"Horizon: Zero Dawn has been out for a few weeks now and has enjoyed both critic and commercial success. Things like the world, story, graphics and more have all been praised but I think it’s the little details that really make this game special."
GG are just crazy with detail.
Agreed. This is amazing and crazy.
What you would expect from GG who were responsible for last gen's masterpiece FPS: https://selectstartgames.fi...
I hope at some point they take Killzone back to the industrial grit.
So the non-realtime day-night cycle was amazing and crazy detail too?
@SardoNumspa: OMG. i swear i will play KZ2 as soon as i get home.
Honestly, the puddles are cool—something I noticed when playing—but they have to do SOMETHING with them. Having them gradually disappear is obvious. I can't praise them for detail on that when they neglected footprints. Still, I beat the game yesterday and was very satisfied. Good game. Great power armor.
@Sando It is truly crazy how well Killzone 2 & 3 hold up graphically to today's standards. Not to mention they were also extremely fun games overall.
@SardoNumspa Horizon's is like 100x's better then Killzone: SF. They aren't even on the same level at all. Killzone SF was no where close to being a masterpiece. Horizon is probably has as much details as Uncharted 4 if not moreso. I hope I never see another Killzone game, but please give me a sequel to Horizon: Zero Dawn.
Xander He said "last gen" and was referring to KZ2. Were u actually confused or just trying to take a shot at Sony?
***The fact that rain can be random, makes the object random.*** The result does not have to be random even if based on a random element. Flipping a coin is random, deciding who wins based on that is not. The randomness is in determining when to call an event, that didn't make the event process itself random or 'heavier' to maintain than if the determination of an event call wasn't random.
So crazy with detail they made the water not react to the players body really and had those damn snow piles the player simply clips right through. It makes no sense. Lets create this beautiful world and then leave in jarring snow piles that kill immersion. Crytek used to do things like this also.
Dont worry about it. Its not your problem.
eh you're definitely wrong about the snow but i cant argue the water. It seems so out-of-place in such a pretty game. Alloy doesnt get wet, water doesnt ripple at all let alone move in real-time, and some of the waterfalls are flat textures that if you look at from the side, they're almost invisible. Other than the water though these graphics and everything else about the game are nearly perfect.
@Axecution: He's not wrong about the snow piles though. Aloy has no effect on deep snow when she walks through it. Her character clips through. And also foliage (except the long grass) has no reaction to her character either. No biggie though and I wouldn't be getting my knickers in a twist like shloobmm3 is. I just finished main story and platinumed a few hours ago. The game is amazing in every respect. Beautiful world, excellent combat, interesting missions and the story was brilliant too. GG did an amazing job, especially considering it's a new ip and their first go at open world and an rpg. Easily one of the best, if not the best game of this gen so far.
I was just in the RHO cauldron, and Aloy did get wet when she dove in the water.
Aloy does get wet when she goes in water, it's a lie to say she doesn't. She gets shiny and slick aka wet. I heard ppl say the foliage doesn't react to her and was pleasantly surprised that the tall brush absolutely moves in accordance with her. All foliage also moves and sways in the wind. Did ppl expect the short foliage to move about her feet? I think it's more than adequate how GG decided to allocate their resources, i can live with the snow and short brush not being reactive when the rest of the game is so stellar and detailed.
I spend so much time in the water and kicking around tufts of snow in this game
You never get sick of just looking around in this game. I will be on a mission near a cliff face and I'll just stop when I see the sun just about to dip below the mountain line. Im literally stopping to watch the sun set. No other game have I spent so much time doing this sort of thing. And the moon is even nicer.
Lol! Bathy. That sounds like me. Was getting a flower off of a mountain yesterday and just had to stop and look. Then, it started raining and it looked awesome as well. Instead of running, I just walked down the mountain turning the camera to the side.
I was on a mountain and it started snowing. I noticed Aloy will hold her hands out when its snowing and catch the snowflakes. This lead to 10 minutes of me taking photos of her catching snow at different times of the day.
Guys! This is one of the few games I don't mind walking around and picking up flowers with the incredible soundtrack playing to reflect who Alloy is. Someone who is seeking the truth of who her mother is and where she came from. Its so touching. I even love the touches they added where she very subtley extends her arms out over the red plants to brush their tops with her hand. So subtle yet so beautiful to show her soft side. Though she is a feminine woman she is also a strong one. GG have really created a great female role model. Can't say crap about that!
Uncharted 4 was the last game that had me looking at such details. Great games!!
I spent a good amount of time looking at the skies in infamous second son. This however took it to a wholenother level.
Agree, i am surprised to see how few claimed GG missed out on little details.. Well done GG.. Now waiting to hear more about The Expansion.. May be PSX 2017 or E3 2018..
@SardoNumspa Right on man! Too many slept on Killzone 2! One of only two games I've platinumed. Horizon is next! K2 was a true underrated masterpiece. GG have been my fave dev since then even though they took some turns to the not so great after KZ2. Too much audience catering. I missed when Herman used to say "we do things our way" and "we're a stubborn studio". I guess they moved away from that talk after the KZ2 debacle. Glad they're back with a vengeance with Horizon.
GTA5, Sleeping Dogs and The Witcher 3 have this. It really it not THAT special.
GG emulated Naughty Dog with the level of detail in Horizon. From time to time i stop and marvel at an incredible animation or graphical nuance, it's impressive.
Not just GG. It's just Sony's First-Party that cares so much for this kind of attention to detail. It's impressive and very welcome.
Awesome attention to detail but in reality how many people would have noticed this through their playthroughs?? To me it raises a question of do developers sometimes put resources to something that's largely gonna go unnoticed that it's a waste and those resources could have been spent elsewhere?? Still, it is impressive and I commend the devs for their achievement because honestly this is my favorite game of the generation and likely one of my top games I've ever played.
If you had any idea about what your talking about, you'd know that this weighs nothing on performance...
You don't know how much it takes up either mate. Besides, I never said it took up a lot, of course it doesn't but that doesn't change the fact that games in general do have a lot of small details go completely unnoticed. Why use the resources?? If it's spare then fair enough. I posed a question, no need to be high and mighty in your reply. edit: see kwiet below for tips on how to discuss these sort of things.
@ninsigma That's where you're terrible wrong mate. I do know how much it takes up because I have a major in engineering informatics and I've worked with a bunch of different graphical engines. Do you want a tip of how to discuss this type of technical issues in a video-game? Educate yourself first. This type of 'method/technique' does not take any unnecessary space within the game, on the contrary, because if the puddle is there in the first place, making it disappear only frees up space(gradually). This is not a wasted resource type of deal. And with a game that wants to have this level of detail, this is the sort of technique to go for, one that takes no hit on performance. Edit: See, your uneducated mind asking for something like "like having the tall grass react to the player moving through them", which requires a complex mathematical algorithm, plus it severely takes a hit on performance and is prone to bugs, then complaining about a technique that frees up space (gradually, instead of immediately), while giving immense detail to the world.
I pose questions to discuss and learn. You can't educate yourself without asking questions. So really, my initial comment is doing exactly as you suggest, yet you decide to be an ass about it...
@ninsigma I'm not being an ass, but I'm rather tired of this type of comment, that tries to undermine smart choices made by the developer, comments made by people who claim they 'want to learn', but never do a 2 minute google search about the issue. Plus, you're trying to learn here? A site filled with people that you're not sure about their knowledge? Filled with fanboys and biased opinions? Edit: If you want proper education on the issue, then you got the Internet, mankind's most powerful intellectual tool, that contains all the information in the world in a space of a click and, can be a major asset when used properly.
What on earth are you talking about?? No where did I undermine the devs choices. See my comment to kwiet where I said I'm not saying the devs made a wrong choice. You're just getting mad for no reason at all. Literally 2 people have offered up any sort of return discussion while the rest are nonsense accusations of being uneducated or new to gaming or offered absolutely 0 to the conversation. It's pathetic that on a forum MADE for discussion, one can't do just that. If I were to Google something like this I'd just come across other threads of people discussing something similar. So why not have a discussion with the users I frequent the same site with??
@ninsigma Wow, you're triggered. Calm your tits. Don't plays us for fools, you tried to mask uninformed criticism in the form of a poorly executed question. If you'd make a google search, you'd know you'd come across sites that explain how game engines work.
(1/2) I've been lurking around here for some time and never created an account because I've never felt the need, but after reading this replys, man... I felt the need to create one just to make this comment. Context: Just like the three of you, I too hold a degree, so I wanted to "weigh in" my assessment. @AcidDvl did not wave his degree around, as much as he mentioned (like both of you did) to contextualize his arguments. First of all, I need to set a couple things straight: @ninsigma started this discussion with: "You don't know how much it takes up either mate." and followed it up with "...no need to be high and mighty in your reply." This is a ridiculous way to start this one off if later you claim you wanted to 'discuss and learn'. I understand why @AcidDvl took the condescending approach to you. You start the flood of insults and never stopped as well, so you can't complain when someone throws it back at you. Second: @Irishguy95 you did stated the physics involvement in your reply: "The CPU calculates the interactions and "physics". Any and all removing, adding or interactions with anything in the game requires some performance on the processor, especially when it comes to a physics engine." Then, after you've been confronted with a correct assessment followed up by @AcidDvl, you then started yourself a "Straw Man" argument about something that was never mentioned by Acid. If you'd had read his reply correctly, you'd see that his assessment on the matter was rather in response to your "physics" claim. I'm pretty sure someone with a degree isn't going to deny a CPU involvement to any computer process. You just went rogue and started to argue something that was never brought up into the discussion. I throw your remark : "Are you even hearing yourself?" right back at you. This simple thing claimed by Acid would be ever so slight microscopic, than is not even worth mentioning when talking about performance. "An object is not separate from the computer..." you should've just stop at this point, you're going off about an assessment made entirely by your head. Nothing on that rant was ever mentioned by Acid. You should read more carefully next time. Third: @rainslacker, you said: "The object will remain the same size in memory for it's life in the scene" which is exactly what Acid said previously with "That object exists 'till the visibility reaches 0%", both of you are pretty much saying the same thing with different words and phrasing. Plus, "But that resource would have to be made available at all times if it's random" - The location of the resource (puddle) may be random, but the circumstances of it's appearance, well, that's not random (obviously), it happens when it rains. Seeing that the game can go days without rain, that means that even in memory, it frees up resources because the puddles don't stay rendered after being set 100% invisible. That would be mental.
(2/2) To your later point: "If I were to do something like this, I'd make some sort of volumetric object which had a water object attached to it and simply shrink it over time. Either that, or have a single size water volume, and apply some sort of occlusion alpha to it which can change over time. The former is probably less intensive with less collision detection for interaction, however, I believe, the occlusion would allow for better physics manipulation as the puddle becomes smaller, and would allow for the puddle to evaporate into several different points....like if the puddle is not on level ground." This would also be 100% mental, to have such a needlessly complex solution to such a simple "problem". We call this on the office the "Caveman Mentality", you're basically in modern times, trying to use two rocks to create a fire, when you could use a simple lighter. What I'm saying is, you could literally write a small script that moves gradually the "puddles" into the ground (adding negative values to the Y axis), creating the perfect effect of evaporation, as those puddles would create the illusion of shaping up with the land, when in reality, they're just leaving the Player FOV and going "underground" passing through the limits of the lands while keeping their initial size. You don't need to be shrinking all the puddles to create such a simple optical illusion. Now for @AcidDvl, although you had the right idea in mind and you did explain to better extends than @irish and @rain did, you just went berserk (although right, you went a bit too strong). I may agree with you on this one, I do not agree with some insults you threw, but to be fair, @ninsigma wasn't shy with them either and in my mind, he's the one who started this barrage with those inicial remarks (mentioned above), that he made when starting this discussion. So in conclusion: @ninsigma you shouldn't be so in denial that some people may know more than you. You tried to start a pseudo-intellectual discussion about topics you're not familiar with. And after you initial thought was debunked, you should have realise that this small details do not affect the performance in a way that is worth mentioning. @AcidDvl you're right on this one but you should really keep you cool more often. If you'd had make a calm and serene initial response explaining your knowledge right away, then you wouldn't end up in this mess of a trend with people who are out of their element. @hellothere1977 just because you don't hold a degree, you can go around insulting people who do and trying to undermine people knowledge in a particular area. You seem "insulted" by someone mentioning a fact (like having a degree). @Irishguy95 your discussion and reading skills are more than lacking basic understanding of phrasing, and creating "Straw Mans" is a a ridiculous attempt to win an argument. @rainslacker you're pretentious alright. You should study more techniques to simple problems. Over the years, we've laid off a good amount of people for things like that. Me and my coworker are the ones that usually have to clean up and optimize after programmers like you do things like that. This is my first and final comment on this particular trend and I'd advice @AcidDvl to do the same, because you've shown that you know more that they do, and you're only wasting your time after this. You're right, but you just could have phrased more peacefully. I can, however understand your "frustration" when people distort your words and try to be a "white knight".
@ninsigma You should work for Konami.
@jinku The fact that rain can be random, makes the object random. If it can exist, it has to be accounted for in the scene, or else it can cause resource conflicts, or slow down if too many such random objects exist in the scene. I'm not sure of the particular set up of Horizon itself, so I can't say if this would ever be the case, or if they took enough time to keep extra resources available for these random things in the game. Anyhow, to the more technical stuff. What you suggest is certainly a feasible way to reduce the size of the puddle, but it's going to be dependant on the geometry of the scene itself. Since a water object tends to have all display and physics across the visible "top" plane, if the ground isn't set up right, and say you have a single volume of water in multiple dips in the ground...like you'd have in real life for instance, the volume would not look right should it be disturbed. For instance, ripples would extend from one puddle being disturbed, then you'd see the effects in another puddle. I guess I was looking at something a bit more detailed, and not something simple. The fact that this was about the detail of the puddles in the game, I thought, what would I do to make it as detailed as possible. Then I'd scale it back based on available resources. It's likely I'd ever be in a situation to have to implement such a technique, but thinking on things like this, if I really spent the time one day, I may find other applications for the same technique. I wouldn't say either of my techniques is needlessly complex. Both are basically just a volumetric object. One being more complex, one being the display information for the GPU to process. You'd need these objects either way even with your solution. reducing the size is just a matter of writing that same simple script to reduce the scale on one or all of the transform, the alphe is a bit more complex as it involves having a more complex script, so it would only be appropriate for certain situations. Anyhow, I guess it just depends on what one is trying to achieve with the puddle, or object in general if we extend it to other stuff. If the water element wasn't really that important to have reduce over time...which I'd imagine in most games would be likely since people don't dwell in one place in games too long, then being selective with the placement, and using a rising script like you said would be more than suitable. It's also highly likely, this water object exists at all times, and does just move up or down as rain comes, then moves down as it evaporates. This water object could be part of the actual weather system, and may only turn to active(for display) when it rains. This would mean the resource always exists in memory. Whether it takes up CPU/GPU cycles depends on when it's needed to be displayed. Anyhow, thanks for the career advice. Since my job is to think of new and creative ways to do things in game engines for tools purposes, and find good ways to make them work with the least resources possible, I'll take what you say and not worry about it. Sorry for thinking of ways to do things. I'm aware of many techniques for simple problems. The vast majority of game programming is performing tricks to seem realistic. However, you're simple solution isn't the only solution, and is only applicable in some situations. Can't imagine why you'd lay off people for trying to think of solutions to things. Sounds like a company that will stagnate creatitivy, because complex solutions can often be made simple once you find a solution to a problem that you may not even know you had.
You gotta look at it as a whole. Water evaporating is just one thing. The ants are another. Wind and weather is a whole other component. These are all things we take for granted or don't acknowledge in real life, because why would you? We're used to it. But it's that attention to detail that makes your game world more believable, whether you notice it or not. It may not be a focal point in the art design of another game, either because they don't have the resources or because that's not what they were going for. I'm sure there are developers who could do things differently for a better game experience, in this presentation heavy game era, but Guerilla exploited their platform and were still able to pull off a great game world, even with these assets taxing the PS4. So if you can do it, then I say go for it.
Absolutely I agree if the resources are there to do so then go for it. From my perspective, I didn't even know there were ants in the game. Nor did I notice evaporating puddles. I'm always on the move and those things (and I'm sure there's others) I missed completely. So when I look at that now having being told that they are there, I wonder, could those easily missable things add up to move resources elsewhere, like having the tall grass react to the player moving through them?? That is something that would be much more noticeable and appreciated by a wider amount of gamers just like the weather and time of day are. I'm not saying what the devs did is wrong either. Just a thought that popped into my head. Seems people don't agree with it xD
Are there really ants on the game? That would be amazing and I don't even know why. I've played for over 50 hours now and almost died of excitement last night when I noticed a flock of birds take off in formation from the tree line. If the ants are really in the game I'm going to need fair warning otherwise things are going to get messy.
Driveclub supposedly had mosquitos, creeks that rose in the rain, and water that got stuck in the treads of your tires. I would say you would notice none of these things while racing at top speeds, so I'd say yes they do add things which don't really help the game
Agreed. Didn't hear about those things in drive club but when I player racers (very rarely) it's what's tight in front of me that I'm focusing on and making sure I'm getting those turns and trying not to crash. Like I said above though, if the resources are spare then there's no reason why they can't add little things like that.
Who cares how many people would have noticed it? Are you new to games? Go back and look at how many old games have easter eggs that weren't discovered until a decade after they released. This tiny detail isn't going to affect this game in any major way regarding performance. So, again, who cares? Every game has something people don't notice. Incredibly moot point.
No, what are you talking about? Developers shouldn't be allowed to have fun with things like this. They must be robots that perform one task and one task only. Because teh resources
Like another butterfly flying through the scenery? Or do you think the game would run at 60fps for not having this detail?
If you took the ants out you'd get 1440p at 120fps. Bloody ants.
I understand what you're saying, there's a gif on GAF of Elena and Drake kissing in UC4, and you can see her nose smoosh against his face, but it's so subtle that no ones going to notice that unless you're looking for the little details. It often goes unnoticed I think but at the same time when it's brought to light, it makes you appreciate the devs that much more. This is what separates them from other teams though, they don't half ass it just cause they know ppl aren't watching.
I'm glad some people do! XD And I agree that the little touches that Devs put in are great when found.
I disagree. Details like this MAY go unnoticed. There's no doubt. But, when some people, who really don't speed run through games, actually stop and admire how much work was put into a given game, and NOTICE a detail like, it makes the experience damned near magical. There's something about the small details in games that make the biggest impact. The dust cloud that mario kicks up when he rapidly changes direction. The way a character may like Toon Link in Wind waker makes himself go cross-eyed just to entertain himself if the player sits idle for long enough time. The way leaves fall and blown around the player as if wind is causing the disturbance in a game like Okami. The way Samus's visor would fog up when going from a cold environment to a warm environment, and gradually drip away. Some of the biggest games in the industry are known to have the best "little" details, and talented developers know that. It makes the game more immersive, more believable. And it gives that player, or that environment more charm, more personality. Rare knows this with Banjo, DK64, and Goldeneye. Valve knows this with their Half Life series. Nintendo knows this with Zelda, Metroid, and Mario. And films, particular animated from the people at Pixar, know this VERY well. It's why most of their films stand out, because they have the timing, the pacing, and they ensure an object, be it a monster, a toy, or a lamp, have as much personality, as much character in a single frame as they do in a traditional 90 minute runtime. If your primary argument is that most people won't notice this, and because of that, it's not worth including. I have a problem with that. It's also why there are so many indie games that have become sensations, almost overnight. Undertale, Limbo, Super Meat Boy, Braid, Fez and so many other titles showcase good gameplay with that extra bit of personality, by adding little details that many won't notice, but once they do, they'll love the game even more.
You make good points and I agree stuff like that is great. Like in rayman if you sit idle he starts playing basket ball with his body 😂 My point wasn't to say it's not worth putting it in. My point is, if numerous of the rarely, if ever, to be seen details were to be removed, could the resources be used for something more noticeable?? Like my example above, reactionary foliage, which is something players will see and experience. Or do gamers even want that?? For some reason it's been misconstrued that I'm taking a dig at the developers for their choice in adding these little things but that is far from the truth and no where near what i said/asked. I love the little details that are added to games. Another example being the sack of flour or whatever it was, that would realistically bend or fold when it came into contact with Nates leg in uncharted 4. Great little detail.
Honestly nin, I don't think even GG could get all the foliage moving due to the limitations of the PS4.
@ninsigma Having the tall grass react to the player moving through them, requires a complex mathematical algorithm, plus it severely takes a hit on performance and is prone to bugs. Small details like the puddle disappearing (which is something that weighs nothing on performance(object behavior)), or those ants you see upon trees (that only appear, once you're really close to the tree, and utilize so little polygons that it doesn't make any difference). Taking those 'small' details out, would not achieve nothing because the game has a stellar performance. (Almost never drops frames). And would only hurt the experience because you wouldn't have to special moments that you do when you discover them. Usually to increase performance, you'd reduce polygons on specific locations the player wouldn't notice, or lowering draw distances, or reducing shadow maps, or reduce vegetation... This are the real 'performance killers'. But once again the game is so perfectly optimized that this discussions holds no purpose.
I agree with what you're getting at. However, these days features like this are built into game engines as procedural effects that you just turn on at the click of a button. It's not really taking up any of their time or the system resources. If it were, they'd made compromises elsewhere in optimisation, or removed it. It's as simple as that, really. Oh, and AcidDvi, who the fuck are you trying to kid?
attention to detail like this, I think, should be universally praised. I don't think the gamer really has a need to be concerned about Resource Management. That's the Studio's responsibility. And if theyreally require that much strain, I don't think they would have put evaporating water into the game.
Their game engine is crazy. It's no wonder why Kojima chose the Decima engine from the beginning. I can't wait for Kojima to show his game to the public. I also heard Naughty Dog is showcasing their latest game engine with The Last Of Us part II on E3.
I hope we see what Sucker Punch is doing, and I hope they raise the bar. They have been very quiet for a long old time in game dev terms. And my word, I think SS is the weakest Infamous game (not a bad game though) but it is still gorgeous. And the facial animations are still really really good.
So ND is using a new engine? Interesting.
I think so. They been using the same game engine since the PS2 with updated revision on each gen. Naughty dog - PS2 Naughty dog 2.0 - PS3 Naughty dog 3.0 - PS4 New game engine - PS4 Pro & PS5
Decima Engine is amazing and I really like that name.
That's really impressive attention to detail.
Just one of a million reasons why Horizon: Zero Dawn is currently the Game Of The Year for 2017 so far... I actually just came here to read umteen comments from computer programmers arguing all day about a puddle... : P'
@PlayStation_5 Zelda pulled me in more. I'll get around to playing Horizon though.
It's kinda interesting that GG put so much attention to detail in some parts, like puddles forming / evaporating and all the other stunning bits; but water / foliage reacting realistically to the player wasn't added (which I would argue is a more immersive detail than puddle behaviour). I guess that might have pushed the engine too far.