• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why does BOTW get so much credit for basic open world elements?

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Exploring the mountains is a forgotten aspect of breath of the Wild, 70 % is shrine praise well those are winners. I know breath of the Wild is the thing right now but if you play immortals it’s game of the year worthy.
I don't like the shrines much.
Immortals don't have a soul sorry.
 

Jsisto

Member
I think it’s hard to deny that the level of interactivity you could have with the environment was pretty unparalleled at the time of release, and it deserves all the praise it got and continues to get. It’s not a perfect game, nor is it even my favorite Zelda, but it definitely broke new ground in the genre in some very specific ways.
 
Anytime a huge and super popular game incorporates something into its game design and does it well it will continue receiving credit for popularizing it.

I could parachute/glide in games on nintendo with mario or in 97 with MDK. Stamina existed for years and so did climbing, but the way Zelda did it was very clever and its made the genre better for it.

I was really relieved to see a glider and free climbing in HFW gameplay demo and i know that probably wouldn’t exist without BoTW.
 

Lethal01

Member
The open world is the core of Breath of the Wild, and it's fun moving around but I agree with OP can we stop over hyping that the land of Hyrule in Breath of the Wild is unique? It’s no question a top 10 game of all time but let’s get some traditional dungeons.
Why would you stop when it is indeed unique. Unless you think every open world is the same or something

Anytime a huge and super popular game incorporates something into its game design and does it well it will continue receiving credit for popularizing it.

I could parachute/glide in games on nintendo with mario or in 97 with MDK. Stamina existed for years and so did climbing, but the way Zelda did it was very clever and its made the genre better for it.

I was really relieved to see a glider and free climbing in HFW gameplay demo and i know that probably wouldn’t exist without BoTW.

Yeah, I'd say it's not about "having a glider" it's about how they designed the level in a way that it benefitted from a glider which is much more unique and well done than just whether there is a glider or not.

I am indeed expecting the World of Forbidden West to learn lessons from BoTW rather than just "gliders are cool". but rather, "we need x amount of space between points of interest and we can implement x, y and z into the terrain to make the player have to think more and use more mechanics to get from A to B".
 
It’s a good game but I actually found the open world really sparse in terms of detail. I appreciated the systems but I think the praise is OTT.
 

Soodanim

Gold Member
That would be fine but the amount of hate BOTW gets in GAF is unnatural, it treated almost as if it’s the worst game ever created.
That’s fine, because there’s the constituency of worshippers that think it’s the one game above all and that it’s the saviour of mankind. So it balances out.
 

Lethal01

Member
That’s fine, because there’s the constituency of worshippers that think it’s the one game above all and that it’s the saviour of mankind. So it balances out.
Nah you're missing the point.
Since BotW IS the one game above all it makes sense that it's treated as such, the slander is an issue since it's objectively false. :messenger_sunglasses:
 

Bragr

Member
One thing I see alot since BOTW came out is "this is the breath of the wild of______". It reminds me when everything was the skyrim of _______ or dark souls of ________. But as someone who played breath of the wild why does it seem to get credit for elements that seem to be pretty common in open world games. Open world games with freedom of choice isn't new...shadow of the Colossus, Skyrim, even the witcher seems to have equal if not more unique open world elements, but being that zelda is an influential franchise, and it adopted a popular game design philosophy it gets a ton of credit for inventing them even tho it existed. Maybe I'm over analyzing but it now seems any game with the "you can play how you want" is automatically breath of the wild of its genre.
Because it evolved the exploration cues (giving you small clever hints everywhere to make you further explore, making the player lost in exploration without markers and overt hints, note the Howard quote at the bottom, this is what he is talking about), the freedom of using vertical level design (climbing on cliffs and mountains and jumping down with the sailcloth, it makes for a different method to level design than in previous open-world games), and the amount of options you can play with (the game world and all the objects in it react to physics in a meaningful and comprehensive manner, creating a massive amount of emergent gameplay).

Colossus, Skyrim, and Witcher feel extremely rigid and limited compared to BOTW. Something a lot of developers noticed too.

"I like to design for flow. Skyrim has a certain flow – it’s almost relaxing, comforting when you zone in. Breath of the Wild has that. Actually, Zelda does it so much better. That’s a brilliant game.” - Todd Howard
 

Bragr

Member
Ken Levine wrote a whole article about how much he loved it:

"Breath of the Wild mixes timeless Zelda systems and combat with Zen-like wanderlust. It combines 30-year-old design tropes with a state-of-the-art simulation engine. It creates a world of physics where heat generates lift and chickens can fly. The consistent yet robust physical rules of the world allow you to solve the game’s puzzles and fights as you see fit, not as some game designer insisted you do it."

 

Marvel14

Member
One thing I see alot since BOTW came out is "this is the breath of the wild of______". It reminds me when everything was the skyrim of _______ or dark souls of ________. But as someone who played breath of the wild why does it seem to get credit for elements that seem to be pretty common in open world games. Open world games with freedom of choice isn't new...shadow of the Colossus, Skyrim, even the witcher seems to have equal if not more unique open world elements, but being that zelda is an influential franchise, and it adopted a popular game design philosophy it gets a ton of credit for inventing them even tho it existed. Maybe I'm over analyzing but it now seems any game with the "you can play how you want" is automatically breath of the wild of its genre.
Here we go again.

There is no way you can go straight to the final boss in Dark Souls or Skyrim from the moment you start.

Neither of those games let's you fully interact with the landscape and traverse it anyway you like. Skyrim doesn't do mountain traversal very well and Dark Soul's paths are pretty much set. You can't climb the outside of buildings in either. The clunky limitations of movement take you out of the immersion.

Others have mentioned the physics but it's the fact that you can accomplish the same goals multiple ways thanks to the physics. Want an apple? Climb the tree, cut it down, burn it or launch an arrow at the apple. And that's just apple picking. Extend it to combat and traversal and you start to understand the amount of freedom this gives. Skyrim Dark Souls feel linear and handraily in comparison.

There are many different play styles to focus on. You can do the Divine Beasts, the Shrines, the Korok Seeds, photo the past quest, the side quests, the Towers to uncover the map, the treasure in enemy encampments. Horse rearing, monster battles, weapon or item collecting, recipe discovery, or simply just wander around finding unusual things like dragon scales, glowing Shrines or spooky forests. You can avoid battles most of the time and still have a blast because traversal via subtle
Visual cues unleashes the joy of exploration. I don't think any other open world game accomplishes this.

Skyrim and Dark Souls wouldn't be half the games they are if you took out the battling. BOTW still works wonderfully without it.

Why. Is. This. So. Hard . To. Understand?
 
Last edited:

Soodanim

Gold Member
Here we go again.

There is no way you can go straight to the final boss in Dark Souls or Skyrim from the moment you start.

Neither of those games let's you fully interact with the landscape and traverse it anyway you like. Skyrim doesn't do mountain traversal very well and Dark Soul's paths are pretty much set. You can't climb the outside of buildings in either.

Others have mentioned the physics but it's the fact that you can accomplish the same goals multiple ways thanks to the physics. Want an apple? Climb the tree, cut it down, burn it or launch an arrow at the apple. And that's just apple picking. Extend it to combat and traversal and you start to understand the amount of freedom this gives. Skyrim Dark Souls feel linear and handraily in comparison.

There are many different play styles to focus on. You can do the Divine Beasts, the Shrines, the Korok Seeds, photo the past quest, the side quests, the Towers to uncover the map, the treasure in enemy encampments. Horse rearing, monster battles, weapon or item collecting, recipe discovery, or simply just wander around finding unusual things like dragon scales, glowing Shrines or spooky forests. You can avoid battles most of the time and still have a blast because traversal via subtle
Visual cues unleashes the joy of exploration.

Skyrim and Dark Souls wouldn't be half the games they are if you took out the battling. BOTW still works wonderfully without it.

Why. Is. This. So. Hard . To. Understand?
What a load of shit. This is a prime example of treating BotW like it’s divinity then acting as if others are wrong for not having done their daily prayer.

You’re allowed to have it as your GOAT and not care about the many shortcomings it has, and people are allowed to do the opposite.

Why. Is. This. So. Hard. To. Understand?
 

Marvel14

Member
What a load of shit. This is a prime example of treating BotW like it’s divinity then acting as if others are wrong for not having done their daily prayer.

You’re allowed to have it as your GOAT and not care about the many shortcomings it has, and people are allowed to do the opposite.

Why. Is. This. So. Hard. To. Understand?

What is it with you lot that praising a game is tantamount to attacking your self esteem? Everything I posted is based on facts. Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram why don't you explain which other open world game proves me wrong? And by wrong I mean that BOTW does new
, innovative things not that it is objectively a better game than all other open worlds.

The fact that you've twisted my answer to the Ops' Question into an " I'm allowed to have an opinion too" whine speaks volumes.

I never said "if you don't like this you're wrong". And I fully accept that the points I mentioned don't translate into universal acclaim. I know people who prefer more structured games, or better combat, or more involved stories and don't get any joy from BOTW. And that's completely fine.

But the Ops question was what makes BOTW different and new. It's you who seems to have equated "different" with "better". Not me.
 
Last edited:
For some reason BOTW is really hated here in GAF. So we annal threads of people shitting on the game.
We all know the reason and i bet the same persons praise best of Ubisoft style games from their favorite company. I just wouldn't give a shit and instantly ignore those threads if they annoy you.
 

vypermajik

Member
Just a few examples of some elements I personally have never seen in an open world game.

+ Fire that does physical damage to surroundings and destroys it (not like Far Cry, but trees actually burn up)
+ Heat in game actually looks food, not just limited to a cooking station (have never seen this in any game before)
+ Using the environment to cross gaps (makeshift tree bridges) - never saw that before in a game either

it’s applauded because it’s unique. My 2 cents.
 

Shut0wen

Member
For someone who is a zelda fan boy, my fav game franchise of all time. Botw is just something special, yes it looks quite empty and barron but if you look closely theres alot of shit to do, i have other consoles and one of things i hate most about freeroam games is that they make a huge open world game and fill the map with nothing but absolute shite, same side missions or activities all over the place, breath of the wild is just total exploration, i havnt played the game in afew months but on my last playthrough i went up a mpuntain and see a huge fuck off dragon which ended up being a crazy boss fight, games like gta v fpr instant just doesnt have that, there is no reward for exploring and red dead 2 a game i was surprised that i enjoyed so much is the exact same, thing with skyrim is the combat is bad like really bad, witcher 3 a game you mentioned is a different beast all together, im hoping eldin ring scratches that botw itch where you can literally go anywhere you want and just explore and not find emptiness, im not saying botw is a perfect game because it has its flaws, people hate the breakable weapon but it never bothered me but the one thing i did hate about the game is the enemys, the variety is lack luster
 
What is it with you lot that praising a game is tantamount to attacking your self esteem? Everything I posted is based on facts. Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram why don't you explain which other open world game proves me wrong? And by wrong I mean that BOTW does new
, innovative things not that it is objectively a better game than all other open worlds.

The fact that you've twisted my answer to the Ops' Question into an " I'm allowed to have an opinion too" whine speaks volumes.

I never said "if you don't like this you're wrong". And I fully accept that the points I mentioned don't translate into universal acclaim. I know people who prefer more structured games, or better combat, or more involved stories and don't get any joy from BOTW. And that's completely fine.

But the Ops question was what makes BOTW different and new. It's you who seems to have equated "different" with "better". Not me.
I think there are many reasons why people dislike the game that are totally justified. I personally couldn't stand BotW at all. What you found to have "joy of exploration", I found to be one of the more boring open worlds that I've ever played. I finally quit the game for good after running an experiment wherein I ran, in a straight line, for 20 minutes without encountering a single enemy or major POI. Just trees and hills for 20 straight minutes, literally. I get no "joy" from that, I prefer playing a game that gives me things to do at a more frequent pace.
You also talk about the great ability to avoid combat. That would be fine, if there was actually ANY reason to bother with mobs In the first place. The way the game systems work, there's no reason to ever fight enemies, unless you're forced into battle. Your weapons break, so you're losing your stockpile for times when you might need them. You'll likely take a little damage, so you lose healing items. There's often no reward at all for clearing out an enemy camp, and without any type of XP system, BotW actually PUNISHES the player for bothering to fight any of the world mobs. To me, that's not a choice to "avoid enemies", there's simply no reason at all to fight them, and it's only a detriment. I fail to see how that's considered good game design. You have to give me SOME type of reason to engage with the enemies.
You also talk about "people praising the game is tantamount to attacking your self-esteem", but the exact opposite it also true. If anyone has a negative opinion about BotW, the fans of the game seem to react with nothing but disdain towards them.
"Why. Is. This. So. Hard. To. Understand." ... Exhibit A for that type of attitude. Anyone who doesn't bow down and worship a game that many people find to be quite flawed gets lambasted and talked down to, every single time.
You like the game, great for you. Give me Dark Souls and Skyrim every time over BotW. I find the game to be one of the most overrated experiences of the last decade. I literally bought a Switch just to play it, because people wouldn't stop talking about how amazing it is. Imo it's a game that has a weak story. The characters mostly just make "ooh" and "ahh" sounds, and that's the dialogue, riveting. The combat is similarly very weak, and as I said above, is also mostly a pointless endeavor. Traversal methods may have innovative mechanics, but they're largely wasted when you realize several dozen hours in that you're not really finding much in the open world to interact with. The only interesting gameplay happens in the shrines, which pale in comparison to the old school Zelda dungeons.
For me, BotW isn't a good game, and constantly being talked down to for 4 years for having that opinion isn't going to make me change my mind.
 
Last edited:

Soodanim

Gold Member
What is it with you lot that praising a game is tantamount to attacking your self esteem? Everything I posted is based on facts. Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram why don't you explain which other open world game proves me wrong? And by wrong I mean that BOTW does new, innovative things not that it is objectively a better game than all other open worlds.

The fact that you've twisted my answer to the Ops' Question into an " I'm allowed to have an opinion too" whine speaks volumes.

I never said "if you don't like this you're wrong". And I fully accept that the points I mentioned don't translate into universal acclaim. I know people who prefer more structured games, or better combat, or more involved stories and don't get any joy from BOTW. And that's completely fine.

But the Ops question was what makes BOTW different and new. It's you who seems to have equated "different" with "better". Not me.
Spare me the deflection onto me, we both know that isn't it. This isn't about me, and I never even mentioned myself. It's about your post.

You might not have wanted to come across as a devoted fanatic, but when you artificially elevate BotW for things it didn't innovate while pretending key gameplay elements of other games that inspired entire genres are irrelevant, you certainly look the part. If you took away the physics engine from BotW it would be a lot less than half the game it is because all you'd be left with is a a largely empty world. But no one sane would ever make that argument, because it's nonsensical. The entire thing is built around it in the same way that Dark Souls is built around its combat. Hence, load of shit. Then you ended your post with an arrogant "Everyone should get how amazing this game is, it's obvious" line. It gave the whole post that extra tinge of arrogance.
 

Marvel14

Member
That’s fine, because there’s the constituency of worshippers that think it’s the one game above all and that it’s the saviour of mankind. So it balances out.
Agree.

BoTw is either:

1. An opportunity for insecure teenagers who swear that Nintendo is kiddie and not a proper videogame purveyor to vent and get some much needed therapy for their childhood traumas.

2. An opportunity for rabbid Pro Nintendo immatures to say "suck it" to all those meanies who made fun of their precious company thereby atoning for the attacks on their very self worth

3. A videogame that many like or love and some don't with people OK with either perspective.


Wish there were more people in the 3. Camp but we are where we are.
 

Marvel14

Member
I think there are many reasons why people dislike the game that are totally justified. I personally couldn't stand BotW at all. What you found to have "joy of exploration", I found to be one of the more boring open worlds that I've ever played. I finally quit the game for good after running an experiment wherein I ran, in a straight line, for 20 minutes without encountering a single enemy or major POI. Just trees and hills for 20 straight minutes, literally. I get no "joy" from that, I prefer playing a game that gives me things to do at a more frequent pace.
You also talk about the great ability to avoid combat. That would be fine, if there was actually ANY reason to bother with mobs In the first place. The way the game systems work, there's no reason to ever fight enemies, unless you're forced into battle. Your weapons break, so you're losing your stockpile for times when you might need them. You'll likely take a little damage, so you lose healing items. There's often no reward at all for clearing out an enemy camp, and without any type of XP system, BotW actually PUNISHES the player for bothering to fight any of the world mobs. To me, that's not a choice to "avoid enemies", there's simply no reason at all to fight them, and it's only a detriment. I fail to see how that's considered good game design. You have to give me SOME type of reason to engage with the enemies.
You also talk about "people praising the game is tantamount to attacking your self-esteem", but the exact opposite it also true. If anyone has a negative opinion about BotW, the fans of the game seem to react with nothing but disdain towards them.
"Why. Is. This. So. Hard. To. Understand." ... Exhibit A for that type of attitude. Anyone who doesn't bow down and worship a game that many people find to be quite flawed gets lambasted and talked down to, every single time.
You like the game, great for you. Give me Dark Souls and Skyrim every time over BotW. I find the game to be one of the most overrated experiences of the last decade. I literally bought a Switch just to play it, because people wouldn't stop talking about how amazing it is. Imo it's a game that has a weak story. The characters mostly just make "ooh" and "ahh" sounds, and that's the dialogue, riveting. The combat is similarly very weak, and as I said above, is also mostly a pointless endeavor. Traversal methods may have innovative mechanics, but they're largely wasted when you realize several dozen hours in that you're not really finding much in the open world to interact with. The only interesting gameplay happens in the shrines, which pale in comparison to the old school Zelda dungeons.
For me, BotW isn't a good game, and constantly being talked down to for 4 years for having that opinion isn't going to make me change my mind.

Your opinion is absolutely fine and I respect it. BOTW is not everyone's cup of tea and that's fine. No problem there.

But that's very different to saying " this thing doesn't do anything new or different so why do people say it does? "

When that is patently not true. This is what I was referencing with:

Why. Is. This. So. Hard. To. Understand

It's you and Soodanim Soodanim who have decided that this means " you must like this game or face being a moron for the rest of your life".

It would be like someone saying "I don't get why GTA V is praised for gameplay variety or Dark Souls for its combat or Witcher 3 and LOU for story and adventure or Tetris for its simplicity and replayability"

Really? Do you also not get why media entertains or music is enjoyable or eating is pleasurable?

It's nonsensical and is not the same as whether you should or shouldn't like something.
 

Marvel14

Member
Spare me the deflection onto me, we both know that isn't it. This isn't about me, and I never even mentioned myself. It's about your post.

You might not have wanted to come across as a devoted fanatic, but when you artificially elevate BotW for things it didn't innovate while pretending key gameplay elements of other games that inspired entire genres are irrelevant, you certainly look the part. If you took away the physics engine from BotW it would be a lot less than half the game it is because all you'd be left with is a a largely empty world. But no one sane would ever make that argument, because it's nonsensical. The entire thing is built around it in the same way that Dark Souls is built around its combat. Hence, load of shit. Then you ended your post with an arrogant "Everyone should get how amazing this game is, it's obvious" line. It gave the whole post that extra tinge of arrogance.
I never said any game mechanic was irrelevant. I pointed out new innovative things in a videogame.

You've had two replies now and you have yet to argue with the substantive points I made......am open to challenge on substance. For example, you could point to an open world game with combat that works well when you take out the combat.

Ad hominem attacks not so much.
 
Last edited:

BlackTron

Member
It saddens me that all of the fine work in BOTW crafting the world and blending all the gameplay systems like physics, temperature, weather etc were wasted in a game that's just a bunch of copy/pasted boring shit.

You have total freedom to go anywhere and do all of the pointless minutia in any order you choose. Finding anything actually interesting or rewarding is extremely rare. The game is 90% random busywork and 10% action/adventure Zelda game content. But because the busywork can be done randomly instead of a pre-scripted order, the game is a masterpiece apparently.

The game hinges on the "what will I find around the next corner or over the next mountain if I look" aspect. But pretty soon you will realize the best case scenario is finding another lame 1-2 room shrine that looks and sounds exactly the same. There are rare exceptions like having to deal with the lynel but that stuff is like 1% of the gameplay for a title that expects you to meander around for dozens and dozens of hours.

Basically BOTW did a lot of things that should have been VERY impressive in a Zelda game, they just forgot to include the Zelda game. They are acting like all of these features and updates make a game on their own. Compared to a game like OOT it's absolutely laughable. I also hate how its compared to Zelda 1 because while 1 was open world yes, it had things in it worth finding when you persevered, like dungeon gameplay. BOTW has no such reward for its exploration, and behaves as if the joy of exploration itself is its own reward, with no incentive to do it other than for its own sake.
 
Your opinion is absolutely fine and I respect it. BOTW is not everyone's cup of tea and that's fine. No problem there.

But that's very different to saying " this thing doesn't do anything new or different so why do people say it does? "

When that is patently not true. This is what I was referencing with:

Why. Is. This. So. Hard. To. Understand

It's you and Soodanim Soodanim who have decided that this means " you must like this game or face being a moron for the rest of your life".

It would be like someone saying "I don't get why GTA V is praised for gameplay variety or Dark Souls for its combat or Witcher 3 and LOU for story and adventure or Tetris for its simplicity and replayability"

Really? Do you also not get why media entertains or music is enjoyable or eating is pleasurable?

It's nonsensical and is not the same as whether you should or shouldn't like something.
Tell me where in my post I said that it doesn't do anything new or different? I actually mentioned that it has innovative traversal elements, in fact.
However, I've also seen people that have praised the "climb tower to reveal the world map" mechanic, some in this very thread. Yet, when Ubisoft uses the exact same mechanic, it turns into a chorus of groans. Why is it a good system in BotW, but a bad system when Ubisoft does the same thing? This is a prime example of why some people feel that BotW mostly gets undue praise. You try to act like myself and others are somehow misinterpreting "you must like this game or face being a moron", yet in your own posts, you are literally proving my point there. You act as though people who have issue with the game are mostly just edgelord teenagers who are trolling. You also keep falling back on the "different tastes" argument, as though I'm incapable of grasping that. It's really hilarious to watch you try to take some weird moral high ground, whilst simultaneously doing that EXACT thing we're pointing out to you. You ARE belittling people who dislike the game. I haven't said anything to you that is an attack on you as a person. Yet, you're pretending that I'm too stupid to understand something as simple as holding a differing opinion. You ARE acting like people who have a problem with the game are just immature teenagers looking to score internet points. You're merely proving my point about a lot of BotW fans. So many of you simply cannot take an ounce of negative feedback about the game without resorting to personal slights. You could have made all the same points in favor of the game without using "do you not understand why media entertains..." type of nonsense.
You tell me that you "respect my opinion", but it's clear that you do not. That's fine, you don't have to, but don't tell me you do, just to make yourself seem like you hold an enlightened viewpoint.
 

Soodanim

Gold Member
I never said any game mechanic was irrelevant. I pointed out new innovative things in a videogame.

You've had two replies now and you have yet to argue with the substantive points I made......am open to challenge on substance. Ad hominem attacks not so much.
I didn't take issue with the things I agree with.
Edit: although now you mention it, climbing was ruined by rain and the super boost allowing you to skip most of that is the biggest blessing in the game.

BotW was a fun game to play in enough ways that I finished it. A ridiculous number of games would benefit from a physics system half as good as BotW's. My issue was with saying if you take combat away from Skyrim or Dark Souls it's half the game it was, while at the same point applauding BotW for having Ubisoft towers as one of its things to do. When you create scenarios to make BotW look better, that's disingenuous.

There's no ad hominem. I make reference to your post and how it came across, not you as an individual.
It's you and Soodanim Soodanim who have decided that this means " you must like this game or face being a moron for the rest of your life".
When both of us think it came across as something different to the way you appear to have intended it, that's a suggestion that it isn't our interpretation of it that was the problem. Especially in the context of what I said previously.
It saddens me that all of the fine work in BOTW crafting the world and blending all the gameplay systems like physics, temperature, weather etc were wasted in a game that's just a bunch of copy/pasted boring shit.

You have total freedom to go anywhere and do all of the pointless minutia in any order you choose. Finding anything actually interesting or rewarding is extremely rare. The game is 90% random busywork and 10% action/adventure Zelda game content. But because the busywork can be done randomly instead of a pre-scripted order, the game is a masterpiece apparently.

The game hinges on the "what will I find around the next corner or over the next mountain if I look" aspect. But pretty soon you will realize the best case scenario is finding another lame 1-2 room shrine that looks and sounds exactly the same. There are rare exceptions like having to deal with the lynel but that stuff is like 1% of the gameplay for a title that expects you to meander around for dozens and dozens of hours.

Basically BOTW did a lot of things that should have been VERY impressive in a Zelda game, they just forgot to include the Zelda game. They are acting like all of these features and updates make a game on their own. Compared to a game like OOT it's absolutely laughable. I also hate how its compared to Zelda 1 because while 1 was open world yes, it had things in it worth finding when you persevered, like dungeon gameplay. BOTW has no such reward for its exploration, and behaves as if the joy of exploration itself is its own reward, with no incentive to do it other than for its own sake.
It's like they couldn't think of a way to make it into an actual Zelda game. It's 90% engine, 10% Zelda. It might as well have been a new IP, at least they could have had freedom to flesh something out instead of a Zelda game that isn't like a Zelda game. I have high hopes for BotW2, because if they learn how to refine what they've got the potential is huge. Make the world less quantity if it means more quality, make combat worth doing instead of avoiding, and give us some actual dungeons and it will feel much better.
 
Last edited:

Marvel14

Member
Tell me where in my post I said that it doesn't do anything new or different? I actually mentioned that it has innovative traversal elements, in fact.
However, I've also seen people that have praised the "climb tower to reveal the world map" mechanic, some in this very thread. Yet, when Ubisoft uses the exact same mechanic, it turns into a chorus of groans. Why is it a good system in BotW, but a bad system when Ubisoft does the same thing? This is a prime example of why some people feel that BotW mostly gets undue praise. You try to act like myself and others are somehow misinterpreting "you must like this game or face being a moron", yet in your own posts, you are literally proving my point there. You act as though people who have issue with the game are mostly just edgelord teenagers who are trolling. You also keep falling back on the "different tastes" argument, as though I'm incapable of grasping that. It's really hilarious to watch you try to take some weird moral high ground, whilst simultaneously doing that EXACT thing we're pointing out to you. You ARE belittling people who dislike the game. I haven't said anything to you that is an attack on you as a person. Yet, you're pretending that I'm too stupid to understand something as simple as holding a differing opinion. You ARE acting like people who have a problem with the game are just immature teenagers looking to score internet points. You're merely proving my point about a lot of BotW fans. So many of you simply cannot take an ounce of negative feedback about the game without resorting to personal slights. You could have made all the same points in favor of the game without using "do you not understand why media entertains..." type of nonsense.
You tell me that you "respect my opinion", but it's clear that you do not. That's fine, you don't have to, but don't tell me you do, just to make yourself seem like you hold an enlightened viewpoint.

Ok back up a bit. Your criticisms are totally valid. The ONLY argument I am making is that BOTw does new innovative things. I never said everyone should like it. When you responded to my post explaining why you didn't like it you were inferring that I was.

So we are arguing at cross purposes.

Me: stilton is well seasoned and has a strong mushroomy taste.

You: Stilton sucks. Cheddar rules.

😂
 
Last edited:
Ok back up a bit. Your criticisms are totally valid. The ONLY argument I am making is that BOTw does new innovative things. I never said everyone should like it. When you responded to my post explaining why you didn't like it you were inferring that I was.

So we are arguing at cross purposes.

Me: stilton is well seasoned and has a strong mushroomy taste.

You: Stilton sucks. Cheddar rules.
Once again, read how the end of your post sounds. You're implying that you are taking a nuanced approach to discussing the game, while I'm merely drive-by posting "this game sucks". I left a pretty long post explaining some of my core issues with the game, and you've tried to dismiss it as "BotW sucks".
Please do continue to prove my point.
 

Marvel14

Member
Once again, read how the end of your post sounds. You're implying that you are taking a nuanced approach to discussing the game, while I'm merely drive-by posting "this game sucks". I left a pretty long post explaining some of my core issues with the game, and you've tried to dismiss it as "BotW sucks".
Please do continue to prove my point.
You're the one getting emotional and combative over a video game thread whose topic is "why do people say that this game does the things it does ?" And turning it into a "do you like this game?" thread.

There is that.
 
Last edited:

BlackTron

Member
It's like they couldn't think of a way to make it into an actual Zelda game. It's 90% engine, 10% Zelda. It might as well have been a new IP, at least they could have had freedom to flesh something out instead of a Zelda game that isn't like a Zelda game. I have high hopes for BotW2, because if they learn how to refine what they've got the potential is huge. Make the world less quantity if it means more quality, make combat worth doing instead of avoiding, and give us some actual dungeons and it will feel much better.

I think that how to make it an actual Zelda game is fairly obvious. They could have simply copied Zelda 1 instead of only 50% of Zelda 1. They even said Zelda 1 was an inspiration and we all know they used a Zelda 1-like sprite based engine to prototype the BOTW overworld.

The simple fact is that it would have been a lot more work and they chose to prop the game up on its bells and whistles than to put in the effort necessary on content. It's not a terrible game but with how much was riding on it, and being Zelda, it shows they will try to get away with anything they can. And it actually worked with GANGBUSTER sales.

I've never purchased BOTW. I borrowed my friends copy and played about 70% through the game that way. I refuse to reward them for this lazy game design especially for what was supposed to be this megaton title, but the market has spoken which is depressing. This is from a Zelda/Nintendo fanatic who owns about 30 physical Switch games. I was there for Link's Awakening Day One. You don't even need OOT as a reminder of what Zelda should be, you can just play a fucking Game Boy game that has more Zelda action/puzzle content than BOTW, which is pathetic.
 

Marvel14

Member
I didn't take issue with the things I agree with.
Edit: although now you mention it, climbing was ruined by rain and the super boost allowing you to skip most of that is the biggest blessing in the game.

BotW was a fun game to play in enough ways that I finished it. A ridiculous number of games would benefit from a physics system half as good as BotW's. My issue was with saying if you take combat away from Skyrim or Dark Souls it's half the game it was, while at the same point applauding BotW for having Ubisoft towers as one of its things to do. When you create scenarios to make BotW look better, that's disingenuous.

There's no ad hominem. I make reference to your post and how it came across, not you as an individual.

When both of us think it came across as something different to the way you appear to have intended it, that's a suggestion that it isn't our interpretation of it that was the problem. Especially in the context of what I said previously.

It's like they couldn't think of a way to make it into an actual Zelda game. It's 90% engine, 10% Zelda. It might as well have been a new IP, at least they could have had freedom to flesh something out instead of a Zelda game that isn't like a Zelda game. I have high hopes for BotW2, because if they learn how to refine what they've got the potential is huge. Make the world less quantity if it means more quality, make combat worth doing instead of avoiding, and give us some actual dungeons and it will feel much better.
You start your reply to me with "What a load of shit". Sure its not personal personal but you start by declaring that my opinion is shit which is an ad hominem attack.

Anyway, now that hopefully you've realised I am not a Nintendo extremist it would be good to get your opinion on the actual thread topic. Does BOTW do new innovative things with gameplay or not?

You don't have to like them, and if you agree that it does it doesn't mean you fully endorse the game....
 
Last edited:
You're the one getting emotional and combative over a video game thread whose topic is "why do people say that this game does the things it does ?" And turning it into a "do you like this game?" thread.

There is that.
And now you're telling me that I'm "getting emotional", when I'm not. I'm quite calmly sitting here, I assure you.
Again, with literally every post you're making, you continue to prove my point. You cannot seem to make a single post without casting aspersions at some part of my personality, baselessly. If I was emotional, my tone would be drastically different. It sure would be nice if you were able to carry on a civil conversation about a game without jumping to ridiculous claims about people's personalities.
 

supernova8

Member
Breath of the Wild is the first open world game I've played that has a cohesive environment in terms of elements (wind, water, fire, electricity)/physics and being able to interact with stuff (and move wherever you want to) and with zero load-times.

I'll say I felt the story to be a little lacking/too loose for my liking. Definitely enjoyed the Witcher 3 story more. Having said that, I felt like I could just "exist" in BOTW without progressing with the main story at all if I wanted (e.g. doing shrine stuff, gaining hearts/stamina), whereas in the Witcher 3 I felt like I could only do my own thing for a short time before running out of stuff to do and needing to get on with the story.

For me Zelda feels like a third-person evolution of what the original Far Cry felt like amid a bunch of super linear corridor shooters at the time (even the very first combat encounter where there's a gunboat and you have lots of options to take it out or just ignore it completely).

Also, I personally think Skyrim's visuals are garbage. Sure you can mod it but the "true" visuals are garbage (which is what should be compared to BOTW since it's all unmodified). The reason I find them to be garbage is that it's basically a load of super low-poly models with high-res (but somehow really basic and repetitive) textures stuck on top. I just don't like it.

BOTW keeps the art-style simple but consistent across all models and environment pieces. I don't recall ever seeing something/someone and thinking "hmm yeah that model looks low-effort and out of place".
 
Last edited:

Zok310

Member
I think it’s because the general Zelda/Nintendo audiences haven’t played a lot of open world games (if they’ve mostly played on Nintendo systems), so maybe it’s more new to them.

BotW doesn’t do a lot original but it has a neat physics system that very few open world games bother to implement. That alone makes it seem more unique.
Pretty much this. It did for Zelda what Gears, Souls and Uncharted did for 3rd person shooters/games in general on the Nintendo platform. So it would have come off new and refreshing for that audience.
 

V4skunk

Banned
Because it combined everything into one nice package and did things never done before like the proper use of physics.
I think it is also the first open world game where you can go anywhere anytime.
 

Lethal01

Member
I finally quit the game for good after running an experiment wherein I ran, in a straight line, for 20 minutes without encountering a single enemy or major POI. Just trees and hills for 20 straight minutes, literally. I get no "joy" from that, I prefer playing a game that gives me things to do at a more frequent pace.
That's a very fair complaint, Personally my experience was the opposite, just by walking through BoTW I felt like I was seeing way more things to do than any other open world. I always say that BoTWs greatest strength is there always being a clear place you want to go and then the game having something to distract you from that goal every 2 minutes.

Nothing to really argue here since that didn't happen for you.

if there was actually ANY reason to bother with mobs In the first place. The way the game systems work, there's no reason to ever fight enemies, unless you're forced into battle. Your weapons break, so you're losing your stockpile for times when you might need them. You'll likely take a little damage, so you lose healing items. There's often no reward at all for clearing out an enemy camp, and without any type of XP system, BotW actually PUNISHES the player for bothering to fight any of the world mobs. To me, that's not a choice to "avoid enemies", there's simply no reason at all to fight them, and it's only a detriment. I fail to see how that's considered good game design. You have to give me SOME type of reason to engage with the enemies.
There are quite a few reasons to fight, I'll admit that while the combat In BoTW get tons of crticism from me I still think it's got a lot of positives and is fun overall, too easy if you use healing items. But I won't argue with anyone who hates it, I see why they would.

Anyway, Monsters usually have weapons just lying around that you can use and those weapons are usually more than enough to kill them. So you are rarely going to leave a fight with less than you get from going in unless you play badly, Monsters drop items in each fight so you can use them to level up your armor, for defense and buffs. You can also sell them for a good amount of money which is also very useful. The more monsters you kill the stronger they get meaning you get more money and stronger armour. It also means they carry better equipment so it quickly becomes that the fancy sword your hording is just standard loot and there is now a better one in the chest of a monster camp or just being swung around my a lizard.


I've also seen people that have praised the "climb tower to reveal the world map" mechanic, some in this very thread. Yet, when Ubisoft uses the exact same mechanic, it turns into a chorus of groans. Why is it a good system in BotW, but a bad system when Ubisoft does the same thing?

I'm definitely one of the people who do this, feels totally justified. BoTW gets praised because of the decision to NOT mark a bunch of places of interest when you climb up. It's a simple decision doing that means they then have to do some things differently than if the player was going through the game with a full map showing the way to 95% of the content.

I find that this decision manifests itself in a world where you actually see far more points of interest at all time, A map with more verticality, and more interesting locations since they need to stick out at a distance since you actually have to tell they are important instead of finding out via a map.. You aren't going up on some specific tower and then getting locations marked for you, you are climbing to ANY high point and using your eyes to see 20 nearby points of interest at any time.

Point is that BoTW definitely doesn't do "the same thing" climbing up a top literally just shows you the landscape that you then have to explore yourself.
 
Last edited:

Marvel14

Member
And now you're telling me that I'm "getting emotional", when I'm not. I'm quite calmly sitting here, I assure you.
Again, with literally every post you're making, you continue to prove my point. You cannot seem to make a single post without casting aspersions at some part of my personality, baselessly. If I was emotional, my tone would be drastically different. It sure would be nice if you were able to carry on a civil conversation about a game without jumping to ridiculous claims about people's personalities.

Episode 6 Enemy GIF by Archie Comics

This you picking a fight where no one is fighting with you.
 
Last edited:

rogr rogr

Member
I mean this kind of post is exactly why the discourse around Breath of the Wild has become so poor online, it has devolved into an endless succession of bad faith "pfffft yeah like BotW invented burning grass amirite" arguments coming from the same people who for some reason have a giant chip on their shoulder about Nintendo being one of the most influential companies in the industry.

I'll try to address the subject even if I have no illusion about the kind of reception my post will get but basically the point is an influential game isn't necessarily one that invents a mechanic or does something entirely new for the first time but moreso a title that puts familiar elements together in such a way it creates a template that'll later inspire others, and to illustrate that I'll take the example of Dark Souls.

I think not a lot of people would disagree about Dark Souls being one of the most iconic and influential games of the 2010s. It has entered the collective imagination of players worldwide and has spawned countless clones. Some of its design elements have impacted games that don't directly copy its entire formula too, so it might be surprising to claim that the fundamental mechanics and systems that define Dark Souls have all been lifted from other titles: the weighty combat with an emphasis on uncancellable animations forcing you to commit, the risky healing mechanic and the stamina bar are all lifted straight out of Monster Hunter. The interconnected, labyrinthine level design with unlockable shortcuts, elevators connecting different areas, emphasis on environmental storytelling and exploration loop bringing you back to a safe starting area can all be found in the Metroid series. The corpse run is an obvious mainstay of the MMO genre since at least Everquest in the early 2000s and of course the Z targeting and heavy use of shields in combat evoke Ocarina of Time.

Having listed all of that it'd seem particularly idiotic to then act as if the blatant soulsclones released afterwards weren't inspired by Dark Souls but instead by Monster Hunter, Metroid or Everquest. Technically, in the pettiest, most nitpicky way it's correct, but in reality it's obvious it's Dark Souls that became the template all these games followed because it's the game that put all these elements together in such a way it became a reference for a lot of people.

So what does BotW do that all these other open world don't which justifies the praise? Well the obvious answer, which everyone should know at this point if they were arguing in good faith is that BotW brought down the walls associated with the genre and went all in with freedom left to the player which manifests itself in multiple ways:

-One of the stupidest criticisms leveled against BotW is that it has "Ubisoft towers". This is of course an idiotic statement specifically because BotW avoids the problem generally associated with Ubi towers which is the myriad of activity icons popping up on the player's map once activated. In BotW activating a tower only gives you the general topography of the region, even the names of places aren't shown before you visit them which means that cartography becomes a gameplay element: it's the player who has to pay attention to his surroundings, use his eyes to scout for points of interest in the distance (the entire point of a tower) and annote his map with markers he'll place himself. Instead of being put on a treadmill of amusement park style activities you get to choose where you go and what peeks your interest. The game leaves agency to the player.

-Speaking of scouting for points of interest, the map design is perfectly conceived to allow for navigation by sight only. There's no waypoint or magical GPS system and the bare minimum of map markers. The player is expected to carve his way through the world just by looking around and the world design does an amazing job guiding him by placing landmarks of varied size and shape throughout the map. The map is so well designed that a little known fact about Hyrule is that you can see every single main regions from the cliff on the Great Plateau at the very beginning, can pick and choose one of the large landmarks and follow the direction towards it to reach the associated region: Death Mountain brings you to Goron Village, the Great Deku Tree to the Master Sword, the Dueling Peaks guide you towards the start of the main quest etc. Even if this kind of design has already been used in open world games, to my knowledge it's never been used so extensively and efficiently in a map of this size.

-The map itself is constantly alternating between plains and more elevated mountainous regions, it's remarkably vertical and "chaotic" in the way a natural landscape tends to be and yet it doubles as a perfect playground because, like other things in the game I'll come back to later it's perfectly laid out to synergize with the traversal mechanics and the aforementioned "exploration by sight" philosophy. The way you can climb every surface isn't just a gimmick, it's a fundamental aspect of what makes the game so liberating compared to other open world games because climbing a mountain isn't just a marketing argument, it's at the core of the entire gameplay loop: you climb a wall (which is neither restricted like in every other game that have clear climbing spots nor automated because you have to manage your stamina and spot parts of the cliff where you can rest beforehand), use the vantage point to find something you want to check in the distance and then parasail or shield surf to it. You constantly go up and down freely in a way that has never been done before and you're always engaged and in total control of your actions throughout (again, no map markers or waypoints, just your eyes and mind).

-And finally and most importantly the game simply grants the player an insane number of possible interactions due to the "multiplicative" nature of its gameplay. By that I mean that it's not simply that the game has a staggering number of mechanics, which it does, but mostly the way these mechanics interact with eachother and end up having multiple uses in multiple context: in BotW the same mechanic can be used at the same time for combat, traversal and puzzle solving, like how the parasail can obviously make you move faster but also allow you to drop bombs from above or execute a dive attack or help you gain enough height by riding an ascending air current which then allows you to activate bullet time bow shots which allows you to land critical headshots on enemies which stuns them which makes them drop their weapons etc etc etc. The game's systemic design is simply vastly above what the competition offers and I don't see how anyone could deny it, console war shitposting notwithstanding.

So to sum up and mercifully conclude, BotW identified what the main draw of an open world was which is obviously its open nature and gave players more options and more freedom than anything done before thanks to a complete lack of handholding, gameplay based on unrestricted exploration, a trust placed in the player to navigate the world by sight and choose his own path by himself and incredibly solid synergy between world design and core mechanics. You can spend your days impotently screeching about how Just Cause 3 did aerial traversal before, or how immersive sims are nothing new, or how GTA already allowed players to find their way through the level design itself but as my Dark Souls example showed that'd be missing the forest for the trees. Breath of the Wild is the game that took these elements and put them together in a coherent whole that became the new standard of the genre for millions of people, including the creators of one of the most lucrative hits of the past few years in Genshin Impact. You're free to delude yourself it's all a fanboy conspiracy to the tune of "it's ok when Nintendo do it" until you're blue in the face but that won't change the game's overwhelmingly positive reception and its already solidly established place in the gaming pantheon. Cope, as kids say.
I'll wait until someone make a movie off of your post, then I'll watch it.



Just kidding...superb arguments and I agree 100%.

For me, the main quality of games like BOTH and the Souls series is their focus on gameplay. You see...I dislike 90% of the movies that are released due to bad acting or shitty story...and they are movies! Games are supposed to be games.
 
I'll try to address the subject even if I have no illusion about the kind of reception my post will get but basically the point is an influential game isn't necessarily one that invents a mechanic or does something entirely new for the first time but moreso a title that puts familiar elements together in such a way it creates a template that'll later inspire others, and to illustrate that I'll take the example of Dark Souls.

I think not a lot of people would disagree about Dark Souls being one of the most iconic and influential games of the 2010s. It has entered the collective imagination of players worldwide and has spawned countless clones. Some of its design elements have impacted games that don't directly copy its entire formula too, so it might be surprising to claim that the fundamental mechanics and systems that define Dark Souls have all been lifted from other titles: the weighty combat with an emphasis on uncancellable animations forcing you to commit, the risky healing mechanic and the stamina bar are all lifted straight out of Monster Hunter. The interconnected, labyrinthine level design with unlockable shortcuts, elevators connecting different areas, emphasis on environmental storytelling and exploration loop bringing you back to a safe starting area can all be found in the Metroid series. The corpse run is an obvious mainstay of the MMO genre since at least Everquest in the early 2000s and of course the Z targeting and heavy use of shields in combat evoke Ocarina of Time.

Having listed all of that it'd seem particularly idiotic to then act as if the blatant soulsclones released afterwards weren't inspired by Dark Souls but instead by Monster Hunter, Metroid or Everquest. Technically, in the pettiest, most nitpicky way it's correct, but in reality it's obvious it's Dark Souls that became the template all these games followed because it's the game that put all these elements together in such a way it became a reference for a lot of people.

So what does BotW do that all these other open world don't which justifies the praise? Well the obvious answer, which everyone should know at this point if they were arguing in good faith is that BotW brought down the walls associated with the genre and went all in with freedom left to the player which manifests itself in multiple ways:

-One of the stupidest criticisms leveled against BotW is that it has "Ubisoft towers". This is of course an idiotic statement specifically because BotW avoids the problem generally associated with Ubi towers which is the myriad of activity icons popping up on the player's map once activated. In BotW activating a tower only gives you the general topography of the region, even the names of places aren't shown before you visit them which means that cartography becomes a gameplay element: it's the player who has to pay attention to his surroundings, use his eyes to scout for points of interest in the distance (the entire point of a tower) and annote his map with markers he'll place himself. Instead of being put on a treadmill of amusement park style activities you get to choose where you go and what peeks your interest. The game leaves agency to the player.

-Speaking of scouting for points of interest, the map design is perfectly conceived to allow for navigation by sight only. There's no waypoint or magical GPS system and the bare minimum of map markers. The player is expected to carve his way through the world just by looking around and the world design does an amazing job guiding him by placing landmarks of varied size and shape throughout the map. The map is so well designed that a little known fact about Hyrule is that you can see every single main regions from the cliff on the Great Plateau at the very beginning, can pick and choose one of the large landmarks and follow the direction towards it to reach the associated region: Death Mountain brings you to Goron Village, the Great Deku Tree to the Master Sword, the Dueling Peaks guide you towards the start of the main quest etc. Even if this kind of design has already been used in open world games, to my knowledge it's never been used so extensively and efficiently in a map of this size.

-The map itself is constantly alternating between plains and more elevated mountainous regions, it's remarkably vertical and "chaotic" in the way a natural landscape tends to be and yet it doubles as a perfect playground because, like other things in the game I'll come back to later it's perfectly laid out to synergize with the traversal mechanics and the aforementioned "exploration by sight" philosophy. The way you can climb every surface isn't just a gimmick, it's a fundamental aspect of what makes the game so liberating compared to other open world games because climbing a mountain isn't just a marketing argument, it's at the core of the entire gameplay loop: you climb a wall (which is neither restricted like in every other game that have clear climbing spots nor automated because you have to manage your stamina and spot parts of the cliff where you can rest beforehand), use the vantage point to find something you want to check in the distance and then parasail or shield surf to it. You constantly go up and down freely in a way that has never been done before and you're always engaged and in total control of your actions throughout (again, no map markers or waypoints, just your eyes and mind).

-And finally and most importantly the game simply grants the player an insane number of possible interactions due to the "multiplicative" nature of its gameplay. By that I mean that it's not simply that the game has a staggering number of mechanics, which it does, but mostly the way these mechanics interact with eachother and end up having multiple uses in multiple context: in BotW the same mechanic can be used at the same time for combat, traversal and puzzle solving, like how the parasail can obviously make you move faster but also allow you to drop bombs from above or execute a dive attack or help you gain enough height by riding an ascending air current which then allows you to activate bullet time bow shots which allows you to land critical headshots on enemies which stuns them which makes them drop their weapons etc etc etc. The game's systemic design is simply vastly above what the competition offers and I don't see how anyone could deny it, console war shitposting notwithstanding.

So to sum up and mercifully conclude, BotW identified what the main draw of an open world was which is obviously its open nature and gave players more options and more freedom than anything done before thanks to a complete lack of handholding, gameplay based on unrestricted exploration, a trust placed in the player to navigate the world by sight and choose his own path by himself and incredibly solid synergy between world design and core mechanics. You can spend your days impotently screeching about how Just Cause 3 did aerial traversal before, or how immersive sims are nothing new, or how GTA already allowed players to find their way through the level design itself but as my Dark Souls example showed that'd be missing the forest for the trees. Breath of the Wild is the game that took these elements and put them together in a coherent whole that became the new standard of the genre for millions of people, including the creators of one of the most lucrative hits of the past few years in Genshin Impact. You're free to delude yourself it's all a fanboy conspiracy to the tune of "it's ok when Nintendo do it" until you're blue in the face but that won't change the game's overwhelmingly positive reception and its already solidly established place in the gaming pantheon. Cope, as kids say.
This says everything needed to be said. I am not a fanboy of any console - and definitely not a Nintendo fanboy. I think I’ve played only BOTW and the new Mario for switch. But the hate BOTW gets is legit baffling to me - I get if it’s not your thing. But I don’t understand how people don’t see why it hit the way it did.
 
Last edited:

Aldric

Member
It's like they couldn't think of a way to make it into an actual Zelda game. It's 90% engine, 10% Zelda. It might as well have been a new IP, at least they could have had freedom to flesh something out instead of a Zelda game that isn't like a Zelda game.
See this kind of mindless comment is also why it has become so hard to discuss this game in any kind of meaningful way. This and your previous comment on the endless crying about BotW being overrated or a flat out bad game "balancing out" the praise makes me think this whole thing is motivated by an infantile belief that you're somehow fixing a grave injustice by engaging in negative hyperbole in reaction to what you interpret as excessive positivity. Why would you waste your time doing that? The game is an immense critical and commercial success, this is a fact. You're not achieving anything with this kind of behavior, you just come off as an obsessed shitposter.

As for the claim BotW is barely a Zelda game it's simply false, first of all because Zelda isn't a monolithic series and Adventure of Link for example is a much bigger departure from the A Link To The Past formula (which is what you probably associate with Zelda) than Breath of the Wild but also because Breath of the Wild contains all of the constitutive elements of the series: exploration, combat, puzzle solving, villages, dungeons and overworld, sidequests, minigames, it's all there, simply arranged differently compared to previous games. They didn't turn the series into an arcade racer or a third person shooter, it's still very much a classic action adventure title.
 

Soodanim

Gold Member
You start your reply to me with "What a load of shit". Sure its not personal personal but you start by declaring that my opinion is shit which is an ad hominem attack.

Anyway, now that hopefully you've realised I am not a Nintendo extremist it would be good to get your opinion on the actual thread topic. Does BOTW do new innovative things with gameplay or not?

You don't have to like them, and if you agree that it does it doesn't mean you fully endorse the game....
Ad hominem is attacking the person in order to discredit their argument. Addressing your post was only ever a position against your argument. If disagreeing with the post and the way it was written was ad hominem, all disagreements would be ad hominem.

Don't patronise me. You are acting as if I am afraid to admit there are positive things about the game, which means you haven't been listening. Your question was answered in the post you quoted.
See this kind of mindless comment is also why it has become so hard to discuss this game in any kind of meaningful way. This and your previous comment on the endless crying about BotW being overrated or a flat out bad game "balancing out" the praise makes me think this whole thing is motivated by an infantile belief that you're somehow fixing a grave injustice by engaging in negative hyperbole in reaction to what you interpret as excessive positivity. Why would you waste your time doing that? The game is an immense critical and commercial success, this is a fact. You're not achieving anything with this kind of behavior, you just come off as an obsessed shitposter.

As for the claim BotW is barely a Zelda game it's simply false, first of all because Zelda isn't a monolithic series and Adventure of Link for example is a much bigger departure from the A Link To The Past formula (which is what you probably associate with Zelda) than Breath of the Wild but also because Breath of the Wild contains all of the constitutive elements of the series: exploration, combat, puzzle solving, villages, dungeons and overworld, sidequests, minigames, it's all there, simply arranged differently compared to previous games. They didn't turn the series into an arcade racer or a third person shooter, it's still very much a classic action adventure title.
The second paragraph is a legitimate perspective, so it’s a shame the first is a meaningless stream of drivel because it misses too much to respond from an accurate perspective. But we'll move past it because it's not important.

If you reskinned OOT, MM, WW, TP, or SS they would be instantly recognisable as Zelda games. When I played Darksiders for the first time, I had an "Oh, it's Zelda" moment. If BOTW was reskinned and released as a new IP, I would think "I can see why they didn't make this Zelda." It could have easily gone the direction of Resident Evil 3.5 > Devil May Cry, but they stuck with it and kept it as Zelda for better or worse.

To give the level of freedom you get, they sacrificed things that are key hallmarks of the series. Gear-based progression and the dungeons that go with it are big points. Having flashbacks is a nice idea to help try and pad out the emptiness, but for me it doesn't make up for what's lost. The game has puzzles, but they're wasted on being spread so thinly across a largely empty world and are definitely not a replacement for dungeons. The only power that feels like an actual upgrade to me is Revali's Gale. Urbosa'a Fury is okay, but the other two are a rechargeable fairy and a rechargeable shield. Hardly adequate rewards for doing half of the main story content.

Like I said to Blacktron, if they condensed BOTW and made some changes it would feel a lot more like a traditional Zelda game while maintaining what they've introduced with the new system. That's my hope for the sequel.
 

Chiggs

Gold Member
I enjoyed Breath of the Wild, but pretty much any UbiSoft open-world game destroys what Nintendo produced with BotW from a world-design perspective.
 
Last edited:

Raven117

Member
I think it’s because the general Zelda/Nintendo audiences haven’t played a lot of open world games (if they’ve mostly played on Nintendo systems), so maybe it’s more new to them.

BotW doesn’t do a lot original but it has a neat physics system that very few open world games bother to implement. That alone makes it seem more unique.
Yup.
 

Raven117

Member
Breath of the wild gets credit because of the "chemistry/physics engine" and the freedom to use it, no other open world has that. Still unbelievable people don't understand that simple fact. Even red dead redemption 2 doesn't have that.


This is the video for you and for the people that still don't understand or want to understand.
I think most people do. The question is whether those people care about it.

for me, it didn’t do much. But I can see how some folks absolutely love it.

but other than that, the game did nothing original.
 

Raven117

Member
So which other open world handles a temperature system being impacted by everything including nearby heat sources, the weapon you carry, your armor, what you ate, day and night, being in the sun or shade, etc?

Which one handles a physics system where objects have properties (metal conducts electricity, wood burns, ice melts with heat sources, etc)?

Which one has rain impacting noises, NPC reactions, monster behavior, etc? Which one uses wind directions to propel objects (like boats or items on ice) in different directions realistically?

Which one has thunder actually interacting with you if you wear metal armor? Or striking metal items located higher?

Which one allows you to play with the physics system by freezing things in place, adding momentum to those and releasing them?

Which one has enemies interacting with each other, communicating, picking up weapons after dropping them? Which one has eggs turning into boiled eggs in hot water?

The only games which have such advanced systems are full simulation games like Rimworld or Oxygen not included. RDR2 gets close but has a lot more pre-baked content. SotC is the last game I would consider to have a good open world.
Most of which I’d gladly trade for a sword that doesn’t shatter in 5 hits and a better story.
 

Raven117

Member
Ah shit, here we go again.

Zelda BoTW is the best open-world game of the 2010s, it's a revolution of the open-world genre and it's impact will profoundly influence the future of open-world game.

Since this has been explained numerous time why, I won't bother, this is a game producers/designers discussion.
Hasn’t been too profoundly influential yet. I get the physics part. It’s hard to say what is “the best” but for me. And my enjoyment of an open world….there are better open worlds.

botw felt like great tech in an otherwise boring world that didn’t feel good to Exist at in. Skyrim, Witcher, morrowind, hell even some ACs felt better just to “be” in them.
 
Top Bottom