The Legend of Zelda: Breath of The Wild Catch All

ccesarano wrote:

It's been a while, but I know the stamina meter carried over from Skyward, at least. Completely forgot it had crafting.

You have to craft upgrades for many of the items in the game. It was the first big case of "hey you get some open-world in my Zelda".

To me Zelda at it's roots has always been open world so I never really understood the initial backlash when it became obvious they were leaning even more in that direction with BotW. Maybe people are just burnt out on the Ubisoft open world games that even the term makes them cringe?

I was expecting great reviews, but I thought there would be a much wider spread of scores. One more day

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I suppose I'm obligated to dislike this one now or else ruin my street cred.

Damn, this is a crazy way to start the year. I can't wait to play it! It seems there are going to be a lot of awesome games fighting for my attention in the next few months.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

That's a lot of perfect scores. It's good to see that Nintendo splashed out for more than Famitsu this time, but damn.

It's OK for people to raise an eyebrow at certain outlet and critic output due to questionable history. No need for the snark. I don't know why this type of backlash seems to only happen in the Nintendo threads (not anyone specifically, just in general).

There's a lot of 10/10 or 100s.

Tomorrow!

I know its Zelda. But 10/10? Maybe 9.5/10? I keep reading that it has occasional frame rate issues. 10/10 to me means flawless, perfect. Occasional frame rate slow downs in other games would be drop that review score for sure.

Not being a hater, still buying a Switch for it.

Balthezor wrote:

I know its Zelda. But 10/10? Maybe 9.5/10? I keep reading that it has occasional frame rate issues. 10/10 to me means flawless, perfect. Occasional frame rate slow downs in other games would be drop that review score for sure.

Not being a hater, still buying a Switch for it.

Doesn't exist, subjective.

Balthezor wrote:

I know its Zelda. But 10/10? Maybe 9.5/10? I keep reading that it has occasional frame rate issues. 10/10 to me means flawless, perfect. Occasional frame rate slow downs in other games would be drop that review score for sure.

If slight framerate dips aren't enough to detract from the overall experience, why should they detract from the score?

10/10 has never meant perfect in terms of game scores. At least from the breakdowns of scoring I've seen a lot of these sites talk about and put into writing over the years.

Jeremy Parish had this to say the other day in his preview:

In short, it’s a modern sandbox action RPG, but crafted with the world-class care we’ve come to expect from this franchise.
And perhaps most importantly, Breath of the Wild gives the impression that its open design and many systems have purpose. I half-expected the need to forage for resources (including replacements for Link’s oh-so-fragile weapons) would be a drag, but it, too, gives a the impression of purposefulness. I think carefully about each and every arrow I loose at an enemy, because I don’t know how soon I’ll be able to replace it. And thorough exploration is its own reward.
[W]hile you can definitely see the video game logic and limits working beneath it all, Breath of the Wild might actually combine freedom and dynamic systems as well as Metal Gear Solid V.

So, yeah, I'm hyped and I say that as someone who finds 3D Zeldas to be underwhelming most of the time. Horizon might as well not even exist to me now as the only thing that stands out to me there is the visual fidelity and locations. Those only take me so far, BotW sounds much more up my alley.

Tyops wrote:

Well... not quite "casual" but there are Prime related promotions on the 3rd.

Looks like that's limited to folks of the Hockey faith. =/

That said, thanks. I'll have to keep my eyes peeled. Perhaps they'll do something like that south of the north border soon.

Balthezor wrote:

That review shows a lot more of the world than any other review I have seen.

farley3k wrote:
Balthezor wrote:

That review shows a lot more of the world than any other review I have seen.

I always felt that way about GameTrailers reviews, so I'm not surprised they're still doing it.

Whenever I play an open world game, I sort of imagine it without the great graphics/presentation/sound and broken down into a wire frame mesh. Is it still fun? Other kinds of games would still be fun. StarCraft would still be fun. Street Fighter would still be fun. Rocket League would still be fun.

But I'm pretty sure that games like Assassin's Creed and GTA would not. There would be miles and miles of wireframe buildings that serve no purpose or have any interesting game interactions. Tons of wireframe characters walking around that do nothing but get in your way. All their campaign missions put up invisible barriers and funnel you to play a certain way, even though it's purportedly an open world. All the upgrades and scavenging are useless because the basic combat mechanics are so simple that you don't need any of it to succeed. And even when they do give you options, again, the missions restrict you on how you can play. The marriage between having an open world, the intractability of the environment and mechanics given to the player just don't mesh well and it seems like the promise of an open world game hasn't really been fulfilled.

I think MGSV did a pretty good job of finally delivering an open world game that has interesting interactions with that open world and gives you the tools to approach it in your own way. But it looks like BotW is really going to deliver on the promise of open world. And It feels like BotW is a watershed game where it's design excellence will trickle down to other games as they emulate the aspects that worked really well, which in turn will push the entire genre forward.

So damn excited.

Got the e-mail that my Collector's Edition will be ready for pick-up tomorrow morning.

EvilDead wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

That's a lot of perfect scores. It's good to see that Nintendo splashed out for more than Famitsu this time, but damn.

It's OK for people to raise an eyebrow at certain outlet and critic output due to questionable history. No need for the snark. I don't know why this type of backlash seems to only happen in the Nintendo threads (not anyone specifically, just in general).

It's not Nintendo threads; it's just me. Unfortunately, there's a strong correlation between the two.

I don't have a problem with people giving Famitsu a bit of side-eye. Everyone's got their reservations about different publications for different reasons, and that's cool. With Famitsu in particular, though, the same handful of us have gone through the same waltz a few times already this year, and it's early March. Between Persona 5, Nier Automata, and Breath of the Wild, I feel like we've run around and around the same thing: good score, then that Kotaku article, then Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker, then Jeff Gerstmann, then "but look at that list of games!", then JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, then Nintendogs.

At this point, we really ought to laugh at ourselves for doing the same thing over and over.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

At this point, we really ought to laugh at ourselves for doing the same thing over and over.

I heard Famitsu gave Darksiders a 40/40.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I don't have a problem with people giving Famitsu a bit of side-eye. Everyone's got their reservations about different publications for different reasons, and that's cool. With Famitsu in particular, though, the same handful of us have gone through the same waltz a few times already this year, and it's early March. Between Persona 5, Nier Automata, and Breath of the Wild, I feel like we've run around and around the same thing: good score, then that Kotaku article, then Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker, then Jeff Gerstmann, then "but look at that list of games!", then JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, then Nintendogs.

At this point, we really ought to laugh at ourselves for doing the same thing over and over.

I'm definitely laughing at myself because I did read the same conversations about Persona 5 and yet felt the need to rehash it again in this thread.

shoptroll wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

It's been a while, but I know the stamina meter carried over from Skyward, at least. Completely forgot it had crafting.

You have to craft upgrades for many of the items in the game. It was the first big case of "hey you get some open-world in my Zelda".

And I'll be honest: I hated it. I'm normally the type of player who collects all the heart pieces and doodads in a Zelda game, but I actively disliked doing that in Skyward Sword. It wasn't fun to work my way to a chest only to get a handful of crafting materials, and it wasn't fun to have to hunt down the components I needed in order to upgrade my weapons and items.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

It's been a while, but I know the stamina meter carried over from Skyward, at least. Completely forgot it had crafting.

You have to craft upgrades for many of the items in the game. It was the first big case of "hey you get some open-world in my Zelda".

And I'll be honest: I hated it. I'm normally the type of player who collects all the heart pieces and doodads in a Zelda game, but I actively disliked doing that in Skyward Sword. It wasn't fun to work my way to a chest only to get a handful of crafting materials, and it wasn't fun to have to hunt down the components I needed in order to upgrade my weapons and items.

Hmm, should be interesting how BotW hits you then as we're somewhat diametrically opposed in our views of collecting. I generally find collecting heart pieces, etc., in Zelda titles to be a chore more than a boon, while collecting random crap to make other things is more up my alley. It's why I'd rather run around in an MMO or Xenoblade game than play a Zelda game. Until now.

Fwiw, I still have played Skyward Sword, though I did buy it when it hit the Wii U store. Knowing how long the tutorial is though means I haven't fired it up.

I'm curious what you're take on exploring the sea in Windwaker was/is. I always liked what Nintendo tried to do with that, but felt I was still shoe horned into their somewhat tight Zelda design structure. Something that opens things back up and let's me choose what to do is way more my thing.

Good to see many people like it. I'm still a little skeptical that it's going to have the things in it I want or that it will surprise me. Without reading any reviews, I'm still worried that it'll just be a ridiculously polished game that doesn't do anything new or surprising to me. I'm more interested in new and surprising, so I hope they have some stuff in the writing or something that grabs me.

Not being particularly hyped in my head is kinda nice. A lot of it probably has to due with that I expected the game to come out a couple years ago and just kind of gave up on it. Maybe once I play it I'll be hyped again.

garion333 wrote:

Hmm, should be interesting how BotW hits you then as we're somewhat diametrically opposed in our views of collecting. I generally find collecting heart pieces, etc., in Zelda titles to be a chore more than a boon, while collecting random crap to make other things is more up my alley. It's why I'd rather run around in an MMO or Xenoblade game than play a Zelda game. Until now.

Huh. I know I just made a joke about it, but have you played the two Darksiders games? If so, did you come away with a more positive impression of Darksiders 2's loot-based system?

For me, games like Zelda and Metroid have an advantage in that any treasure chest you find can be of value. This is more true in Metroid where you're not likely to spend five-to-ten minutes figuring out how to reach an object only to get a purple rupee for your already full wallet. But a heart container is always valuable, no matter how far along in the game you are. An upgrade to your bomb bag or arrow quiver means you worry less about running out of inventory. The upgrades were pretty much always going to have value.

Darksiders 2 isn't exactly "crafting", but you "feed" weapons and gear into other equipment in order to boosts its value. So it's a similar enough mechanic to crafting. But spending five-to-ten minutes solving a puzzle only to get weaker gear was not really satisfying. It felt like it wasted my time. I liked getting upgrades that were always more useful, and by switching to a loot-based system the majority of loot boxes may as well have had purple rupees in them.

The only game I can think of where crafting felt like it made sense and added to the gameplay was The Last of Us, where "limited" supplies and limited inventory space meant you had to be more careful with what you're using. It sounds like Jeremy Parish is suggesting something similar for Zelda, but I don't expect items to be as "rare" as in Last of Us, where the limited inventory was intended to create tension.

...and even then, I can point to the original Resident Evil (well, I specifically can only point to REmake) and say "Guess what? You could have the same impact without crafting and thus make more room for more exciting items to discover".

I guess it's the sense of progress. If I get a piece of heart, I know I'm one out of four (or five) steps closer to increased health. If I open up a box and get crafting materials, I'm one step closer to... I dunno. More ammo? But what if I'm already full of this ingredient but need this other material? Oh God, now I'm having flashbacks to alchemy in Secret of Evermore, and having to deal with ingredient shortages based on region and having maxed out one ingredient for a spell but only able to cast it three times because I only have a pinch of the other necessary ingredient.

I'm not going to bitch and moan (until I've played BotW myself yet), but I'm curious if crafting will be as rewarding as finding chests in the past or will just be another activity that keeps me engaged but doesn't really have the adrenalizing boost of satisfaction that a really good chest discovery will provide.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

At this point, we really ought to laugh at ourselves for doing the same thing over and over.

Fair enough. The difference between jest and snark isn't always easy to decipher on the Internets! I usually only hop into the Nintendo threads when I title I'm looking forward to is coming out so I missed the other stuff.

I'm very jealous of the early adopters that get to play Zelda tomorrow. The next couple of months shall test my patience!

ccesarano wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Hmm, should be interesting how BotW hits you then as we're somewhat diametrically opposed in our views of collecting. I generally find collecting heart pieces, etc., in Zelda titles to be a chore more than a boon, while collecting random crap to make other things is more up my alley. It's why I'd rather run around in an MMO or Xenoblade game than play a Zelda game. Until now.

Huh. I know I just made a joke about it, but have you played the two Darksiders games? If so, did you come away with a more positive impression of Darksiders 2's loot-based system?

Almost finished Darksiders. YouTubed the ending. Rather enjoyed the story, though I can't remember anything about it.

Never did play the second game. Is it any good?

I'm not going to bitch and moan (until I've played BotW myself yet), but I'm curious if crafting will be as rewarding as finding chests in the past or will just be another activity that keeps me engaged but doesn't really have the adrenalizing boost of satisfaction that a really good chest discovery will provide.

Do you play Bethesda games?

I have a feeling finding chests won't be as satisfying as you mention since stuff breaks quite frequently. I've always had a love/hate relationship with items breaking. Def should be interesting to see where BotW hits for us as I do enjoy using weapons/armor/etc. that I can feel attached to for longer periods of time.

I love crafting, but mainly because it's a subset of collecting.

garion333 wrote:

Hmm, should be interesting how BotW hits you then as we're somewhat diametrically opposed in our views of collecting. I generally find collecting heart pieces, etc., in Zelda titles to be a chore more than a boon, while collecting random crap to make other things is more up my alley. It's why I'd rather run around in an MMO or Xenoblade game than play a Zelda game. Until now.

I really like to find things that are immediately and directly useful. I want to find finished things, not things that become other things, and not things that let me buy finished things. So I'll prefer to find a heart piece that makes my health bigger in some noticeable way than to find ingredients for a potion, a chest of gold, or a big bucket of XP, even if those latter three things also indirectly make my health bigger.

And that's one thing I've really valued in Nintendo's franchises like Zelda and Metroid: while it gets derided by critics as "too video gamey", I like that they've stuck to the idea of power-ups and health bobbles and other things like that. I'm almost universally disappointed by games that have those same progression mechanisms but put them behind a layer of abstraction in the form of XP trees or currency. While those abstractions do allow for a greater degree of player choice in how they evolve their character, they also cheapen the individual accomplishments of finding and collecting items by dissolving them all into a homogenous pool of resources. Nothing, individually, is special any longer.

(I also personally find experience and currency-based upgrades to be a less honest form of game design. It is very easy for designers to perform a kind of sleight of hand where they disguise how repetitive and bland their gameplay is by doling out small rewards over time.)

garion333 wrote:

I'm curious what you're take on exploring the sea in Windwaker was/is. I always liked what Nintendo tried to do with that, but felt I was still shoe horned into their somewhat tight Zelda design structure. Something that opens things back up and let's me choose what to do is way more my thing.

Wind Waker is a mixed bag for me. I absolutely loved sailing the sea, exploring the islands, and seeing how all the different items and upgrades interacted with one another and changed in function depending on their context. There was a lot to discover both in the physical layout of the world and in how you could use different items you had (I still remember the delight I felt when I realized you could pickpocket enemies with the grappling hook).

But the admirable goal of having a reward on every island and in every square of the ocean really ran aground when they clearly didn't have enough collectibles to make that work. Too many chests or side challenges resulted in chests of rupees when your purse was already overflowing. The drive in Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword to increase the number of collectibles (first with further divided heart pieces and later with a bevy of crafting components) I think comes as a result of Wind Waker's paucity.

garion333 wrote:

Never did play the second game. Is it any good?

In the event you're not making a joke: yes and no. Improved combat with a lot of Prince of Persia style exploration. But they made a vastly larger world that runs out of steam much earlier than it ends, especially as every dungeon relies on the rule of three's way too heavily. I also found the loot-focus to diminish the joy of exploration a bit compared to the first game, but that's going to be a matter of taste.

They tried to make it less of a Zelda game and in the process began to lose sight of what was fun and instead hone in on what might make the game review better (loot, larger world, longer play time, etc.).

Do you play Bethesda games?

Only when they're named Doom or Dishonored.

And you know this.

Mannnnnnnnnn.

GameXplain spent a bit of time in their review griping about the inventory. He has quite a few specific complaints about how it works.

Also mentions that the game looks great from a distance, but less so up close. Hmm, they couldn't possibly have built the game within Monolith's engine, eh?