained to using arrows while in Horizon you can use different types of arrows, bomb traps, rope to tie it down etc etc. It could just mean that we haven't been shown different ways to deal with that particular boss in Zelda hence my conclusion.

On a different note, while we can compare anything, i don't see why both games are being compared.

 

[shiftplusone]

the TGA footage for BOTW looked like assbutt. absolute shit framerate, foggy and washed out, uninteresting combat (some QTE shit and throwing bombs or whatever) but it's by a studio that has made good games before(though the last time zelda was any good was 2003, not counting remakes or ports)

Horizon is by a studio that hasn't made a good video game before, but its a new genre and it looks interesting.


I'm more optimistic for Horizon, but won't be day 1 on it due to the track record

 

[FATALITY]

the TGA footage for BOTW looked like assbutt. absolute shit framerate, foggy and washed out, uninteresting combat (some QTE shit and throwing bombs or whatever) but it's by a studio that has made good games before(though the last time zelda was any good was 2003, not counting remakes or ports)

Horizon is by a studio that hasn't made a good video game before, but its a new genre and it looks interesting.


I'm more optimistic for Horizon, but won't be day 1 on it due to the track record

metacritic
kz 2 - 91
kz 3 - 83

what u qualify as a good video game?

 

[Omnistalgic]

This discussion with Hermen Hulst and John Gonzalez about Horizon is a great listen. The amount of detail they're putting into the game world is awesome.

Yeah, I think both games will surprise many, and excel in different areas. Based on what I've watched

Horizon
- More engaging and fun combat like Monster Hunter
- Higher Visual achievements
- Souls-like challenge w/boss fights
- Fun & Interesting story

Zelda BOTW
- Unique Puzzles and Dungeons as most Zelda titles achieve
- Very varied gameplay scenarios because of all the psychics-based mechanics
- Greater Freedom than your average open-world game
- classic fun combat/charm/nostalgia Zelda titles are known for

 

[sugarhigh4242]

I don't see much comparison between these games. No moreso than Oblivion, Skyrim, Witcher3, Dragon Age Inquision, etc. Outdoor open world involving horses is pretty much the extent of it. There have been more than a few of these.

Horizon is an action RPG with a fully voiced narrative, and 3rd person shooter/sealth mechanics. Zelda looks like it's continuing the Ocarina of Time design philosophy with a bigger open world.

 

[Tripolygon]

metacritic
kz 2 - 91
kz 3 - 83

what u qualify as a good video game?

I think the argument is, Zelda has had a lot of critical successes with most releases. Guerilla has had 2 critical successes and 2 ok games. So they cancel out each other and that means guerrilla is not a good developer. Or it could just be because Killzone is not as successful as CoD and Battlefield in the shooter space. Either way its a nonsensical argument.

 

[sanstesy]

I'm just talking about what we've seen. They're very straight forward physics based puzzles. During their big E3 stream I saw around five or so shrines completed. The longest was probably Kam Yatakh. It was longest not because the puzzles were now more complex, but because there were simply more of them in the shrine.

Like I said, i'm sure that there are going to be more complex puzzles down the line. But they haven't shown them. But what they've shown so far is very much on the level of a tomb in the reboot of TR.

No, not even from the ones we've seen are they on the same level. Most of the 7 tombs in the reboot of Tomb Raider consist of exclusively one puzzle set-piece that is extremely straight-forward and if we are generous here also have additional small "platforming" segments. Not all comparable to the few off-plateau shrines we saw that, like you said, feature more puzzle set pieces but also are solvable in multiple ways and engage with way more physics-based gameplay mechanics. The level design is fundamentally on a different level.

 

[MiamiWesker]

No, not even from the ones we've seen are they on the same level. Most of the 7 tombs in the reboot of Tomb Raider consist of exclusively one puzzle set-piece that is extremely straight-forward and if we are generous here also have additional small "platforming" segments. Not all comparable to the few off-plateau shrines we saw that, like you said, feature more puzzle set pieces but also are solvable in multiple ways and engage with way more physics-based gameplay mechanics. The level design is fundamentally on a different level.

Agreed, unless he only saw the tutorial shrines at the start of the stream. The stuff they showed after was far more complex than anything in the recent TR games.

 

[sanstesy]

Agreed, unless he only saw the tutorial shrines at the start of the stream. The stuff they showed after was far more complex than anything in the recent TR games.

He probably just means the duration time of the shrines themselves which is pretty worthless to compare when one has seven and the other has over a hundred of those.

 

[shiftplusone]

metacritic
kz 2 - 91
kz 3 - 83

what u qualify as a good video game?

I think the argument is, Zelda has had a lot of critical successes with most releases. Guerilla has had 2 critical successes and 2 ok games. So they cancel out each other and that means guerrilla is not a good developer. Or it could just be because Killzone is not as successful as CoD and Battlefield in the shooter space. Either way its a nonsensical argument.

I also said in that post:

I'm more optimistic for Horizon, but won't be day 1 on it due to the track record

(though the last time zelda was any good was 2003, not counting remakes or ports)

and

but sure lets focus on only the guerilla part since sony's honor is being "attacked"

my post was very obviously in my opinion but coming at me with the metacritic defense implies otherwise, so let me directly state:

IMO, Their previous output has been bad, and zelda has not been good for over a decade

I think guerilla has a lot to prove with their new game, as does Nintendo. I think Guerilla is closer to the goal than Nintendo, since nothing about BOTW has been impressive (IMO so this same shit doesn't start from those people)

 

[Vader1]

That's one of the most absurd claims I've heard. Nature produces infinite levels of detail, even in apparently barren environments. There will be plenty of open, scenic vistas in both games, and doubtless some close-quarters environments as well. Both developers are playing to their strengths with the capabilities of their platforms in mind when it comes to choosing an artistic style. What appeals to you is a matter of personal preference, not objective judgement.

I'm not saying you're wrong at all. I'm also not saying that all environments are like this--admittedly, there are jungles, forests, etc. But the "details" that you're referring to are more the very small things like small rocks or blades of grass mixed with ponds and water, not always the packed-in boulders and houses I saw in Horizon's E3 gameplay. There is just more open space in BotW, which does indeed mirror the reality of much of nature. And this is totally a personal preference thing, never claimed otherwise.

 

[Polygonal_Sprite]

I'm looking forward to buying both on day one. Having said that I much prefer BotW's artstyle.

 

[Gsnap]

Actually no, we don't have to kinda agree on anything. I created those gifs from E3 footage, i've watched almost 3hrs worth of E3 Zelda footage and BoTW looks to be one of, if not the best Zelda game to date and the only Zelda game i've liked is Wind Waker. That being said, Horizon appeals to me more than Zelda and i find its combat more varied.

The reason why i say that is when dealing with a Boss like in the gif i posted, Zelda is more constrained to using arrows while in Horizon you can use different types of arrows, bomb traps, rope to tie it down etc etc. It could just mean that we haven't been shown different ways to deal with that particular boss in Zelda hence my conclusion.

On a different note, while we can compare anything, i don't see why both games are being compared.

It's perfectly fine for Horizon to appeal to you more. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But the reason I say we have to agree that Zelda has more variety, is because variety is neither opinion, nor some nebulous concept. It's about the number of things we can do as the player, and the number of things that can happen because of the things we can do. As of right now, based on the information we have, Zelda has more options and more interactions, leading to more possible/emergent outcomes, and therefore, more variety.

You can fight that boss by shooting arrows at it like in horizon (Zelda even has different arrow types as well), or you can hack away at it with regular weapons, off or on horseback, or use bombs. Maybe go on a bombing raid from the sky via the paraglider, or like I said before, you can get crazy with the environment. Slam its face with a giant metal rod via magnetism, launch a boulder at it with stasis, whatever the hell you want.

And obviously if we're going to compare these things, we're not just comparing boss to boss, but the entire game. And from what we've seen Zelda has far more variety, hands down. Shield surf down a hill and launch off a ramp, pull out your bow and go into slow-mo, shoot a beehive to make one enemy run away, then shoot the grass with a fire arrow causing an updraft, then use your paraglider to gain height again, then fly over an enemy and bomb them, then create more fire, glide up again, then do a falling sword strike on an enemy for critical damage. The enemies are defeated before you even touch the ground. Run around and collect all the weapons, and then the guy who ran away from the bees comes back to find his outpost destroyed and no weapons for him to use against you. He picks up a rock and throws it at you, and you smack it back like a baseball, hitting him in the face, toying with him. That's just one relatively simple scenario based on what we know of the game.

So yeah, I agree that the games don't need to be compared at all. I'm gonna play both of them because they both look fun. But if the comparisons are already being made, then yeah, I'll jump in and defend Zelda's clearly superior combat variety.

 

[Elfstruck]

Cool. Like I said, Horizon looks really fun. But in terms of shear numbers and variety Zelda has shown more and will likely have more in the end product. Practically every loose item and natural element in the game is a tool you can use in combat.

Hell, it also has enemies that you can take parts off of and use as weapons.

Who knows what other things Horizon have in store when it comes to combat? Besides, I think this topic is just stupid in my opinion. If it's anything, OP should just compare Horizon vs. TW3.

 

[Neoleo2143]

Actually no, we don't have to kinda agree on anything. I created those gifs from E3 footage, i've watched almost 3hrs worth of E3 Zelda footage and BoTW looks to be one of, if not the best Zelda game to date and the only Zelda game i've liked is Wind Waker. That being said, Horizon appeals to me more than Zelda and i find its combat more varied.

The reason why i say that is when dealing with a Boss like in the gif i posted, Zelda is more constrained to using arrows while in Horizon you can use different types of arrows, bomb traps, rope to tie it down etc etc. It could just mean that we haven't been shown different ways to deal with that particular boss in Zelda hence my conclusion.

I don't think they're really comparable battles. One's a high speed chase that recalls the famous monster attack scene from Princess Mononoke and the player is tasked with arcing arrows at long distance (while not being given the lines to Arc said arrows which increases the skill floor) while moving at high speed vs another fast moving object. It's less "varied" but more demanding especially so since the player was exposed to the knowledge that the enemy is capable of killing them in an instant on the Great Plateau.

The other is an encounter where the player is presented with a relatively slow moving enemy where Aloy is intended to roll through all of their attacks confidently. The player getting on the mount while cool, looks pointless as it makes them into a sitting duck for this particular foe. As such, it seems to follow a similar general approach to what will likely apply to many other enemies in the game. Scan the enemies to identify weakpoints and elemental weaknesses, apply said weaknesses by using the appropriate ammo type, break off their weaponry using the hardpoint arrows, tie them down with the Ropecaster, use the I-frames from the roll to dodge as needed. What's left is then execution which doesn't seem too demanding since the enemy only deals about a fifth of Aloy's health upon a hit and the generous I-frames from the roll can be used as needed due to the apparent lack of a Stamina gauge. Aloy's Bow is basically a Hitscan weapon which you can also slow down time to hit weakpoints which makes the skill floor relatively lower for aiming (which isn't bad, there's a lot of unconventional weakpoints in this game which would be extremely annoying to hit without Gyro controls on Console). In my opinion, this fight was less interesting than the Thunderjaw fight shown off first because that fight seemed centered around the beast's armor and using its own weaponry to break it off to expose its primary weakpoint. It also used more of Aloy's moveset. What makes this fight really cool is the destruction on display. It's a visually interesting encounter, especially so when I saw the woodchips from the houses spinning about. Really awesome stuff. However, this encounter is miles better than the boring encounters in any of their shooters though. It's amazing what going away from that design can do for a group exposed to making combat focused games.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Comparison

Horizon plays better than Zelda
Horizon looks better than Zelda
Horizon has voice acting
Horizon has more enemies variety


Overall yeah Zelda is not in the same league.

You're basing this off of Zelda's tutorial area. That's pretty funny.

 

[Gsnap]

Who knows what other things Horizon have in store when it comes to combat?

Nobody. But we're not talking about what we don't know. We're talking about what we do know. Based on all the information we have right now, Zelda has more variety.

 

[Neoleo2143]

You're basing this off of Zelda's tutorial area. That's pretty funny.

In Zelda's tutorial area there were about 9 or so different enemies which were supposed to teach about the basics of combat in an organic manner. I like that there's a nice clean trade off between night and day, you can run into undead enemies at night but day associated enemies go to sleep.

I think Horizon using Aloy's younger self as a tutorial is also quite smart. It can help endear them to the player and establishes firmly that she was struggling with certain issues her whole life with the player in control while giving a good narrative reason why she can't leave the village during the tutorial. So far, they've also shown off 9 or so different enemies in total but unlike Zelda's they're more complex in term of weakpoint placement and general construction.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

In Zelda's tutorial area there were about 9 or so different enemies which were supposed to teach about the basics of combat in an organic manner. I like that there's a nicely clean trade off between night and day, you can run into undead enemies at night but day associated enemies go to sleep.

I think Horizon using Aloy's younger self as a tutorial is also quite smart. It can help endear them to the player and establishes firmly that she was struggling with certain issues her whole life with the player in control. So far, they've also shown off 9 or so different enemies in total but unlike Zelda's they're more complex in term of weakpoint placement and general construction.

We've seen plenty of Horizon footage and gameplay from beyond its tutorial. That's the point.

We've only seen one short Zelda segment beyond its tutorial, which featured two new enemies.

 

[Peltz]

BotW looks far more interactive. Horizon just looks like a standard open world game (pretty and fun as that may be).

Being able to set fire to objects and play around with physics to the extent that Zelda promises really feels like it has the potential to break new ground.

I'm probably not going to buy Horizon. But I'll be there day 1 for Zelda.

 

[Neoleo2143]

We've seen plenty of Horizon footage and gameplay from beyond its tutorial. That's the point.

We've only seen one short Zelda segment beyond its tutorial, which featured two new enemies.

Well, one new enemy. The Moblin was shown off in the reveal trailer albeit with a seemingly different moveset. That being said, the Lizalfos seem to be explictly utilized for various different encounters whether it be a more intense 1 V 1 encounter, an encouraged stealth section or a flurry of ranged combat and a surprise attack.

BotW looks far more interactive. Horizon just looks like a standard open world game (pretty and fun as that may be).

Being able to set fire to objects and play around with physics to the extent that Zelda promises really feels like it has the potential to break new ground.

I'm probably not going to buy Horizon. But I'll be there day 1 for Zelda.

Systemic fire was already done in Far Cry 2. In fact Zelda seems to take a lot of its design from Far Cry minus the checklist stuff(which is Okay by me because the Check list design in Far Cry is total Ass as is the upgrading in that game which Zelda Streamlines).

Actually, I'd say that Zelda: BoTW is likely going to be what Far Cry should be.