Is Horizon Zero Dawn a Wakeup Call to Ubisoft?

i realise there’s a bit of anti-anti-ubisoft feeling at the moment. everyone’s tired of threads hating on them. so this isn’t a hate thread; more just a hope that hzd is the straw that finally breaks the camel’s back. or more accurately the back of ubisoft’s exhausted open world cash cow, putting it out to pasture for good.

for years they’ve been marching out a steady procession of differently skinned, template driven open world games. all share a similar feel, similar mechanics, similar plot delivery techniques… black flag aside, i’ve never been a huge fan even though there’s generally a not awful game hidden away somewhere under layers and layers of content filler, convoluted upgrade systems and mechanics that haven’t quite been fleshed out well enough. but with each new instalment my apathy grows and my interest wanes, and I see this feeling shared by a lot of friends.

enter horizon, an ethereally beautiful open world game that isn’t so much innovative on an individual mechanic level, more holistically in that everything is just so ridiculously polished and carefully crafted that it feels fresh, innovative and irresistibly playable. the story, setting, characters and pacing are all expertly done. side quests are subtly interwoven alongside the main quest so as not to distract from the story. the upgrade / inventory systems are easy and satisfying to use. combat is layered and tactical. enemies are inventive and challenging and scale suitably as you progress.

horizon just feels like a game made by a company whose staff actually play and enjoy video games; not by a company that builds a game from a blueprint, throws a ton of content at it and expects it to all just click.

i really hope horizon is a wakeup call to ubisoft and that they can learn from it in a positive way. agree? disagree?

Open world or not, Ubisoft have spent years simply making sequels to titles that got tired and boring by their 2nd or 3rd entries and are now on their 6th or 7th entry lol

Ubisoft are banking on For Honor right now.

And based on sales, I assume they do not mind Horizons success. As you stated, Ubisoft work more for results than passion. (which is weird because I always felt Guerrilla Games lacked passion)

As for what the Creed and Dogs franchise should learn from. . If Ubisoft had any interest in improving open worlds? They would have took notes long ago with the Elder Scrolls, Witcher 3, and GTA games. I can't state if Horizon did things better from a design perspective, but I have read that on a technical level it's up as one of the best.

And it's good for those that wanted Horizon to achieve more than the Killzone franchise did. I didn't believe in Guerrilla (still don't) but it did something many enjoy and that's a thing Ubisoft should look into. But like I mentioned previously, they won't_

Early 2000s they created more new IPs than any other company except maybe Sony. I don't have the article on hand, but it was in the 30s - fresh new titles across genres, as compared to single digits and low teens for companies like Activision and EA. At some point they decided it was more profitable to rehash the same stuff every year...even their new stuff is old, as it's often just what's come before but in a different setting.

I don't know what happened, but the only thing that's going to get them to change back is if people stop buying....and that's really not hard. Remind yourself you've already played this game last year, and if you really must play it again, it's just a matter of days before you can rent it or get it used, so Ubisoft doesn't benefit from the sale. Speak with your wallet.

and for those that haven't played Horizon, it's still a very familiar open world formula, but it excels with an amazingly detailed world, quests that feel important rather than busy work, and incredibly well varied combat. I mean, outside of Mount & Blade, i can't think of any game besides this one with mounted combat that is actually fun. I want to give it a trophy for enemy design. Only thing i wanted was a diehard survival mode where salvage was more limited and restricted by the methods you use to bring enemies down, but that's always possible in a DLC. I'm generally pretty unenthusiastic about open world stuff, but start to finish, this was really good.

I am fine with them working off the same IP and it been shown many gamers agree. They have been very innovative as they work with the IP for a while.

If you want too stop innovation of gaming then force developers to only work on new ideal or IP.

@Ish_basic: great post, agree entirely.

it's a fair point but horizon is, on a surface level, much closer - nearly identical - to ubisoft's open world game style and therefore i see it as a direct challenge to them. if this was a rap battle, guerrilla have just brought the crowd to their feet, dropped the mic and done a come-at-me-bro gesture at ubi.

what specifically do you class as innovative? there's been incremental improvements / additions with each new instalment of their games as you'd expect. but collectively they're still all very similar.

i didn't understand the bolded part of your post

one of the important things guerrilla gets right in horizon, so crucial in games of this size and scale, is the pacing of the main quest and plot alongside side mission content.

it's always been a frustration of mine that ubi do these grand opening scenes and then just plonk you down somewhat aimlessly in the middle of a giant map that's littered in way points, only one of which is the next part of the story, the rest are - at that point in the game - unnecssary and irrelevant side missions / filler. the momentum, anticipation and urgency the opening scene creates evaporates away. you're distracted by the sheer volume of content and have to make an effort to stick with the main story. it's bad pacing.

horizon on the other hand keeps you focused directly on the main story, and you have to make a concerted effort initially to stray away from it. the story unfolds, keeps you glued and it's not until several hours in that the game loosens its grip a little and encourages exploration. and at that point, with the plot / lore of the game firmly established, you're keen to do so. and the side mission content is varied and rewarding enough to be appealing and interesting. it's open world story telling done right

@Macutchi: If Ubisoft didn't get it after MGS V, they just won't get it.

The bigger problem is Ubisoft trying to adapt the original AC open world formula to games that have no business using that specific formula.

@Ish_basic: yeah I think they basically did this semi-era of expansion and investment in the early 2000s where we saw a lot of awesome stuff from Ubisoft (the Ubisoft I remember and long for)...

...and now they're just sort of sitting back and phoning it in on those investments, letting them run their course.

I still think Ubisoft and their various subsidiaries have a ton of talent and capability, but I have been very disappointed by them. They've gone from a developer's developer/publisher to a publisher's developer/publisher.

A huge import part of innovation is refinement and polished. SO what if they are similarities between the games. Gamers want that and is part of the reason they buy them.

The problem I have with the whole new ideal is that often they do not add as much innovation as many believe. So forcing games devs to focus on new ideal is not going to push gaming innovation that much.

it's a big stretch to call refining and polishing what is essentially the same game re-skinned for the dozenth time innovation.

please feel free to qualify this with some examples to show why you've come to this conclusion

I promise these cosmetics idea that Ubisoft uses came straight from Dead or Alive.

Soon there will be cosmetics DLC that will cost money and eventually gonna be like the situation in DOA.

@Macutchi: thing is - with that ending on horizon - there has to be a squeal - has to be - cant leave it there - and i want to know, so i hope there is

was interesting listening to the tapes and the lore contained within the dialog etc

and the side quests fit in so well like you said - im wondering and cant write what im wondering without spoilers, but am wondering how two side quests would have played out if i didn't do one and went the other decision with the second .....

and getting the ancient armour was totally worth the detour and doing all blaze suns for the weapon rewards was also worth the time and effort ....and occasional stress missing the time by a few seconds - sigh lets go again :D trails that actully paid off with decent rewards that look so good when equipped and still have the power not making them a useless edition as a prize - unlike in a.c creed in london do these races for some rep points - seemed very pointless overall

So are you saying the games have the same levels in each of the game?

So are you saying the games have the exactly the same levels in each of the game?

they are open world games so they don't have "levels."

what i'm saying is these games - far cry, assassin's creed, watch dogs (even splinter cell to some degree) - share similar mission structures, similar controls, similar story delivery, similar upgrade systems, similar takedown mechanics, similar side missions, similar map unlocking mechanisms (throw the crew into that list too), similar collectables and lots of other things.

^ was looking forward to you giving your reasons for this

I was not thinking about those broad of concepts. that like complaining all shooter use the mouse or right joy sticks. They are just too broad and wide ideals to attack games for. Games of the same type have similar concepts. Far Cry is very different to Assassin's creed games and the new games are still coming up with new ideal on how to make them different. Unless you claiming that the level design are the same.

@RSM-HQ: Play Horizon...and you'll be a believer

you seem to keep missing my point wiouds, those might be superficially broad concepts but they're practically the same across several ubisoft titles. skin aside, far cry is not very different to assassin's creed. they're very similar, supported by the well established feeling amongst gamers that ultimately they're all made from the same template.

the point of the thread is that this template and shared mechanics are feeling really tired now - particularly highlighted when a game like horizon comes along with fresh ideas, injecting new life into a similar open world setting - and it's long overdue that ubisoft moved away from lazy, template driven design and made their games individual again

Well I mean they took some time off to make assassins creed. The problem isn't that they don't have the manpower to make tons of big games or something, they have a disgustingly huge workforce, the problem comes with the concept that they had to make annual franchises. So give the different studios some leeway and I'm sure you'd be fine. For example, the upcoming assassins creed might do just that.

Regarding the rest of the games like far cry, let's hope.

But yeah the witcher 3 was made in 3 years and that's around the development time for games like assassins creed and cod I believe and they have a big workforce on each so it's just a matter of changing things up.

Assassins Creed games have come to a point that it's only good for exploring a new beautiful location and nothing more, hopefully the new game changes on that.

@louixiii: Just not my kind of game dood.

But believe and enjoy_

Well, they will seem the same when you only look at the stander for theme park open world games. That is like saying all human are identical because all human breath air. That is only true if you willing choice to ignore any details in the game.

I still do not see this whole Far cry is like Watch Dog and they are both like Assassin's creed. Can you get more details about this claim?

@Macutchi:

Valiant Hearts was a great game no one bought.

They also made Child of Light.

@Macutchi: I found Horizon to be a clone of Rise of the Tomb Raider with robot dinosaurs replacing the templars. With that said, if Ubi hasn't learned anything from the last 2 Tomb Raider games, then this one won't do much to wake up Ubi either.

As for Ubi open world games, I'm not tired of them and don't feel the formula is bad. What is wrong with Ubi games these days is that they seem to all come out unfinished and buggy. I loved Watch Dogs 2, amazing game. I'm playing through Ghost Recon now, and it's really fun. Certainly has a lot of potential. But... it is such a buggy mess that it is nearly unplayable. If Ubi games came out and worked from day one I don't think there would be so much hate.

The game is amazing.

@wiouds: I agree with Macutchi; Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Watch Dogs are all the same. The gameplay for these games have you complete a "to do" list on the right side of the screen for all of these games. I understand I can just turn off the HUD, but Ubi's games feel very stale and definitely NOT immersive at all when my character needs to collect 5 of this and bring to this person or has an upgrade system that allows me to unlock the Death from Above perk (Far Cry) or a perk that now allows me to instant kill armored enemies with a knife. The characters in Far Cry 4 all feel very boring. For a little bit the villain was cool and then he disappears for almost the entire game and just talks to you sometimes over the radio. The Creed series became too routine as well because I am going about the map completing boring sidequests or mainquests that feel like sidequests because they don't feel any different.

I feel that every new entry in these series feels like an offline MMO RPG. You are doing these mundane tasks over and over with little variance and eventually you get to the end and it doesn't feel like you did anything besides kill a lot of guys clearing outposts so that more of the map would open up and bring down another gun shipment truck so the enemies would have less of them, I guess. Contrast this repeated task structure with The Witcher 3. Yes, there is still those words telling you what to do in the top right of the screen, but CDPR put so much work into the cutscenes and emotion into the characters, and then they top it off with having you complete quests that feel important that advance the story.

Point is, for me, immersion is completely gone with Ubisoft games. I'll load up Far Cry every now and then to do some killin', but if I want an open world to truly care about then I'll start up TW3, MGSV, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, etc.

i feel like i've done everything i can to explain my point in the thread. if you still don't get it then i don;t think you ever will, so let's just leave it as we'll agree to disagree. @poe13 gets it and i'm totally with him in what he says.

i'm talking about their open world games, i'm not saying they don't make other games or good games.

really? dude, i always respect your opinion but that is... nothing like my interpretation lol. there's some similar gameplay elements, i'll give you that but a clone? no i can't go along with that. and as far as not being bored with ubi open world games, that's cool and all but do you not find any aspects of them repetitive or recycled? have you never played one and had a feeling of déjà vu in that it reminds you of another?

Jonathon Blow (dude behind The Witness and Braid) pretty much says it all in this video at the 17:30 mark. This is sad how AAA gaming has resorted to the HUD icons to tell you everything and you are basically just doing what icons are telling you to do now. Whereas years ago, games had you figure it out yourself more and it didn't feel like one big tutorial.

Oh and props to Danny for doing these videos, especially this one where these devs are pointing out the flaws in modern gaming and how they try to go against the norm.

@Macutchi: I am blessed with the curse of a nearly photographic memory. After playing thousands of games over the years 99.9% of what I play now gives me a sense of deja vu. I play games these days to experience the story the developers are trying to tell. Everything else for me is more of a judgement on how competently the tools perform.

As for Horizon I'm surprised you can't see how similar the game is to RotTR. Both games have a female lead whose main weapon is a bow and arrow. Both have incredibly similar platforming capabilities. You can climb up the side of many cliffs, use a zip line to tree’s with platforms and off of ledges. Have to scavenge twigs from small trees and items from the machines/scavenger boxes for ammo. Both even have small animals running around that provide ingredients for crafting. Then there is the tall grass for stealth in plain sight and campfires for saving the game. Horizon even has its own version of Tombs with the Cauldrons.

When you take a step back from the game and really think about the similarities they stack up. I'd also add that if you think about it, Tallnecks are Ubi style towers and most of the dialog is handled in the same manner as a BioWare game. I'm not saying Horizon is somehow bad because of this. I'm still considering giving it between a 92 and 95 on my site. I'm also pretty sure I gave Rise of the Tomb Raider a 93, which is pretty damn good. I'm just saying there are some very clear influences on this game and isn't necessarily a bad thing. That doesn't mean the game is by any means perfect either.

There were a lot of things I did not like but did not feel affected the game too much. I don't like how often longer distance jumps go into bullet time when platforming. It's cool the first 2 or 3 times but eventually begins to break the pacing of the game. I also felt like beginning of the game was out of balance, I managed to get to Daytower around level 8 and really struggled with the level 15 enemies required to open the gate. Made me feel like side missions were not optional which totally defeats the purpose of them being side missions. The dialog scenes are also poorly done. It seems like 4 or 5 of the characters had really good voice actors behind them(Aloy, Sylens, Erand) but many of the rest felt out of place. Either they were on the wrong emotional level for the scene or bland and robotic in tone. I also got sick of seeing every damn person you talk to shrug 10 times per conversation, every thank you seeming more like an apology. I also did not feel as if the game built up any decent relationship between Aloy and other characters. It started off well with a strong bond between Rost and Aloy, but every other relationship arc seemed cut off. Not saying they should all have a big orgy, but even friendships seem hollow. Lastly, I felt much of the skill upgrades were not necessary. I picked the first 3 or 4 that were a benefit to me early on, then found 2 or 3 at the very bottom of the stack I wanted and focused on that part of the tree first. After I had those 6 skills I simply completed each column from left to right with every 3rd skill point. This made the RPG elements feel generic and tacked on.

What I really liked was the story. A really good story can make you forget about things like generic skill trees and copycat game play and Horizon has one of the best Sci-Fi stories I've played in a while. It definitely has a big Terminator vibe to it. It's also very believable. I did not once find myself questioning how or why things happened. Everything was well thought out, based on real possibilities, and explained in a very sensible manner. Once you reach the top of Faro Tower the story really takes off and the game gives you a sense of purpose. It leaves just enough for the imagination that you have an idea of whats going on but can think of 3 or 4 ways the story could go, each being exciting possibilities. This is really what makes Horizon so amazing, they took the tools available in modern gaming and used them to near perfection to tell the perfect story. It's like being transported inside an Isaac Asimov story.

So yeah, that's basically my thoughts on Horizon, good and bad.

i do see the similarities, i just think clone was unfair, particularly when one is so linear, the other open world.

the similarities you mention are fair but most are relatively generic and plausible in the horizon setting and can be employed in ways that still allow each game to have a feel and personality of their own. and, despite their similarities, both games do feel distinctly different - unlike some ubisoft franchises, as is one of the points of the thread.

i guess that's the danger of open world games in that there's always a chance that people can choose a path or paths that can conflict against even the most carefully structured pacing. to be fair to the game it does tell you the recommended level for each mission so if you were only at level 8 and decided to try a level 15 mission then you can't really blame the game for that. personally i thought the pacing was superb for an open world game and leagues ahead of anything ubisoft have done in their ac, fc or wd games.

dialog was fine to me and there only to allow the player to further learn more about the back story if they wish. perfect for a game like this. voice acting beyond the main characters wasn't all that great but certainly not skyrim or mass effect levels of wooden. as for relationships i always felt aloy was a lone wolf type character and felt the game did well to emphasise this.

the game isn't perfect. there's lots of little things i can mention - one particular quibble i have with the game was in the stealth-ing part. hiding in bushes and stealth killing, e.g. in a bandit camp, i could literally pile bodies up next to the bush. enemy characters would notice these bodies but it didn't seem to concern them much, but the minute i stepped from the bush and an enemy caught a glimpse of me the entire camp was instantly telepathically alerted and the alarm was raised. but it seems a bit redundant to quibble over the little things when the overall game is so good. it's definitely the best open world game of its type i've played for a long time, possibly even since call of pripyat.

if you're rating horizon between 92-95, what did you rate ac unity / syndicate and far cry 4 and primal, as a comparison?

Totally agree but there are no perfect games, if some ppl just want's to badmouth a game it is pretty easy, you can always find a flaw in the system.
Games with open worlds are less perfect than those following a line only going forward.
Nevertheless this game picked my interest, do you ppl remember TUROK? this day and age it is pretty hard to find a new idea for a game, it doesn't mean they shouldn't use those that went well.
Do you really think that ubisoft need something to go up in ranks? in my humble opinion they don't need to do shit, they made many games that give them loads of money till this day.

What happened with Ubisoft was staff changes and some of the key figures behind some of their newest and best ip´s left.

But Ubisoft has gone so far down hill that i do not think they know how to get up themselves, maybe it´s fear of the Vivendi hostile takeover attempt that has made them churn out so horrible made games or their CEO who just lost the plot, but one thing is sure where a short time ago Ubisoft was known for being the best, they are now worse than EA.

this is a good blog post from a former ubisoft software architect that helps illustrate what went wrong at ubi - Why I Quit my Dream Job at Ubisoft. back in the days of sands of time and chaos theory they would have a single studio and around 20-30 devs working on a title. nowadays the picture is very different

(AC) Syndicate was created with the collaboration of about 10 studios in the world. This is 24 hour non-stop development. When people go to sleep in one studio, it’s morning in another one.

and

You’re either a grunt who works on a tiny, tiny part of the game (“See that lamppost? I put it there!”), or you’re a high-level director who writes emails and goes to meetings (“See that road full of lampposts? I approved that.”). Both positions suck for different reasons. No matter what’s your job, you don’t have a significant contribution on the game. You’re a drop in a glass of water, and as soon as you realize it, your ownership will evaporate in the sun. And without ownership, no motivation.

it explains a lot

Just out of curiosity, did you ever play Rise of the Tomb Raider?

I gave AC Unity a 90, however I played the game well past 6 months after launch and the majority of the bugs were patched. Thought the story really excelled compared to the typical AC revenge stories. Really liked the new parkour system as well, using the left trigger to run down/on the ground made moving through the city easy once you got used to it. Also noticed a trend with Ubi games where the lead platform appeared to launch without as many flaws as the other. In this case the Xbox version of the game played very well while the PS4 version to this day is still fairly buggy. This flipped with AC Syndicate, the lead platform was the PS4 and played almost flawlessly. I got the game on Xbox and it was a bugged disaster which prompted a 35 on my review.

The Far Cry games have both fallen down through my backlog so I have no score for those. Still have to play Far Cry 3, 4 and Primal. I did do a rolling review for Watch Dogs 2 and The Division. Gave Watch Dogs 2 a 94 at the end, Division was a 2 score game in my opinion, 80 for solo play and 95 for co-op play. Watch Dogs 2 was special for me due to my past as a hacker, it was both a new experience and a trip down memory lane. The kind of shit they did throughout that game was the same kind of shit I pulled 15 years ago when I was terrorizing MSN. Division I enjoyed, but playing it with my best friend was simply unreal, we hadn't had a good shooter we could play together in a while and it didn't take long before we realized the game would be special for us. We have an uncanny ability to work together and know which targets each other are going to attack without communicating verbally. Even on Ghost Recon, when we played Wildlands together it was the same, we're just in sync. That's why I gave it two scores because I know few will have that experience I had with the game.

I'm still working through Ghost Recon but it'll probably get a lower score than I gave Division. The game is a buggy mess online but solid if played solo, yet unspectacular. Solo play the game caters more to the kind of player who wants to take their time and destroy the cartel methodically. Online is more like a co-op Just Cause game, it's still fun and tactical but loose enough that you can play the game in very different ways. End up doing goofy shit on motorcycles or jumping out of helicopters just because. I've dropped helicopters on my friend while playing online, intentionally crashed planes into enemy bases, shit like that. Not sure what score I'd give it though, could be as low as 50, could go as high as 75-80, but no higher.

Totally agree OP. They sure showed Ubisoft up.

Normally I really really hate open world game but Final Fantasy XV and Horizon made it fun to me.

I played many GTA, Witchers, Bethesda games etc and they all felt so disconnected to me. Like big world but empty with useless quest.

FF15 and Horizon feel like they respect the player and put enough stuff that the world feel a little alive or at least realistic. The story isn't shallow either. I know that FF15 story is quite empty if you didn't watch the movie but still it felt more compelling than any GTA I had the misfortune to play.

Wait and see how many similar sequels they will have released in five years for horizon... my guess would be 3+!

You mean like the 3+ sequels to Last of Us?

It´s Sony not MS or Ubisoft, so i am willing to bet that your bet is not a good one.

Ya it does

Ownership is a key component in making you work harder and have that proudness that makes you want to make something that is worth something.

I only play the Far Cry series (except Primal) because it's the only one in first-person perspective. Far Cry 4 is my favorite among them not because of the SP campaign which sucks. But, I love its free-explore aspect once I finished the storyline. I've put in countless hours just flying around with the Buzzer, shooting at targets of opportunity. Some people may wonder why I don't get bored with it. But, only a flight simmer would understand.

I don't have a PS4 (yet). But, what does HZD offer once the storyline is done?

Far Cry 3 is much more limiting than Far Cry 4. But, I also enjoy its free-explore, post storyline. I find it fun driving around on the second island avoiding mercs in heavily armed jeeps. I also enjoy just roaming the tropical scenery.

To be fair i havent played the TLOU, but is that even the same genre as Horizon/Farcry etc?

@djoffer123: No far from it. It is a cinematic game that hit the feelings. It is like Uncharted. Bad 3rd person shooting, crappy hand fighting, borderline stealth action.

But people raved about it because of the story that make you like the two caracter so much.

Was kind of my impressions aswell(the part about it not being an open world game anyway) so no idea why Jacanuk would bring it up in this context.....

I brought it up simply because it's a Sony Exclusive.

It´s made by a Sony owned studio so the chance of you seeing 3+ sequels in the next 5 years is slim to none.

That was my point.

@Jacanuk:Oh in that case you are right