Definitely agreed, The WItcher 3 is the last game I remember that actually didn't feel like it was wasting my time if I engage in side content...games have become overloaded with distractions because they're trying to be as many things at once as possible to attract the most players...in FW's case, there's too much random stuff that detracts me from the core game, fighting machines and stopping bad guys No, I don't want to spend so much time in the crafting menu, gathering random resources that don't come as part of the core gameplay, just to slightly upgrade a weapon, it feels completely unrewarding and daunting to do Forbidden West could have easily had the in-game features cut in half and it wouldn't change the overall experience one bit...great game, great story (not as good as the first but a decent followup), great character moments, gorgeous world, and too much distraction
I am a huge fan of the franchise and spend about 800 hours in both horizon games combined. I feel like the open world experience depends hugely on what difficulty you play and how frequently you fast travel. I played my first playthrough of Hfw on Ultra hard and finished all main missions only lacking some arena and fighting pits. It was one of the most intese games I've ever played. I upgraded my weapons without a meaningless grind but by doing errands and side quests that felt challenging. Every boss presented a new and different challenge and I was forced to improve and adapt to get further. The open world felt immersive since nearly every machine was an actual danger to me and I had to decide when to engage and when to sneak around. My second play through was on normal to 100% the game and upgrade all weapons. Of course the second time is always less entertaining but the open world seemed more empty. You don't really have to watch out for machines in the wilderness, most of the gear seems unnecessary since you can kill everything with normal arrows and apart from some stat upgrades the skill tree was unnecessary. The side quests felt not important. All in all this game seems to be not that good for people just wanting to fight crazy machines with a bit of story/mystery. I personaly loved the game expirience, I'm invested in the story and love to help these various people to find/use "ancient artifacts" in side quests. I enjoy to wittnes what remains of us in the "future" and what "future" people think of it and to recognise buildings and items I know in a different setting. I also love the characters and humor that went into this game and I'm love saving the world while making friends from different tribes. I would not have played the game if it wasn't open world like the first one. I just like to lose myself in another world. I can understand why people do not love the open world aspect (in this game) and I played 2 Ubisoft open world games where I felt the same but the world of Hfw is so interesting and colourful that I wouldn't want to miss it
I couldn't agree more. I think you raise an interesting point about the difficulty settings one plays on affecting how useful game mechanics feel and how much attention one pays to the game world. I think that can be applied to many games. By the way, I've also finished the game on ultra hard (though not on my first playthrough). I don't think I would find it engaging enough on normal to finish after getting accustomed to ultra hard :)
My main issue with HFW was that it felt really bloated. Like many other sequels these days it felt like the designers couldn't come up with something useful to add to the combat mechanic, so they went for "just toss in more stuff!". The damage types in HZD were a nice idea and well implemented. Easy to read from the enemy's appearance most of the time, sensible effects etc. There was enough variation to keep things somewhat interesting, but it didn't get bogged down. HFW adds so many "different" damage types that it just gets tedious to me. It felt like every second encounter I had to switch weapons again because none of my equipped weapons covered the weakness the current enemies had. Adding to that: The weapons are now more "specialized". Instead of just using different ammo to get different damage types, which kinda made sense, you now have to switch another version of the same weapon to do that for some reason. Another effect of the increased number of damage types: To get all those in there, you also get "colored versions" of every enemy type pretty much immediately, something that just annoys me to no end. Yes, HZD had those, too, but HFW throws them in your face almost from the beginning... Same goes for melee: HZD's melee was "okay" in that it served its purpose in a game that's mostly about hunting with a bow. The melee system was good enough to get you out of a tight spot and that's about it. HFW just had to add "more" to that, so we end up with a fairly big skill tree and an involved melee system that's honestly just a waste in design and production time, because I really doubt many people enjoyed that enough to actually use it to a meaningful extent. But hey! It's a feature you can show off in preview events, I guess? The "more chaotic" fights are also another symptom of "we need more stuff in there!": In HZD, a few enemies threw around AoE attacks to get you moving. Those enemies did so fairly "sparingly", though. Also, bigger enemies _sometimes_ charged at you etc. In HFW, the frequency of AoE attacks feels a lot higher and many enemies, especially bigger ones, seem to spend most of their time right in your face. Together with the higher particle density, that makes the whole thing "more chaotic" or "very hard to tell what's going on". Add to that the typical "open world syndrome" and I'm just not a very big fan of HFW. It's a bit like Doom Eternal vs Doom 2016 for me. Doom 2016 was pretty much perfect for what it was. Doom Eternal, to me, adds a ton of unnecessary and distracting bloat on top just so the marketing department had something to advertise.
@@nine9_abyss There's a difference between "complex" and "bloated" or "messy". I'm fine with complex games, I just dislike shoving more unnecessary crap on top of a combat design that was pretty well tuned before that. As I said, IMO the designers of HFW failed to find anything useful to actually add _depth_ (i.e. complexity) to the game, so instead they opted for "more". That doesn't make it deeper, though. It's just adds shallow puddles.
@@MR-vg7yn whatever you say man. I'll just leave with this, the problems you have are a non issue at all. They just gave you more choice. That's it. It's what sequels usually do? What were you expecting, an overhaul? Good luck with that. Also, I find it weird for people to say they liked hzd but not hfw, considering it's a direct sequel. That's like saying you like gow2018 but not ragnarok.
@@nine9_abyss Sorry, but "they just gave you more choice" shows you put zero thought into this. Game design isn't like a menu in a restaurant where I get to pick and choose what I like without being affected by anything I didn't order (and even there, many people wouldn't say a huge menu will bog down the kitchen und ruin food quality). Also, most of the things I talked about aren't a choice to begin with: The entire combat system is hampered by increasing the number of damage types from 6 to 12. There is absolutely no choice there? I _have_ to constantly switch between weapons in a cluttered up inventory and fight differently colored "variations" of the same enemy for that reason alone. "It's what sequels usually do": A lot of the times, yes... that's also why many sequels aren't any better or often worse than the originals. I took a fair amount of time explaining why I liked HFW a lot less than HZD. You just chose to ignore the reasons I gave, so why would I care whether you think my opinion is "weird" when you can't be bothered to think about it and your own opinion for a few minutes? Honestly, for Ragnarok: It has some of the same issues, but not to the extent of HFW. There's quite a bit of unnecessary clutter in there just to have "more features than the prequel", but very little of it actually gets in the way of the core gameplay. In HFW, a lot of the additions do, and do so all the time.
Absolutely agree with the side content detracting from the experience of main story! I think open world games should do away with check list activities and go with how Breath of the Wild does side content - with special quests or interesting activities within landmark locations, whilst the vast expanse of land used for traversal or wildlife - being a really nice reprieve from the combat and story.
My issue with the open world is that it felt samey, specifically in the people you meet. My main point is that they all talk and behave the same (not 100% obviously) but they don't have regional dialects or even accents. Their mannerisms feel like those of people in 2024. Another problem I have is that I didnt really care about the people I met, I didnt care about their culture because I knew that Aloy was more correct, and that the villagers' interpretation of the world was wrong. Also because Aloy was able to defeat hoards of machines pretty much by herself, nobody felt like a challenge for her, so I never cared to listen to any of them. My second point is Aloy is portrayed as knowing everything and able to overcome everything that the NPCs felt like NPCs instead of real characters.
I didn't even think about this but this is a great point. They don't really manage to create a convincing civilization because most of the characters do just talk like people do nowadays, which isn't what we would expect for this almost completely different human society.
Holy shit someone who has the opinion I've always had about this franchise! Pleasure to meet you. Ever since zero dawn, there was a nagging feeling in me that this game didn't need to be open world, that it's just doing it to pad out the runtime. I felt it again with Forbidden west, but less so. It just doesn't need to be. Everything open world about it feels tacked on. It's clear they had only the main story, and worked backwards from it to the open world idea.
Yeah this is exactly how I feel. I wish they hadn't locked themselves in to making the sequel open world. Not to mention an even larger world than the first game too, which just makes the game way too long with too much filler.
@@adamplays8552 agreed. The amount of unfocused side content in HFW reminded me why I find open world games so exhausting and unlikable. Why can't the God of War template be the sweet middle ground?
Oh true yeah God of War (and GoW Ragnarök) is a great example. It even has like smaller sections that are almost kinda open world, and Horizon could've benefitted from that for sure.
You don't have to do the bloat. Just do the Main Mission in Story Mode. (The bloat is to level up. Won't need to level up as fast in Story Mode). I played this on console and when I got the PC version that is what I did. I did that because I wanted to have access to the flying sooner. Also that unlocks abilities and weapons sooner so I don't need to spend resources upgrading weapons I would eventually replace. If you like to hunt, both games are good for this. The story and characters are not interesting to me. I revisit both games the most of the other games I have. There seems to be an unlimited amusing ways to do things. I seem to come up with things to try. The game responds in interesting ways I have not expected. Also you are plenty OP to do the bloat after the Main mission. I also revisit both games because her animation and the machines feel more real than other games I've have (which their animations seem to be stuck in the past).
"You don't have to do the bloat" isn't a good argument, nor the point. If it's there, it's a part of the experience and needs to be evaluated in your review of the game. In this case, it meant dilution of the quality of the game.
@@Nimbus3690 so it boils down to reviews? So the only people complaining are content creators. I rather the game goes on forever. More bang for the buck.
@0x8badbeef wow I've never seen someone so unashamedly ask for quantity over quality before. To each their own, i guess. To your first question, if the review illustrates the quality of your experience with the game, then obviously it boils down to that. A piece of art that goes on forever is no art at all; it is incomplete. There is nothing infinite that can remain great. Quality always sees a decline with increasing quantity. More bang for your buck has an upper limit. Past that, you start to see negative value to the point where you've wasted your money. There are 10 hour games with fantastic story and quality that surpass these sprawling, meandering open world games in value.
@@Nimbus3690 that is not what I'm implying. I rather have quality over quantity. But that is not how businesses work. They work in separate teams. They also have new hires. You got to give them something to do. That is why most of the bloat has no connection to the main story. So there is no dilution at all. They are separate tasks.
@0x8badbeef well if you want quality, then a game cannot go on forever, and not even for as long as some of these open worlds do. As a consumer, why would I care about the 'how' behind the scenes? All I should care about is what I spent my money on, which is the game as a whole. It's not my problem, nor should it be, that they have too many people working on the game who end up creating the bloat. Sounds like they should get that sorted out. Cull the fluff, bring in a tighter team and work scope. Their poor management making the product weaker is a problem, not a cope for me to excuse the weakness with. All i can do is judge the final product, not the behind the scenes.
You didn't feel like it was made just for the main story in a linear format, and then repackaged with a bunch of fluff to stretch it to open world framework?
I would have loved Horizon if it was a linear but Horizon is one of those very few games I've ever played that truly feel like they were made for me in every aspect. While I despise open world games, I loved just admiring the beauty of the world, uncovering its secrets, the remains of ancient battlefield. I especially loved finding those vantage/vista points and black boxes and listen to those stories in audiologs. It'll never cease to amaze me how much worldbuilding and deep lore Horizon has and I want more.
@End7essness that's crazy haha I am of the opposite mind. I didn't really like the extra lore because a lot of it seemed unfocused or unrelated to the main narrative. Just random ads or corporate emails about business stuff. In ZD, at least they had that suicidal Indian guy leaving journal entries, who ends up spying on the zero dawn project and all the unethical stuff they were doing on, providing a different angle on the story. That made me wanna keep collecting those entries. In FW, there's no such thing. It's just.... noise for the most part. I liked some of the more emotional ones like the logs of the guy who designed the Vegas Poseidon thing, how somber he was to leave his hometown to sleep indefinitely, especially since I lived in Vegas for a while lol but other than that, the writing is pretty mediocre and the weapons too many. Could've easily tightened up the whole thing. I hate open worlds for the exact reason HFW was an open world. But of course, I'm glad you enjoyed it :) it's a 7/10 for me
My problem is that the writing was very poor... The combat is weird, you start the fight in one point and you end up in another session of the map. There is no block
AAA games are not made for you, the game purchaser/player anymore. You are not the customer. If you buy it or not has little impact on what's made. You have to look at how these games are funded. It USED to be that a game studio paid developers to make a game, they sell that game, and the sales recoup the money spent, likely funding the next game in the process. However nowdays, Studios bring investors into a room and make them promises on a game they INTEND to make. then the money to pay for the game is given by the investors. The studio doesn't pay for the game anymore. Now, the studio just needs to fullfill all the promises they made to investors. They promise an online model because that is popular. Open world, just like Skyrim and other popular games. They promise microtransations because that's how you make Fortnight money. They promise a release date. Then they just have to make that game. Who cares if you buy it? It already sold before they made it. You aren't the customer. If the game does well or poorly no longer matters to the studio. The studio is just salesmen selling an investment opportunity to investors. You aren't even participating in the economy anymore. You can't afford it. I can't either.
I’m playing through HFW right now (about 60% done I’m guessing). I have a number of complaints but I think this game could have done a good job with the open world. In other words I don’t think the fact that it’s an open world game is the problem, I think it’s the way they gave us the open world game (plus some other complaints not related to the open world).
So, in conclusion, you would have preferred HFW to be a game that tasks you with an endless list of machines to destroy while doing away with the plot of the game, aka the reason why getting past machines is necessary. Did I get that right? I have to say I have a hard time following your logic. You love The Witcher 3 - a very narrative heavy game, including its side quests - you praise HZD for its intreguing main mystery but you criticize HFW repeatedly for daring to have you talk to NPCs before pointing you to the next machine fight. On the different game mechanics you mentioned: Mellee Combat -> It being barely developed at all in HZD seems to not impact your opinion on that game at all yet you consider the improved mellee system in HFW a strike against this game. Also, how did you manage to one-shot most human enemies when the developer made a point out of equipping most of them with helmets this time around? At least on higher difficulty that definitely isn't a thing. Contrary to HZD where headshoting human combatants was my preferred strategy. Traversal system -> Somehow adding pullcaster, shield wing and flying mounts as well as overhauling the wall climbing to free the player from following predetermined pathes of yellow handholds made traversal less engaging in your opinion. Interessting. Also, I know, gliders not being much use when standing in a valley is a real oversight in their construction. Crafting system -> If you don't care much for crafting items you are of course free to ignore and dislike it but don't you think that from a worldbuilding perspective there is a point in having it. The main character being a huntress surviving in the wilds in a world where hunting machines for parts to be used in crafting/tinkering is a cornerstone of the economy. If you would clarify any of these points I would appreciate it a great deal since your video left me rather baffled.
i couldn't stand Zero West and still want my money back. Got it on sale some time after the PC launch, and it's just the same boring-ass bloated open-world bullshit the entire AAA industry can't stop fucking making ffs. i am so *goddamn tired* of it, god. I blame zelda for this, cuz breath of the wild kinda started the trend and it's still a mid-ass open-world *at best.*
Open world games today are structured like a linear game... And horizon does this the worest. It worked in zero dawn, because it was their first open world and the story structure was compelling. Also GG forgott the robots is whats cool in horizon. How about hacking a robot that u can upgrade with other robots parts.. that would give alot of fun gameplay.
if HZD/HFW wasn't an Open World game it wouldn't be a Game seens u travel from place to place or u wanna have loading screens each 10 mins? and apperantly u never played any Horizon game seens they specificly told u that u should use MOST of the time your bow NOT spear and actually the side content of HFW was awesome and why a game is made to be an Open World?to keep u busy longer than a Single Playerr Narative game like Plague Tale Requieme
@christonchev9762 it wouldn't be a game if it wasn't open world? What are you talking about? There are a ton of single player games where you travel a lot. Didn't stop them.
I agree with you Not every game needs to be open world Upgrading weapons in HZD tanks more time and effort than in HFW and if you do not upgrade your weapons make you feel that you getting weaker even if it possible to beat the game without upgrading it
i love open world games. the familiarity with maps and techniques help me relax. running around and doing dumb side quest shit in games like hxd or botw/totk are what i like most about these games. the big machine fights are fun too, but that takes second to exploration. and there -are- high quality games that are way less open. i've really been enjoying armored core 6, stellar blade, and black myth wukong, and they're much more linear. hell, wukong is basically a boss rush game. i wish they were open world, but alas. [can you imagine traversing a huge open world with ac6 mechanics? holy hell that would be fun.] but yeah, not everyone is going to appreciate every aspect of every game. some people just want the entree, and some people want the whole buffet.
Guys I should’ve turned on a light in my room :(
Definitely agreed, The WItcher 3 is the last game I remember that actually didn't feel like it was wasting my time if I engage in side content...games have become overloaded with distractions because they're trying to be as many things at once as possible to attract the most players...in FW's case, there's too much random stuff that detracts me from the core game, fighting machines and stopping bad guys
No, I don't want to spend so much time in the crafting menu, gathering random resources that don't come as part of the core gameplay, just to slightly upgrade a weapon, it feels completely unrewarding and daunting to do
Forbidden West could have easily had the in-game features cut in half and it wouldn't change the overall experience one bit...great game, great story (not as good as the first but a decent followup), great character moments, gorgeous world, and too much distraction
I am a huge fan of the franchise and spend about 800 hours in both horizon games combined. I feel like the open world experience depends hugely on what difficulty you play and how frequently you fast travel. I played my first playthrough of Hfw on Ultra hard and finished all main missions only lacking some arena and fighting pits. It was one of the most intese games I've ever played. I upgraded my weapons without a meaningless grind but by doing errands and side quests that felt challenging. Every boss presented a new and different challenge and I was forced to improve and adapt to get further. The open world felt immersive since nearly every machine was an actual danger to me and I had to decide when to engage and when to sneak around. My second play through was on normal to 100% the game and upgrade all weapons. Of course the second time is always less entertaining but the open world seemed more empty. You don't really have to watch out for machines in the wilderness, most of the gear seems unnecessary since you can kill everything with normal arrows and apart from some stat upgrades the skill tree was unnecessary. The side quests felt not important. All in all this game seems to be not that good for people just wanting to fight crazy machines with a bit of story/mystery. I personaly loved the game expirience, I'm invested in the story and love to help these various people to find/use "ancient artifacts" in side quests. I enjoy to wittnes what remains of us in the "future" and what "future" people think of it and to recognise buildings and items I know in a different setting. I also love the characters and humor that went into this game and I'm love saving the world while making friends from different tribes. I would not have played the game if it wasn't open world like the first one. I just like to lose myself in another world. I can understand why people do not love the open world aspect (in this game) and I played 2 Ubisoft open world games where I felt the same but the world of Hfw is so interesting and colourful that I wouldn't want to miss it
I couldn't agree more. I think you raise an interesting point about the difficulty settings one plays on affecting how useful game mechanics feel and how much attention one pays to the game world. I think that can be applied to many games.
By the way, I've also finished the game on ultra hard (though not on my first playthrough). I don't think I would find it engaging enough on normal to finish after getting accustomed to ultra hard :)
HFW is an open world done right.
My main issue with HFW was that it felt really bloated. Like many other sequels these days it felt like the designers couldn't come up with something useful to add to the combat mechanic, so they went for "just toss in more stuff!".
The damage types in HZD were a nice idea and well implemented. Easy to read from the enemy's appearance most of the time, sensible effects etc. There was enough variation to keep things somewhat interesting, but it didn't get bogged down. HFW adds so many "different" damage types that it just gets tedious to me. It felt like every second encounter I had to switch weapons again because none of my equipped weapons covered the weakness the current enemies had. Adding to that: The weapons are now more "specialized". Instead of just using different ammo to get different damage types, which kinda made sense, you now have to switch another version of the same weapon to do that for some reason.
Another effect of the increased number of damage types: To get all those in there, you also get "colored versions" of every enemy type pretty much immediately, something that just annoys me to no end. Yes, HZD had those, too, but HFW throws them in your face almost from the beginning...
Same goes for melee: HZD's melee was "okay" in that it served its purpose in a game that's mostly about hunting with a bow. The melee system was good enough to get you out of a tight spot and that's about it. HFW just had to add "more" to that, so we end up with a fairly big skill tree and an involved melee system that's honestly just a waste in design and production time, because I really doubt many people enjoyed that enough to actually use it to a meaningful extent. But hey! It's a feature you can show off in preview events, I guess?
The "more chaotic" fights are also another symptom of "we need more stuff in there!": In HZD, a few enemies threw around AoE attacks to get you moving. Those enemies did so fairly "sparingly", though. Also, bigger enemies _sometimes_ charged at you etc. In HFW, the frequency of AoE attacks feels a lot higher and many enemies, especially bigger ones, seem to spend most of their time right in your face. Together with the higher particle density, that makes the whole thing "more chaotic" or "very hard to tell what's going on".
Add to that the typical "open world syndrome" and I'm just not a very big fan of HFW. It's a bit like Doom Eternal vs Doom 2016 for me. Doom 2016 was pretty much perfect for what it was. Doom Eternal, to me, adds a ton of unnecessary and distracting bloat on top just so the marketing department had something to advertise.
Sounds like you just like simpler stuff.
@@nine9_abyss There's a difference between "complex" and "bloated" or "messy".
I'm fine with complex games, I just dislike shoving more unnecessary crap on top of a combat design that was pretty well tuned before that.
As I said, IMO the designers of HFW failed to find anything useful to actually add _depth_ (i.e. complexity) to the game, so instead they opted for "more". That doesn't make it deeper, though. It's just adds shallow puddles.
@@MR-vg7yn whatever you say man. I'll just leave with this, the problems you have are a non issue at all. They just gave you more choice. That's it. It's what sequels usually do? What were you expecting, an overhaul? Good luck with that.
Also, I find it weird for people to say they liked hzd but not hfw, considering it's a direct sequel. That's like saying you like gow2018 but not ragnarok.
@@MR-vg7yn the number of extra weapons in this game that go on unused is crazy.
@@nine9_abyss Sorry, but "they just gave you more choice" shows you put zero thought into this.
Game design isn't like a menu in a restaurant where I get to pick and choose what I like without being affected by anything I didn't order (and even there, many people wouldn't say a huge menu will bog down the kitchen und ruin food quality).
Also, most of the things I talked about aren't a choice to begin with: The entire combat system is hampered by increasing the number of damage types from 6 to 12. There is absolutely no choice there? I _have_ to constantly switch between weapons in a cluttered up inventory and fight differently colored "variations" of the same enemy for that reason alone.
"It's what sequels usually do": A lot of the times, yes... that's also why many sequels aren't any better or often worse than the originals.
I took a fair amount of time explaining why I liked HFW a lot less than HZD. You just chose to ignore the reasons I gave, so why would I care whether you think my opinion is "weird" when you can't be bothered to think about it and your own opinion for a few minutes?
Honestly, for Ragnarok: It has some of the same issues, but not to the extent of HFW. There's quite a bit of unnecessary clutter in there just to have "more features than the prequel", but very little of it actually gets in the way of the core gameplay. In HFW, a lot of the additions do, and do so all the time.
I found it too boring compared to the original which was an amazing experience
Absolutely agree with the side content detracting from the experience of main story!
I think open world games should do away with check list activities and go with how Breath of the Wild does side content - with special quests or interesting activities within landmark locations, whilst the vast expanse of land used for traversal or wildlife - being a really nice reprieve from the combat and story.
My issue with the open world is that it felt samey, specifically in the people you meet. My main point is that they all talk and behave the same (not 100% obviously) but they don't have regional dialects or even accents. Their mannerisms feel like those of people in 2024.
Another problem I have is that I didnt really care about the people I met, I didnt care about their culture because I knew that Aloy was more correct, and that the villagers' interpretation of the world was wrong. Also because Aloy was able to defeat hoards of machines pretty much by herself, nobody felt like a challenge for her, so I never cared to listen to any of them. My second point is Aloy is portrayed as knowing everything and able to overcome everything that the NPCs felt like NPCs instead of real characters.
I didn't even think about this but this is a great point. They don't really manage to create a convincing civilization because most of the characters do just talk like people do nowadays, which isn't what we would expect for this almost completely different human society.
Holy shit someone who has the opinion I've always had about this franchise! Pleasure to meet you.
Ever since zero dawn, there was a nagging feeling in me that this game didn't need to be open world, that it's just doing it to pad out the runtime. I felt it again with Forbidden west, but less so. It just doesn't need to be. Everything open world about it feels tacked on. It's clear they had only the main story, and worked backwards from it to the open world idea.
Yeah this is exactly how I feel. I wish they hadn't locked themselves in to making the sequel open world. Not to mention an even larger world than the first game too, which just makes the game way too long with too much filler.
@@adamplays8552 agreed. The amount of unfocused side content in HFW reminded me why I find open world games so exhausting and unlikable. Why can't the God of War template be the sweet middle ground?
Oh true yeah God of War (and GoW Ragnarök) is a great example. It even has like smaller sections that are almost kinda open world, and Horizon could've benefitted from that for sure.
You don't have to do the bloat. Just do the Main Mission in Story Mode. (The bloat is to level up. Won't need to level up as fast in Story Mode). I played this on console and when I got the PC version that is what I did. I did that because I wanted to have access to the flying sooner. Also that unlocks abilities and weapons sooner so I don't need to spend resources upgrading weapons I would eventually replace. If you like to hunt, both games are good for this. The story and characters are not interesting to me. I revisit both games the most of the other games I have. There seems to be an unlimited amusing ways to do things. I seem to come up with things to try. The game responds in interesting ways I have not expected. Also you are plenty OP to do the bloat after the Main mission. I also revisit both games because her animation and the machines feel more real than other games I've have (which their animations seem to be stuck in the past).
"You don't have to do the bloat" isn't a good argument, nor the point. If it's there, it's a part of the experience and needs to be evaluated in your review of the game. In this case, it meant dilution of the quality of the game.
@@Nimbus3690 so it boils down to reviews? So the only people complaining are content creators. I rather the game goes on forever. More bang for the buck.
@0x8badbeef wow I've never seen someone so unashamedly ask for quantity over quality before. To each their own, i guess. To your first question, if the review illustrates the quality of your experience with the game, then obviously it boils down to that. A piece of art that goes on forever is no art at all; it is incomplete. There is nothing infinite that can remain great. Quality always sees a decline with increasing quantity. More bang for your buck has an upper limit. Past that, you start to see negative value to the point where you've wasted your money. There are 10 hour games with fantastic story and quality that surpass these sprawling, meandering open world games in value.
@@Nimbus3690 that is not what I'm implying. I rather have quality over quantity. But that is not how businesses work. They work in separate teams. They also have new hires. You got to give them something to do. That is why most of the bloat has no connection to the main story. So there is no dilution at all. They are separate tasks.
@0x8badbeef well if you want quality, then a game cannot go on forever, and not even for as long as some of these open worlds do.
As a consumer, why would I care about the 'how' behind the scenes? All I should care about is what I spent my money on, which is the game as a whole. It's not my problem, nor should it be, that they have too many people working on the game who end up creating the bloat. Sounds like they should get that sorted out. Cull the fluff, bring in a tighter team and work scope. Their poor management making the product weaker is a problem, not a cope for me to excuse the weakness with. All i can do is judge the final product, not the behind the scenes.
PvZ music at 5:12 is killing me
Nah, I'm fine with Horizon being Open World. Most Open World games bore me. Horizon Didn't. It's just a matter of personal taste.
Same. Normally I dislike open world games but I love both Horizons and really looking forward to 3rd.
You didn't feel like it was made just for the main story in a linear format, and then repackaged with a bunch of fluff to stretch it to open world framework?
I would have loved Horizon if it was a linear but Horizon is one of those very few games I've ever played that truly feel like they were made for me in every aspect. While I despise open world games, I loved just admiring the beauty of the world, uncovering its secrets, the remains of ancient battlefield. I especially loved finding those vantage/vista points and black boxes and listen to those stories in audiologs. It'll never cease to amaze me how much worldbuilding and deep lore Horizon has and I want more.
@End7essness that's crazy haha I am of the opposite mind. I didn't really like the extra lore because a lot of it seemed unfocused or unrelated to the main narrative. Just random ads or corporate emails about business stuff. In ZD, at least they had that suicidal Indian guy leaving journal entries, who ends up spying on the zero dawn project and all the unethical stuff they were doing on, providing a different angle on the story. That made me wanna keep collecting those entries. In FW, there's no such thing. It's just.... noise for the most part. I liked some of the more emotional ones like the logs of the guy who designed the Vegas Poseidon thing, how somber he was to leave his hometown to sleep indefinitely, especially since I lived in Vegas for a while lol but other than that, the writing is pretty mediocre and the weapons too many. Could've easily tightened up the whole thing. I hate open worlds for the exact reason HFW was an open world. But of course, I'm glad you enjoyed it :) it's a 7/10 for me
My problem is that the writing was very poor...
The combat is weird, you start the fight in one point and you end up in another session of the map.
There is no block
very good video, love your style of explaining things, and your charisma. But that jerk off light in the dark is very amateur hahahah
thank you :) hahah I know I will fix it in the next video for sure
240p webcam go hard lol.
AAA games are not made for you, the game purchaser/player anymore. You are not the customer. If you buy it or not has little impact on what's made. You have to look at how these games are funded. It USED to be that a game studio paid developers to make a game, they sell that game, and the sales recoup the money spent, likely funding the next game in the process. However nowdays, Studios bring investors into a room and make them promises on a game they INTEND to make. then the money to pay for the game is given by the investors. The studio doesn't pay for the game anymore. Now, the studio just needs to fullfill all the promises they made to investors. They promise an online model because that is popular. Open world, just like Skyrim and other popular games. They promise microtransations because that's how you make Fortnight money. They promise a release date. Then they just have to make that game. Who cares if you buy it? It already sold before they made it. You aren't the customer. If the game does well or poorly no longer matters to the studio. The studio is just salesmen selling an investment opportunity to investors. You aren't even participating in the economy anymore. You can't afford it. I can't either.
Crosscode sound track!
That problem seems personal...to each their own! 🤷♂️
I’m playing through HFW right now (about 60% done I’m guessing). I have a number of complaints but I think this game could have done a good job with the open world. In other words I don’t think the fact that it’s an open world game is the problem, I think it’s the way they gave us the open world game (plus some other complaints not related to the open world).
I stopped playing HFW right before the end fight. I just couldn´t give a fuck about the story. I was bored out of my mind.
Its the ubisoft open world formula.
It gets very repetitive and formulaic.
So, in conclusion, you would have preferred HFW to be a game that tasks you with an endless list of machines to destroy while doing away with the plot of the game, aka the reason why getting past machines is necessary. Did I get that right?
I have to say I have a hard time following your logic. You love The Witcher 3 - a very narrative heavy game, including its side quests - you praise HZD for its intreguing main mystery but you criticize HFW repeatedly for daring to have you talk to NPCs before pointing you to the next machine fight.
On the different game mechanics you mentioned:
Mellee Combat -> It being barely developed at all in HZD seems to not impact your opinion on that game at all yet you consider the improved mellee system in HFW a strike against this game. Also, how did you manage to one-shot most human enemies when the developer made a point out of equipping most of them with helmets this time around? At least on higher difficulty that definitely isn't a thing. Contrary to HZD where headshoting human combatants was my preferred strategy.
Traversal system -> Somehow adding pullcaster, shield wing and flying mounts as well as overhauling the wall climbing to free the player from following predetermined pathes of yellow handholds made traversal less engaging in your opinion. Interessting. Also, I know, gliders not being much use when standing in a valley is a real oversight in their construction.
Crafting system -> If you don't care much for crafting items you are of course free to ignore and dislike it but don't you think that from a worldbuilding perspective there is a point in having it. The main character being a huntress surviving in the wilds in a world where hunting machines for parts to be used in crafting/tinkering is a cornerstone of the economy.
If you would clarify any of these points I would appreciate it a great deal since your video left me rather baffled.
I fully agree😊
i couldn't stand Zero West and still want my money back. Got it on sale some time after the PC launch, and it's just the same boring-ass bloated open-world bullshit the entire AAA industry can't stop fucking making ffs.
i am so *goddamn tired* of it, god. I blame zelda for this, cuz breath of the wild kinda started the trend and it's still a mid-ass open-world *at best.*
Open world games today are structured like a linear game... And horizon does this the worest. It worked in zero dawn, because it was their first open world and the story structure was compelling. Also GG forgott the robots is whats cool in horizon. How about hacking a robot that u can upgrade with other robots parts.. that would give alot of fun gameplay.
The king is back
Horizon games are the best.
if HZD/HFW wasn't an Open World game it wouldn't be a Game seens u travel from place to place or u wanna have loading screens each 10 mins? and apperantly u never played any Horizon game seens they specificly told u that u should use MOST of the time your bow NOT spear and actually the side content of HFW was awesome and why a game is made to be an Open World?to keep u busy longer than a Single Playerr Narative game like Plague Tale Requieme
@christonchev9762 it wouldn't be a game if it wasn't open world? What are you talking about? There are a ton of single player games where you travel a lot. Didn't stop them.
HE'S BACK
🫨
dragon age inquisition is another ame that shouldnt have been open world
I agree with you
Not every game needs to be open world
Upgrading weapons in HZD tanks more time and effort than in HFW and if you do not upgrade your weapons make you feel that you getting weaker even if it possible to beat the game without upgrading it
i love open world games. the familiarity with maps and techniques help me relax. running around and doing dumb side quest shit in games like hxd or botw/totk are what i like most about these games. the big machine fights are fun too, but that takes second to exploration.
and there -are- high quality games that are way less open. i've really been enjoying armored core 6, stellar blade, and black myth wukong, and they're much more linear. hell, wukong is basically a boss rush game. i wish they were open world, but alas.
[can you imagine traversing a huge open world with ac6 mechanics? holy hell that would be fun.]
but yeah, not everyone is going to appreciate every aspect of every game. some people just want the entree, and some people want the whole buffet.
Wrong. I can't even imagine a linear Horizon game. The world was a big part of the immersion.