Yep and I accept your opinion with an open mind Pladio. :party:
Some members just like to antagonize and think their always right.

Thanks for the short review CRPGNut. I agree with you about the combat as critics compared the game to Witcher III on it's release. How far did you play the game?

You're welcome to have any opinion you want of course. You can claim water isn't wet if it suits you. Just don't get offended when people point out when you're obviously wrong.

Of course your opinion is the right one because that's how it works.

There's literally a new thread about someone asking for rpgs to play who says none of the gothic or risen games are rpgs. But it's OK JDR said he's right about all things concerning rpgs so just listen to him.

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

You've always nitpicked games in odd ways so I'm used to that from you. ;)

As someone who has played the game for 100+ hours, I thought it was really good. I'm a big fan of post-apoc though, and I know you're not, so that's probably the biggest difference.

If playing a fixed protagonist is that big a deal to you, then why did you get the game knowing that beforehand?

No, but when it's obvious that you're wrong, and yet you continue to argue anyways, you just start to look foolish after awhile.

There's little doubt HZD is an RPG. We've listed the reasons why, and the only thing you could come up with is that it's an action adventure because it doesn't have as much C&C as you like.

What makes you look even more foolish is that you've never even played the game.

Actually, there's a lot of doubt HZD is an RPG.
You have no choice in how you develop your character from a story perspective, i.e. roleplay a character. You're a person who listens to everyone and has no agency in the game at all. You can't decide on joining factions, you can't decide on how you complete quests, you can't decide who you are.

If you can't understand that then you're simply not looking.

If you think your opinion is the only one that matters, then maybe try using google as I'm not the only person who thinks it's not an RPG:

https://www.reddit.com/r/horizon/com…mainly_an_rpg/
https://forum.psnprofiles.com/topic/…really-an-rpg/


These are just two of the first threads I found by googling is HZD an RPG?

But if you want to be a wiseass, then so be it.

Just some replies for your reference:

Sure, I wouldn't expect you to be the only one this narrow-minded. :)

In any topic, there's always going to be a minority that wants to argue against common thinking.

Go back to pot meet kettle…

It's not because the devs call it an RPG that it's an RPG.

Correct. It's because it contains more than enough RPG aspects to be called an RPG by most people. Which is probably why it's considered an RPG in general and labeled as such.

I've got a novel idea. Rather than continuing to argue over a game you've never even played and looking foolish for it, why don't you actually try playing it? ;)

Well, since you're the only one thinking it's foolish and narrow-minded to look at reviews, websites and let's plays to judge a game, maybe I shouldn't listen to you…

Here's a novel idea, don't call people names and they might actually listen to what you have to say a bit more. It might make you a better person too.

You don't need to play every game ever made to make an informed opinion about it.

I've already pointed out that I'm certainly not the only one not counting it as an RPG and you dismiss that too. I'm done with you.

Would you like to point out where I said that about reviews, websites, and let's plays?
The majority of those are only going to verify that HZD is considered an RPG.

Rather than trying to lay out a valid argument about why HZD isn't an RPG, your response has basically just been "Some other people don't think it's an RPG either."

So yeah, I'm going to dismiss that.

I keep comparing it to another Post-Apoc game….

Let's do weapon classes:
HZD: Spear, Bows, Ropegun, Sling/bombs, Rattler
F4: Pistols, Rifles, Pipe, Shotguns, Heavy Weapons, Laser, Plasma, Alien, Gama, Zeta, Poison, Grenades, Mines, Flares, Traps, Swords, Knives, Axe, Chainsaw, Baseball Bat, Lead Pipes, Fist Weapons, okay enough but not done.

How about things you raise when leveling?
HZD: We have a total of 44 skills in the base game. However several of these are just a second level or more of a base skill but we'll count them.
F4: You have 7 Stats that can be raised 10 times for 70 points. Each of those 7 stats have 10 perks most of which have 4 levels, so roughly 280 more things to differentiate your game. 350 things to count vs 44. Close.

Exploration: Both games have tons of places to explore and lots of loot. Wash

Special stuff to find: Both games have mini-collections that you acquire as you play. Wash

Characters: Neither game allows you to choose your character. In HZD, you are Aloy and in Fallout 4 you are Nate or Nora. You can have male parts in F4 and you get to play an adult. Okay, you can mod Fallout and be anyone you want to be, but that's just no fair. Fallout 4 has companions, relationships etc. Funnily enough, both Nora and Aloy seem more masculine than Nate :D

Let's see PC RPGS have save anywhere: HZD: Nope Fallout 4: Yep

Choice and Consequence: Let's see in Fallout 4 there are 4 major factions that you can choose and several different endings based on those factions. HZD you fight a crazy computer no matter what.

This is just me having fun, but HZD isn't a full-fledged RPG. It has elements and is definitely fun for a little while but it's not deep enough anywhere to compete with a pure rpg. That's okay, there's room enough on my pc for both. I find it to be way more rpg than those combat tactics games that HX so loves to post on the news page. At least this game gets discussed.

I'm not quite sure what your point is there. So FO4 has more weapons and skills. It also has terrible writing, weak combat, and a difficulty curve that's completely broken.

Unlike you, I've put a lot of hours into both. I enjoyed both in different ways, but I think a lot of people would agree that FO4 is pretty mediocre unless you mod the hell out of it.

And FO4 really isn't vey "deep". More like wide as an ocean and shallow as a puddle. :)

But we're comparing apples and oranges anyways.

I would still argue that HZD is an RPG. But this isn't the really important point for me personally. For me the most important question is whether the overall game is fun and allows immersion into the game world and the character you play.

Even a pure adventure game with a great story and world is much more fun than a mediocre RPG regardless of how many RPG mechanics the latter may have.

While Fallout 4 has surely a bigger world and more options in it, I personally liked for example Elex much more, since I liked the world and the story much more. Of course this is all subjective. In this comparison I like HZD much more than Fallout 4 and a little bit less than Elex.

With regard to choices: I would have preferred by far if Elex would not have forced you to choose a faction. That was immersion breaking for me because I didn't like any of them and the need to choose a faction was implemented mechanically ( you can't advance the store over a certain point without joining a faction, but you do not need any faction resource or abilities to win the game).

So in fact the faction thing was one of the few bad things in Elex.

This only as an example that "counting" RPG properties of a games has no connection to the games' quality.

For me the way, how the real history of the world is found step for step by the protagonist is much better in HZD than in either Fallout 4 or Elex.

Short remark on saving: Normally I a very pissed off if a game doesn't allow save everywhere. In particular if you are forced to replay sequences again and again as punishment for small errors. I hated that in games like Max Payne 3 (in contrast to 1 or 2) or Mafia. In HZD this is not really a problem because save points (camp fires) are everywhere and the game also makes automatic saves in longer areas (e. g. in the dungeons).

Apropos dungeons: I like how in HZD every dungeon is either connected to advancement of the story or to development of the character's abilities. There are no random dungeons unconnected to the overall experience. That supports the feel of a coherent experience of world and story.

It's also out on GOG now, since we've strayed from the topic horribly :) I enjoyed HZD enough to get a couple dozen hours out of it. I enjoy F4, which chose to offer modding, much much more. I don't mind disagreeing with folks. In fact, I don't mind disagreeing with every human on the planet. I'm still right :D

1. I agree. What a game is called isn't super relevant. A game does need several RPG elements for me to enjoy it, but HZD hit that mark fine.

2. Agree. I find the RPG elements offered by F4 to be vastly superior to anything in HZD. I'm not a console gamer and really hate the non-PC elements in HZD like no save anywhere, lack of weapon and armor choices, very few skills. Those of you who play other genres seem to accept the console rpgs with all these lacks.

We're very much opposites when it comes to open-world vs story. I hate a world that assumes the protagonist is the only thing that matters. I vastly prefer worlds that would live on and make sense if the protagonist didn't exist. HZD "fails" here in that this wasn't a goal of the game. I'm fine with that, but it is why I stopped after learning I could care less if Aloy dies horribly. I feel no attachment to her.

She has the personality of a robot and her father treated her like a dog. All he ever did was yell at her and then tell her to heel (follow!). I treat my animals much better than Rost treated Aloy.

Fallout 4 sucks in trying to make you care for Shaun. The family dynamic never worked for me. However, there was a whole world to explore that had nothing to do with Shaun and that isn't the case in HZD. This is just a matter of preference. I love games where the story is very loose and can be ignored for the most part. I absolutely love having tons of things to do that have zero to do with the main quest.

Final statement: "Allows mods" means a game is infinitely better and that a no mods allowed game cannot conceivably compete with it. If your game is mod-able, you win. Always. :D :D :D

Interesting! I don't care for mods since I want to play the game in the way the developers created it. I believe that a game should be a piece of art. I wouldn't buy a painting where have to correct the original colors in order to make it look good. If a game needs mods to become a good game this means that it wasn't a good game to begin with. (Obviously I am not talking about mods which allow you to create new and additional stories, like in NWN - that is great).

But of course I respect your point of view.

Eh? HZD has a ton of skills, and, unlike the perks in FO4, most of them are actually useful.

Not being able to save anywhere can be annoying sometimes, but I can't say it bothered me much. Seeking out a campfire when I was low on health and surrounded by enemies only added to the tension. Besides, the game has fast travel anyways, so it's not like you can't save immediately if you need to quit playing.

If I don't like a game w/out mods it is very doubtful I will like it with mods. Instead mods enhance an already good game for me. But then unlike many modders my goal of modding isn't to change mechanics or game play - I do not like those kind of game overhauls and don't use them. I use mods primarily to improve visuals in all ways, then secondary I use them for immersion.

FO4, and Skyrim, are my two of my top games in the 30 or so years I have been playing computer based games. I got a 100+ hours in each of them before I modded them. Now mods extend the game play by changing the visuals, adding some new elements, etc.

I do disagree that FO4 has a set protagonist if compared to say AC, Tomb Rider, or Witcher. Those are very set protagonist. What is set in FO4 is more part of the characters past history. But you can be any gender, any race, design your character any way you want, give them whatever skills and focus you want, make their own personality, etc. You can't do that in games with a very set protagonist. Not to mention once you leave the vault you can pretty much ignore the main story if you want. I played the full story through once as is and enjoyed it. Since then I have "finished" the game (completed the main quest line so to speak) 8 times but in my own fashion with my own history for my character. Of course FO4 would have been much better if you had just been another random vault person who happened to escape. That would be ideal. I didn't like the whole married with a kid role thrust on me. I mean I enjoyed the game story but I don't want to be married with a kid :P

I like the perks in FO4 myself and find them very useful both for game play and to develop my character. But I suspect a lot of that comes down to how one plays the game as to how useful or important they are.

I would see a good game with mods as a piece of art that you want a better frame for. I might by a painting but want a nicer looking frame, and maybe a good glass protector over it.

But I don't really disagree that much as I do prefer to play a game the way it was made which is why I don't use overhaul mods (although I will use mods that add to existing game play like Frostfall in Skyrim or Nuclear Winter in FO4 … but I consider those immersion mods).

But I also agree with Nut because really if you have Game A which is good and Game B which is good … and Game A you can't mod but Game B you can, if you want, then clearly that makes Game B better, all other things being equal, because it gives you more options.

As for the topic at hand, HZD, I have zero interest in it. From what I saw and read, and asking my friends who played it, it seems more like an adventure game with a set protagonist. Worse I don't like her from what I saw on vids. I wouldn't call it an RPG myself but I have my own way of defining an RPG so its irrelevant to discuss it really. Bottom line is whether a game is fun to play, for me, and I know HZD would not be. In much the same way I know eating dog poop would be horrible even though I have never tried it :P

You made it clear early on that you would never try HZD, and it was pretty obvious why. Personally, I think it's a shame that people dismiss certain games because of the protagonist, but to each his own. I've been guilty of it myself a few times.

Besides, if I wanted to run this game, would I still have to have a graphics card with certain functions ?

You need a DirectX 12 compatible card.

Here's a more complete detailing of the system requirements.

https://www.wepc.com/benchmark/horiz…-requirements/

I love the attention to detail in this game. For example I only saw a few days ago that the map in the game is 3D, i.e. a relief map. Looking at it helps to understand, where you can take the shortest way and where not. The use of the third dimension in some situations is interesting.

All details in the game show that the developers love the world they built. This is one of the few games, where I love simply wandering around without doing anything special. Maybe pick a metal flower on the way… Or climb a mountain in Lara Croft style..

I also found today that taming a storm bird is possible (but nearly as hard as killing him, because you have to catch him first…). In my eyes he is one of the hardest of the "normal" enemies.

Well, actually you can't know that unless you try ;) BTW same applies for the game too :D

If you want to try it to be sure totally up to you :)

For me the smell of it, knowing where it came from, and what it is in general is enough to let me know it isn't something I actually want to taste. I have had to pick up some bad accidents by my dogs and a few nearly made me retch it was so bad. I am extremely confident that it is not something I would want to eat.

If it were something I knew might be more in my general area of interest then I might try it. Say a new flavor of pizza or ice cream. Or maybe a fruit I had never tried.

In some cases having general, second-hand, peripheral, or other forms of knowledge is enough to make a reasonable and educated guess on something.

Forum posts, asking questions about the game play, mechanics, and character from my friends who are playing it, screen shares of the game with friends on Discord, watching a video or two, reading reviews … that gives me enough general knowledge to know whether it might be worth my time and money to either try or not.

It has many things I know I don't like in games and very few things I do like.

I think many people get confused when they get on the old "well if you haven't played this game you can't know anything about it and thus can't have any educated and valid opinion on it".

There are, of course, aspects of the game itself you may not fully understand or experience unless you play it yourself. But having a general idea of whether the game might be something you would like - that doesn't always need actual first hand experience of playing the game yourself.

Using the dog poop example it is true I can't describe what the taste of it is like, I would need to taste it to know that, but I don't need to taste it to know I don't want to eat it because I have enough other information about it to let me make that decision.

People get confused because there are levels of knowing something. VR might be a good example. I have never tried any form of VR game ever. I have no understanding of what it would be like to wear a head set like that, the gloves, or play a game in VR. Consequently I would have less reliability in saying VR sucks when I never tried it.

On the other hand I have played games similar to HZD. I am familiar with the concepts of the game, mechanics, etc. So I feel less need to actually sit and play it when making a decision.

Another example might be getting a bike. I know a lot about bikes and what I tend to like. When buying one I test out a lot of them - different makes and models - to see if I might like certain features. I don't, however, test out the kids tricycle - as I know based on its size and features it would not be something I would want.

It comes down to how much general knowledge you have about a group or category of an item. The less you know about it the less you can make a decision. The more you know the better able you are to correlate similar experiences to a new one and make a fairly confident decision about whether you would like something or not.

EDIT: I thought of a good game example but can't recall the name of the game. A new game in 2020 was what some have called a walking simulator game. Made by some big name person with mixed reputation. Damn bugs me I can't think of the name.

Anyhow that game play seems so different to anything I have played I would not feel confident saying I would not like it. I feel like it is not my kind of game so I have not purchased it, nor have plans to, but I can't be as certain about whether I would enjoy it or not as its game play is rather different to anything I am familiar with.

Or another example. A sports game or a horror game or a hunting game. All things I do not like. I don't need to really play any of those to know it would be very unlikely that I would like them.

It also comes down to features. There are some features I really do not like at all. If a game has those features, and I am already familiar with those features from another game, I really don't have to play that game to know I won't like that feature.

Even though it's not my bag, I thought HZD had enough fun stuff for a good couple vacation days. I also think it's something I could pick up again in a couple years and enjoy again. I liked my time with it, even if it's not exactly aligned with my tastes.

I'm currently playing Dysmantled which feels like an arcade game more than anything else. Kinda like mario brothers, the original. :)

Thanks