Neoleo2143
Member
I wanted to make this sort of thread ever since E3 2016 ended since it reaffirmed so many details about Zelda that created these comparisons. These two games are among my most anticipated titles of 2017 alongside others such as Ni-Oh and Persona 5. But it was so surprising to see two games that are so oddly similar to each other on such large scale. Not just in combat gameplay mechanics like combining melee with Ranged combat with light RPG numbers but also thematically and setting wise. Theyre both nature driven post-apocalyptic action adventures.
If you're on complete blackout for any of these games, I suggest not reading because I will be taking my observations from every available trailer so far and thus there will be spoilers for gameplay.
I will lay out my immediate bias and say that I personally prefer Zelda's direction overall due to the mechanical and environmental focus of its storytelling over the more explicit narrative storytelling present in Horizon which I'm disappointed by in the voice acting department. Horizon speaks to me as some awesome B grade action movie so far with the potential to develop something interesting. Zelda speaks to me as something not necessarily deeper but more quaint which appeals to me more than the usual action mixed with drama.
On a technical level, I feel Horizon handily outmatches Zelda visually and I feel the art shines through much better than Zelda's art which seems held back by its hardware. Otherwise, I don't feel qualified enough to comment on visuals.
There will also be some speculation because neither of these games have been released.
Now hopefully what I can offer in my observations will be worthwhile.
Theme
The most obvious theme that can be pointed out here is the tension between mankind, technology and Nature. Both Nintendo and Guerrilla Games have spoken about being influenced by Japanese animation and Princess Mononoke respectively in creating their respective games and naturally that theme of humanity's relationship with Nature was a large theme of that film and numerous other Studio Ghibli films as well. I feel that both games go about this differently however.
Horizon's Robotic animals are pretty much integrated with the ecosystem of the world no differently from fleshy creatures such as Birds or humans. It describes that AI advanced enough to behave in an animal like manner can potentially coexist with nature without destroying it completely and effectively means that new "life" can be born outside the definition of being cellular based organisms. Aloy in the trailer seems to treat the robots no differently than if they were animals with flesh which seems to reaffirm this from a cultural viewpoint in the world. It shows how limited the definition of life and is an interesting spin on a classic Sci-Fi trope of androids being living beings. Only it's less androids and humans and more robot crocodiles and birds.
Zelda seems to take a different approach to this. The Guardians are seemingly framed as part of the disaster that ultimately destroyed Hyrule 100 years in the past. Nature has largely overtaken technology rather than there being some close mixture. Design wise, the Guardians resemble octorocks, but they still don't appear like any living creation we understand in real life and have simpler AI to merely destroy or guard. They're alien in design to standout against nature. However, that same sort of disastrous technology that Link has is deemed as necessary to end the crisis and restore order in the form of the Sheikah Slate and various other forms of Sheikah Technology. It frames nature as the natural order of things and technology as the pieces that tip the scales in one direction or another. It can destroy the world and they can fix its mistakes and rebuild it. Technology is a chaotic force in the orderly world of nature much to the detriment of humanity.
Combat
Both of these games feature protagonists that use melee and ranged tactics to defeat their foes. Specifically, they predominantly use bows as the ranged weapon of choice. . Both of them have elemental properties to these weapons however Horizon has more ammo types than Zelda such as arrow types that are better for breaking off robot weapons. In return you can craft ammo on the fly in Horizon while you can't in Zelda. It seems most of the properties of weapons don't have any use outside combat in Horizon (aside for the use of the Ropecaster to tie down Broadheads).
The Ropecaster is the most interesting weapon in Horizon and is where I feel most of the emergent moments in the design of the game will come from. It allows the player to use the environment and enemies in really unique ways that both serve as traps that are more interesting than a simple mine or as a finisher on enemies. The versatility of the weapon is in my opinion what makes it the defining weapon of the game and what sets it apart from Zelda most substantially since in comparison, the ability to set traps in Zelda is somewhat limited aside for triggering placed bombs by using arrows. While in Horizon, you can set a Trip wire, slide under it like a badass and set it off to trap some unsuspecting robots.
Horizon's enemy design lends itself to weakpoint placement for most enemies that's much more interesting than the norm and I think is the most interesting aspect of the combat. Enemies have weapons under their bodies which you have to slide to get to or drop weapons to use if you break them off. It's a damn cool feature that recalls Monster Hunter in really neat ways. Zelda seems to stick to head shots like other games outside bosses who have odder weakpoints which is somewhat disappointing if you ask me.
Both games have a sliding technique of sorts. In Horizon, it's an actual slide though I don't think you can aim to the side of the player character, you're limited in your aiming it seems which is fine since most of the enemy design takes that into account. Zelda has Shield surfing which allows the player to aim in the direction that they wish to shoot which seems more gimmicky and more of a technique for more advanced players to look cool (and it drains your shield's durability anyway).
Both games have Slow down techniques, in Horizon this is a skill that can be triggered by the player as they wish but overusing it puts it on cooldown. I think this is because of the more awkward weakpoints in this game and allows the player more leeway in hitting these weakpoints in addition to allowing them to feel really awesome. Zelda's slowdown is more contextual. You can only trigger it by pulling out the bow in reasonable midair (or from a paraglider) and it drains all your stamina (unless you cancel it with the paraglider) which essentially makes it into a high risk high reward move. Once again this seems to be more of a tool for advanced players to play with rather than a fundamental core of gameplay.
For defensive techniques, Horizon seems to simply use a defensive roll with I-frames or the unlimited sprint which is fitting with its faster paced combat. Timing the roll is all the game asks of you. But this likely to allow the player to create space with the enemy as many of these enemies are aggressive and appear in packs. Zelda has a bit of extra depth in this regard as the dodge in zelda has no I-frames which means you have to not only react with the button press to the enemy's attack but also have to hit the right direction as enemies have strikes that can cover either the backflip or the side step. Perfecting the dodge timing rewards the player with massive damage. In addition you also have the ability to parry enemies which can throw them off balance for a knockdown and disarm them which factors into another aspect of the combat in addition to being able to parry apparently any ranged attack. You can also sprint much like Horizon but this consumes stamina that could be used on a charge attack or slow motion arrows.
Melee Combat wise Horizon's seems intentionally basic. You have heavy and light attacks (and other special moves we've not seen yet) but so far it seems they're either for conserving resources or a last resort rather than the primary means to engage an enemy outside a stealth attack. Enemies on the ground such as Watchers can actually damage you in their squirming. Melee seems to have this commitment to strikes in general which seems indicative of its usefulness (at least prior to any skill upgrades). There's also no lock on with this melee system. Zelda's melee combat seems more in depth but not substantially so. There are only three types of melee weapons and they have 4 attacks on their own (Dash attack, standard attack, jump attack, charge attack) before adding in weapons with special properties such as Fire Rods. However, the game allows using all of the available weapons at any given moment since the quick select pauses the game (which also applies to Horizon's weapon wheel). In mid-range, Link can also throw items which deal double damage on hit which can encourage a strategy of stealing enemy weapons to throw in their faces for bonus damage.
Overall, Zelda makes hybrid combat more of a focal point with rewards and downsides to both while Horizon seems to lean closer to using ranged weaponry due to the nature of its enemy design, and Aloy's offensive and defensive moveset emphasizing creating space.
Traversal and Map design
Horizon's Traversal appears surprisingly simple. You have a slide, infinite sprint and the ability to capture a broadhead temporarily which acts like a horse. You can also climb certain surfaces assassin's creed style which is needed in order to unlock information about the surrounding region. Taking this in mind, the area design to me seems to be more like wide valleys which all connect to each other. This grants clear direction for the player to follow and easily allow the designers to cut downtime between combat for a more controlled pacing which is needed in a game which focuses on combat as much as Horizon does. There are defined paths between each area as a result and deviating from the path serves as the opportunity to explore.
Zelda's traversal is a bit more complex. Like Horizon, you can capture a Horse for usage. You have the sprint as well but this is limited quickly by stamina which creates the incentive to explore other options such as paragliding and Shield Surfing. Shield Surfing is somewhat limited but turns into something with reasonable depth when you learn about how different surfaces interact with it which prompts jumping and paragliding at the correct times to maximize distance covered. The paraglider covers major distances but requires link to be high up which gives an incentive to the Stamina based Climbing in Zelda which also has more depth and potential for failure than the Assassin's Creed Style. This more complex moveset to traverse the environment seems to create more varied area design in terms of gameplay. The desert to one side of the great plateau has many different elevations that loop around each other which gives paragliding and climbing a great opportunity to shine while the Plains to another side push horseback riding and hills of any kind push Shield surfing. As a result, the area design overall in Zelda seems more difficult to pin down than in Horizon. However, they seem to be equally matched when it comes to varied aesthetics in the environments that Link and Aloy traverse which is strongly appreciated in Open world titles.
Stealth
Horizon's Stealth is quite simple and that's great. It's most similar to Uncharted 4 where you crouch walk through grass that camouflages you and enemies have different states of awareness based on line of sight. Though occasionally, it seems the AI can still detect you through the grass as shown by the first demonstration of the game at E3 2015. The range for the Stealth attack seems quite generous. Stealth in this game seems more like a means to get the player to use the ropecaster in creative ways and begin encounters with some creative plans before delving into intensive reactive situations or as a means to avoid encounters outright, I doubt people want to fight thunderjaws constantly.
Zelda's Stealth uses a combination of Line of sight and a systemic noise mechanic which different animals and enemies having different levels of awareness based on those two factors. Wild Boars detect the noise you make better than the Bokoblins do while Lizalfos have far greater line of sight than other enemies. The noise you make is dependent on whether you have a buff equipped, the speed at which you crouch walk, the equipment you have (having an axe on your back will actually make more noise than if you were holding it) and the surface you're walking on. The stealth kill range is also much less forgiving than most stealth kills I've seen but it's the most efficient way to kill an enemy which is appropriate. Zelda's stealth mechanically seems closer in line with traditional stealth games seemingly minus the ability to escape back into stealth. The number of factors to consider appears to make it something to able to relish on its own rather than a pure complement to an action game, though this will also depend on encounter design.
Crafting/Cooking
I think one of the starkest differences between Horizon and Zelda is how they handle Crafting/Cooking.
In Horizon, Crafting is done through a menu process which can be opened at seemingly any time. You can craft health potions and traps in this menu. Traps seem to consume the same kinds of materials which make them into tradeoffs. In addition, the menu for switching ammo allows you to craft ammo on the fly enabling some potentially intriguing improvisational tactics. There's a continued emphasis on the flow of combat and Horizon is very deliberate in not trying to disrupt it.
Zelda on the other hand only allows cooking where there's fire and only the significant kind of cooking where there's a cooking pot to combine ingredients which you need fire to use as well. This means that there's some minor investment in using a cooking pot (as starting a fire requires flint or a fire rod or arrow with something flammable), and because you can't make stuff like Stamina or speed potions potions anywhere else which means preparation is emphasized. It also turns cooking into a reward for exploration as you search for potential cooking pots to find in the world.
Puzzles?
I haven't heard anything about Puzzles in Horizon and Zelda has many puzzles that use physics and tools to revolve around physics. It seems plain to me that Horizon's very lavish enemy design is the meat of the show there and should behave like a puzzle in and of itself to be solved which I believe Guerrilla have mentioned as their hopes for the game.
So hopefully, that should illustrate that in spite of appearing similar on the surface, Horizon and Zelda seem to be quite different entities in execution in elements of traversal, combat and crafting and their thematic approaches to technology and nature. I wanted to avoid being superficial in my comparison so that when I do get to playing these games Id be able to judge them fairly (even though I'm technically judging them now anyway if this observation list is anything to go by)
If you're on complete blackout for any of these games, I suggest not reading because I will be taking my observations from every available trailer so far and thus there will be spoilers for gameplay.
I will lay out my immediate bias and say that I personally prefer Zelda's direction overall due to the mechanical and environmental focus of its storytelling over the more explicit narrative storytelling present in Horizon which I'm disappointed by in the voice acting department. Horizon speaks to me as some awesome B grade action movie so far with the potential to develop something interesting. Zelda speaks to me as something not necessarily deeper but more quaint which appeals to me more than the usual action mixed with drama.
On a technical level, I feel Horizon handily outmatches Zelda visually and I feel the art shines through much better than Zelda's art which seems held back by its hardware. Otherwise, I don't feel qualified enough to comment on visuals.
There will also be some speculation because neither of these games have been released.
Now hopefully what I can offer in my observations will be worthwhile.
Theme
The most obvious theme that can be pointed out here is the tension between mankind, technology and Nature. Both Nintendo and Guerrilla Games have spoken about being influenced by Japanese animation and Princess Mononoke respectively in creating their respective games and naturally that theme of humanity's relationship with Nature was a large theme of that film and numerous other Studio Ghibli films as well. I feel that both games go about this differently however.
Horizon's Robotic animals are pretty much integrated with the ecosystem of the world no differently from fleshy creatures such as Birds or humans. It describes that AI advanced enough to behave in an animal like manner can potentially coexist with nature without destroying it completely and effectively means that new "life" can be born outside the definition of being cellular based organisms. Aloy in the trailer seems to treat the robots no differently than if they were animals with flesh which seems to reaffirm this from a cultural viewpoint in the world. It shows how limited the definition of life and is an interesting spin on a classic Sci-Fi trope of androids being living beings. Only it's less androids and humans and more robot crocodiles and birds.
Zelda seems to take a different approach to this. The Guardians are seemingly framed as part of the disaster that ultimately destroyed Hyrule 100 years in the past. Nature has largely overtaken technology rather than there being some close mixture. Design wise, the Guardians resemble octorocks, but they still don't appear like any living creation we understand in real life and have simpler AI to merely destroy or guard. They're alien in design to standout against nature. However, that same sort of disastrous technology that Link has is deemed as necessary to end the crisis and restore order in the form of the Sheikah Slate and various other forms of Sheikah Technology. It frames nature as the natural order of things and technology as the pieces that tip the scales in one direction or another. It can destroy the world and they can fix its mistakes and rebuild it. Technology is a chaotic force in the orderly world of nature much to the detriment of humanity.
Combat
Both of these games feature protagonists that use melee and ranged tactics to defeat their foes. Specifically, they predominantly use bows as the ranged weapon of choice. . Both of them have elemental properties to these weapons however Horizon has more ammo types than Zelda such as arrow types that are better for breaking off robot weapons. In return you can craft ammo on the fly in Horizon while you can't in Zelda. It seems most of the properties of weapons don't have any use outside combat in Horizon (aside for the use of the Ropecaster to tie down Broadheads).
The Ropecaster is the most interesting weapon in Horizon and is where I feel most of the emergent moments in the design of the game will come from. It allows the player to use the environment and enemies in really unique ways that both serve as traps that are more interesting than a simple mine or as a finisher on enemies. The versatility of the weapon is in my opinion what makes it the defining weapon of the game and what sets it apart from Zelda most substantially since in comparison, the ability to set traps in Zelda is somewhat limited aside for triggering placed bombs by using arrows. While in Horizon, you can set a Trip wire, slide under it like a badass and set it off to trap some unsuspecting robots.
Horizon's enemy design lends itself to weakpoint placement for most enemies that's much more interesting than the norm and I think is the most interesting aspect of the combat. Enemies have weapons under their bodies which you have to slide to get to or drop weapons to use if you break them off. It's a damn cool feature that recalls Monster Hunter in really neat ways. Zelda seems to stick to head shots like other games outside bosses who have odder weakpoints which is somewhat disappointing if you ask me.
Both games have a sliding technique of sorts. In Horizon, it's an actual slide though I don't think you can aim to the side of the player character, you're limited in your aiming it seems which is fine since most of the enemy design takes that into account. Zelda has Shield surfing which allows the player to aim in the direction that they wish to shoot which seems more gimmicky and more of a technique for more advanced players to look cool (and it drains your shield's durability anyway).
Both games have Slow down techniques, in Horizon this is a skill that can be triggered by the player as they wish but overusing it puts it on cooldown. I think this is because of the more awkward weakpoints in this game and allows the player more leeway in hitting these weakpoints in addition to allowing them to feel really awesome. Zelda's slowdown is more contextual. You can only trigger it by pulling out the bow in reasonable midair (or from a paraglider) and it drains all your stamina (unless you cancel it with the paraglider) which essentially makes it into a high risk high reward move. Once again this seems to be more of a tool for advanced players to play with rather than a fundamental core of gameplay.
For defensive techniques, Horizon seems to simply use a defensive roll with I-frames or the unlimited sprint which is fitting with its faster paced combat. Timing the roll is all the game asks of you. But this likely to allow the player to create space with the enemy as many of these enemies are aggressive and appear in packs. Zelda has a bit of extra depth in this regard as the dodge in zelda has no I-frames which means you have to not only react with the button press to the enemy's attack but also have to hit the right direction as enemies have strikes that can cover either the backflip or the side step. Perfecting the dodge timing rewards the player with massive damage. In addition you also have the ability to parry enemies which can throw them off balance for a knockdown and disarm them which factors into another aspect of the combat in addition to being able to parry apparently any ranged attack. You can also sprint much like Horizon but this consumes stamina that could be used on a charge attack or slow motion arrows.
Melee Combat wise Horizon's seems intentionally basic. You have heavy and light attacks (and other special moves we've not seen yet) but so far it seems they're either for conserving resources or a last resort rather than the primary means to engage an enemy outside a stealth attack. Enemies on the ground such as Watchers can actually damage you in their squirming. Melee seems to have this commitment to strikes in general which seems indicative of its usefulness (at least prior to any skill upgrades). There's also no lock on with this melee system. Zelda's melee combat seems more in depth but not substantially so. There are only three types of melee weapons and they have 4 attacks on their own (Dash attack, standard attack, jump attack, charge attack) before adding in weapons with special properties such as Fire Rods. However, the game allows using all of the available weapons at any given moment since the quick select pauses the game (which also applies to Horizon's weapon wheel). In mid-range, Link can also throw items which deal double damage on hit which can encourage a strategy of stealing enemy weapons to throw in their faces for bonus damage.
Overall, Zelda makes hybrid combat more of a focal point with rewards and downsides to both while Horizon seems to lean closer to using ranged weaponry due to the nature of its enemy design, and Aloy's offensive and defensive moveset emphasizing creating space.
Traversal and Map design
Horizon's Traversal appears surprisingly simple. You have a slide, infinite sprint and the ability to capture a broadhead temporarily which acts like a horse. You can also climb certain surfaces assassin's creed style which is needed in order to unlock information about the surrounding region. Taking this in mind, the area design to me seems to be more like wide valleys which all connect to each other. This grants clear direction for the player to follow and easily allow the designers to cut downtime between combat for a more controlled pacing which is needed in a game which focuses on combat as much as Horizon does. There are defined paths between each area as a result and deviating from the path serves as the opportunity to explore.
Zelda's traversal is a bit more complex. Like Horizon, you can capture a Horse for usage. You have the sprint as well but this is limited quickly by stamina which creates the incentive to explore other options such as paragliding and Shield Surfing. Shield Surfing is somewhat limited but turns into something with reasonable depth when you learn about how different surfaces interact with it which prompts jumping and paragliding at the correct times to maximize distance covered. The paraglider covers major distances but requires link to be high up which gives an incentive to the Stamina based Climbing in Zelda which also has more depth and potential for failure than the Assassin's Creed Style. This more complex moveset to traverse the environment seems to create more varied area design in terms of gameplay. The desert to one side of the great plateau has many different elevations that loop around each other which gives paragliding and climbing a great opportunity to shine while the Plains to another side push horseback riding and hills of any kind push Shield surfing. As a result, the area design overall in Zelda seems more difficult to pin down than in Horizon. However, they seem to be equally matched when it comes to varied aesthetics in the environments that Link and Aloy traverse which is strongly appreciated in Open world titles.
Stealth
Horizon's Stealth is quite simple and that's great. It's most similar to Uncharted 4 where you crouch walk through grass that camouflages you and enemies have different states of awareness based on line of sight. Though occasionally, it seems the AI can still detect you through the grass as shown by the first demonstration of the game at E3 2015. The range for the Stealth attack seems quite generous. Stealth in this game seems more like a means to get the player to use the ropecaster in creative ways and begin encounters with some creative plans before delving into intensive reactive situations or as a means to avoid encounters outright, I doubt people want to fight thunderjaws constantly.
Zelda's Stealth uses a combination of Line of sight and a systemic noise mechanic which different animals and enemies having different levels of awareness based on those two factors. Wild Boars detect the noise you make better than the Bokoblins do while Lizalfos have far greater line of sight than other enemies. The noise you make is dependent on whether you have a buff equipped, the speed at which you crouch walk, the equipment you have (having an axe on your back will actually make more noise than if you were holding it) and the surface you're walking on. The stealth kill range is also much less forgiving than most stealth kills I've seen but it's the most efficient way to kill an enemy which is appropriate. Zelda's stealth mechanically seems closer in line with traditional stealth games seemingly minus the ability to escape back into stealth. The number of factors to consider appears to make it something to able to relish on its own rather than a pure complement to an action game, though this will also depend on encounter design.
Crafting/Cooking
I think one of the starkest differences between Horizon and Zelda is how they handle Crafting/Cooking.
In Horizon, Crafting is done through a menu process which can be opened at seemingly any time. You can craft health potions and traps in this menu. Traps seem to consume the same kinds of materials which make them into tradeoffs. In addition, the menu for switching ammo allows you to craft ammo on the fly enabling some potentially intriguing improvisational tactics. There's a continued emphasis on the flow of combat and Horizon is very deliberate in not trying to disrupt it.
Zelda on the other hand only allows cooking where there's fire and only the significant kind of cooking where there's a cooking pot to combine ingredients which you need fire to use as well. This means that there's some minor investment in using a cooking pot (as starting a fire requires flint or a fire rod or arrow with something flammable), and because you can't make stuff like Stamina or speed potions potions anywhere else which means preparation is emphasized. It also turns cooking into a reward for exploration as you search for potential cooking pots to find in the world.
Puzzles?
I haven't heard anything about Puzzles in Horizon and Zelda has many puzzles that use physics and tools to revolve around physics. It seems plain to me that Horizon's very lavish enemy design is the meat of the show there and should behave like a puzzle in and of itself to be solved which I believe Guerrilla have mentioned as their hopes for the game.
So hopefully, that should illustrate that in spite of appearing similar on the surface, Horizon and Zelda seem to be quite different entities in execution in elements of traversal, combat and crafting and their thematic approaches to technology and nature. I wanted to avoid being superficial in my comparison so that when I do get to playing these games Id be able to judge them fairly (even though I'm technically judging them now anyway if this observation list is anything to go by)
