The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Hime wrote:as Frank says it's that there isn't anything to do outside of shrines and korok seeds.

See this is what I don't agree with, equating an absence of busy work with nothing to do. If each enemy camp was marked on the map and stayed permanently cleared, would you then count it as something to do? What's the difference? You do the same thing and it is just as fun, the game just isn't tracking it or setting you it as an explicit objective.

Hime wrote:"Interacting with the games mechanics and systems" sounds a lot like "make your own fun!".

Well... yeah. It's a sandbox physics-based open world. I feel like that's the point!

Yeah it's cool seeing a hill and finding a way to climb it but I've been doing that in open world games for a long time. It's not a complaint as such, I don't think that saying collecting shrines and korok seeds is what there is to do in the open world is a bad thing. I would just argue that it isn't that revolutionary.

It's been said before here, but the difference is that in most open worlds, the hill is there as a location to put things (like quests, or collectibles, or what have you). In BOTW climbing the hill is the thing to do. When the top of the hill is cold the environment itself becomes a puzzle of sorts, climbing gives you the freedom to approach it from any direction of your choosing, along the way the environment might encourage you to combine mechanics together in a way you haven't done before, and when you get to the top you can shield surf back down for the sheer thrill of it, shield damage be damned.

Hime wrote:No my complaint is that it's missing so much of what I like about Zelda games, the 'dungeons' lack any of the great puzzles from previous games and all four are very similar. The shrines are too inconsistent in quality to make up for that.

I won't argue with this though!

OrangeRKN wrote:

Hime wrote:as Frank says it's that there isn't anything to do outside of shrines and korok seeds.

See this is what I don't agree with, equating an absence of busy work with nothing to do. If each enemy camp was marked on the map and stayed permanently cleared, would you then count it as something to do? What's the difference? You do the same thing and it is just as fun, the game just isn't tracking it or setting you it as an explicit objective.

Hime wrote:"Interacting with the games mechanics and systems" sounds a lot like "make your own fun!".

Well... yeah. It's a sandbox physics-based open world. I feel like that's the point!

Yeah it's cool seeing a hill and finding a way to climb it but I've been doing that in open world games for a long time. It's not a complaint as such, I don't think that saying collecting shrines and korok seeds is what there is to do in the open world is a bad thing. I would just argue that it isn't that revolutionary.

It's been said before here, but the difference is that in most open worlds, the hill is there as a location to put things (like quests, or collectibles, or what have you). In BOTW climbing the hill is the thing to do. When the top of the hill is cold the environment itself becomes a puzzle of sorts, climbing gives you the freedom to approach it from any direction of your choosing, along the way the environment might encourage you to combine mechanics together in a way you haven't done before, and when you get to the top you can shield surf back down for the sheer thrill of it, shield damage be damned.

Hime wrote:No my complaint is that it's missing so much of what I like about Zelda games, the 'dungeons' lack any of the great puzzles from previous games and all four are very similar. The shrines are too inconsistent in quality to make up for that.

I won't argue with this though!

So if you're saying that it's no different having a quest than just finding stuff naturally, why is BOTW considered such a revolution? What's the difference with just turning off the markers in Far Cry or Ass Creed?

To be honest I'm not a very creative person so the idea of making my own fun is not very appealing. I like that I can approach combat in a variety of ways but I can do this in lots of games.

I don't think anyone considers BotW "revolutionary" as such out side of the past escapades of the LoZ franchise, however the specific way it garners wayfinding by use of topographical features other than just towers everywhere (and icons) is very intuitive. It probably has more in common with a game like RDR2 (which is probably going to be heralded in the mainstream instead) (but without the map markers) than Assissin's Creed which being an assassination game is explicitly mission based... BotW is arguably not mission based at all, there's only one ultimate mission and you don't have to do it. It's absolutely a game about exploration and discovery, it just happens the simple combat mechanics are also enjoyable and encourage playful behaviour rather than a serious/most efficient approach (in case you lose a life or % progress whatever, which doesn't matter at all in this game).

It's just a gentle refinement of the formula where the vast majority of experiences derive not from the game telling you what to do next but your own path. The whole game really is based on the simple premise first pitch in the original demonstration of the game engine which was, "what is over that hill? Yes you can go there" (except when you can't, something I found a little jarring, but understandable).

I think it's the simplicity that makes this game so magical tho. You are never really "overwhelmed" with information.

Having finally slain Ganon last night, my long journey with this game comes to a close. I teared up. BotW is an experience I will still remember decades from now.

I think it's the first Zelda game in a long time that leaves the feeling, "What are they going to do now?"

The scale of Twilight Princess impressed me but it was so empty. The blurring of the lines between over (or rather under-) world in Skyward Sword was my favourite part of that game, as it felt more like ALTTP or the portable games, but that always felt like strange pockets of game with a not particularly inspiring hub (the novelty of flight and actual skydiving notwithstanding - and something that clear features in BotW anyway). When people were asking for more locations/villages, although things didn't quite compare to Windfall Island or Hyrule common (as it was dead), I don't think anyone can disagree they didn't deliver on that aspect. I still love wondering through Hateno Village which is probably my favourite. Kakariko is more populated than in other games, even if it mostly serves as a drop-in and shopping destination (along with its spectacular 11fps framerate).

There is just so much in the game that needed to be there and then some.. it reminds me of when you go underwater in Wind Waker and wish your journey could extend over those plains. Well... they did. It was so satisfying having that thirst for exploration finally delivered on in a world I have already loved several times over.

Green Gecko wrote:I don't think anyone considers BotW "revolutionary" as such out side of the past escapades of the LoZ franchise, however the specific way it garners wayfinding by use of topographical features other than just towers everywhere (and icons) is very intuitive. It probably has more in common with a game like RDR2 (which is probably going to be heralded in the mainstream instead) (but without the map markers) than Assissin's Creed which being an assassination game is explicitly mission based... BotW is arguably not mission based at all, there's only one ultimate mission and you don't have to do it. It's absolutely a game about exploration and discovery, it just happens the simple combat mechanics are also enjoyable and encourage playful behaviour rather than a serious/most efficient approach (in case you lose a life or % progress whatever, which doesn't matter at all in this game).

It's just a gentle refinement of the formula where the vast majority of experiences derive not from the game telling you what to do next but your own path. The whole game really is based on the simple premise first pitch in the original demonstration of the game engine which was, "what is over that hill? Yes you can go there" (except when you can't, something I found a little jarring, but understandable).

It's been hailed revelatory and a progression of the open world format numerous times on here.

See I do get the enjoyment of picking a place in the distance in going there, in Fallout 3 I'd often put a marker on the map and head in that direction. Often I wouldn't make it as I'd be sidetracked by a new location that would have a self contained bit of lore that wasn't part of any quest. It was great. In BOTW I get to the top of the hill and.... what? Sure it was fun getting there and I can cut a tree down, throw a rock down a hill or throw an apple into a fire but I really don't see this as something that amazing. I've been able to do stuff like that since GTA 3.

Finding and completing shrines, working out korok seed puzzles are great fun other than the dragons there isn't a great deal more that I really get out the experience, that's fine as I think those things are good fun and the simplicity makes it such a joy to dip in and out.

Interesting you mention SS feeling similar to the portable games because iirc, one of the directors of the game was also the director for Minish Cap. You could notice a lot of similarities with the art style and characters.

The dissonance you're experiencing Hime is correct in retrospect because when people are enjoying a new Zelda games they are beholden to comparisons with the past, because it takes a very long time to make these games and there tends to be less of the same type of (pretty much all) games on Nintendo systems, at least since the NES/SNES. A lot of Nintendo-centric gamers don't really play other open world games to the extent you have and so there is an inherent bias. But I also think that perhaps the sort of refinement and focus of otherwise simplistic gameplay elements in Nintendo games appeals to you less than a plethora of options and action, something I don't think Zelda games in particular have ever been about, which is a mixture of an exploration and adventure game that rewards you for being proactive and soaking in the environment and not really providing explicit options (resulting in the significant downside to the series that it's possible to get lost or stuck and completely lose interest... although ironically I feel the same way about other open world games like Fallout, Elder Scrolls or GTA where I lose interest very quickly after trying out a couple of mechanics; I do feel that perhaps that's due to propensity for busy work in those games, which if I wanted, I'd play something like Harvest Moon or Animal Crossing. I'm not really driven by narrative content either).

I disagree with you GG, BOTW is a revolutionary game for open worlds and the Zelda name is irrelevant to that, and I am far from a Nintendo-centric gamer with little open world experience. I wrote my reasoning for why not long ago (I think in reply to Hime there too), but the bullet points were:

- Physics based with many layered interacting systems for emergent gameplay
- Truly open world (thanks to climbing/paraglider) that can be approached in any order
- Exploration and discovery motivated as opposed to list checking busywork
- Deliberate lack of HUD elements, waypoints, compass directions etc. that are genre staples

You'll find games that do some of the above, but I can't think of any else that do all of it, and certainly none with the level of detail and mechanical polish that is seen in BOTW. As I've said before the only game that comes close in terms of systems design for me is MGSV.

I underplayed the systems-driven emergent gameplay aspect. That is fairly innovative but not exactly new either (games like HL2 for example were doing that with physics a long time ago now). Systems-driven immersive games have notably been around on PC for a quite a white, for example new Prey was seemingly developed around the same time so it is a trend Nintendo have come out on top of. I appreciate the point of view that what Nintendo achieved with BotW was finally making a game that acknowledged other games exist and were doing Nintendo-type gamers better in some cases, but doing it with the degree of mastery that Nintendo do with their best designers on it and really polishing everything.

And in that sense I wouldn't describe BotW as revolutionary but a big step forward for the series, and in some sense, a step backward from complicated open world games that took the concept of a billion things to do too far and made them intimidating and even boring because it was just too much. As so many reviews stated at the time it was how you would expect Nintendo to do an open-world game i.e. pretty much better than everyone else, notably the almost total absence of immersion-destroying bugs (apart from using statis on Guardians from a distance making them fall through the ground which is hilarious so they were right to leave that one in).

The whole climbing mechanic that evidentially saw a lot of attention in development is probably the stand-out element that makes the game unique compared to similar games and all other Zelda games, without it even necessarily revolving around it (horse-back riding or even just running with some buffs is just as effective). The degree of choice without being overwhelming is superior to pretty much every other game I've ever played.

I don't want to get cottoned up over one word but in my lexicon revolutionary would refer to something being totally reinvented, so as a genre it doesn't quite do that but it certainly does revolutionise Zelda games. There are very few games I would consider revolutionary with for example control options.. such as some Wii-remote implementations, SM64 and OOT.

OrangeRKN wrote:I disagree with you GG, BOTW is a revolutionary game for open worlds and the Zelda name is irrelevant to that, and I am far from a Nintendo-centric gamer with little open world experience. I wrote my reasoning for why not long ago (I think in reply to Hime there too), but the bullet points were:

- Physics based with many layered interacting systems for emergent gameplay
- Truly open world (thanks to climbing/paraglider) that can be approached in any order
- Exploration and discovery motivated as opposed to list checking busywork
- Deliberate lack of HUD elements, waypoints, compass directions etc. that are genre staples

You'll find games that do some of the above, but I can't think of any else that do all of it, and certainly none with the level of detail and mechanical polish that is seen in BOTW. As I've said before the only game that comes close in terms of systems design for me is MGSV.

See I just can't agree that any of those things are revaltionary. Physics based gameplay basically means I can kill enemies by throwing stuff at them. Ass Creed, Far Cry, GTA, Infamous, etc are truly open world in that you can either climb or use a vehicle to get anywhere on the map. Exploration and discovery of literally nothing but shrines and korok seeds, this is great but not that different to other open world games. It's great that it's fun to look at a hill and go over there but you can do that in most open world games. There are waypoints to the actual objectives in the game, there just aren't that many different things to do.

As I've said a few times I agree that mechanically it's great but like MGSV as an open world game it's pretty shallow, that doesn't mean it isn't very, very good. The difference for me is that MGSV has arguably the best mechanics of any 3rd person shooter. There are lots of 3rd person action games with better combat and platforming than BOTW.

This all sounds very negative but I struggle to understand the GOTG stuff when it's neither my favourite Zelda game or open world game. One thing I do find strange it's that when people talk about the short comings of RDR2, The Witcher 3 is brought up yet nobody seems to mention it when taking about BOTW.

Perhaps your threshold for revolution is higher than mine GG, but it's the combination of design choices and not their individual uniqueness as ideas that contributes to it being revolutionary, along with the quality and thoroughness with which they've been implemented. Almost everything about how the game is designed is subversive of the modern standard in open world games, and that's also what makes it a revolution in that it feels like a threshold in shaking up the genre. It's not just a new direction for Zelda or even Nintendo, but it's the antithesis to the Ubisoft open world formula and its many copies.

The reason I single out the systems-driven emergent gameplay is not because this is a new idea that's never been done before (those basically don't exist), it's because the depth of layers, the detail and the polish in implementation, and the sheer intuitive fun of the systems is way above anything I've played over than the aforementioned MGSV.

Hime wrote:Exploration and discovery of literally nothing but shrines and korok seeds

This is so patently false to me I still don't get how you are claiming it, and all I can come back to is thinking along the lines of just because things like enemy camps aren't marked and tracked by the game, you don't include them in things to do. There is a whole world to discover in BOTW! Why aren't you counting villages or stables or npcs or enemy outposts or fairy fountains or ruins or labyrinths or minigames? (Once you accept those I'll get on to convincing you that yes, the hills and the forests and the rivers themselves /are/ what you explore and discover in the game, not just the things found on and in them )

There is a lot more to the claim than Hime claims but I think that not necessarily you but a lot of Zelda fans are going to view it within the Zelda bubble and give it effervescent praise (that it largely deserves) and eschew other open world games.

Much like because I like BotW as an open world game and I don't like others because I can't be bothered to play them. Nothing about BotW felt like a chore to me. Perhaps that's just because I'm a Zelda fan, which leads me to my more sceptical perspective.

Go back to the original thread though and I was absolutely creaming over it.

In terms of innovation though I think something like Splatoon is about if not more innovative just not a gigantic game. I only had Wii U this/last generation so for me one of those two has to be GOTG by default.

It just isn’t for Hime as an open world game. It doesn’t fulfil his gaming needs in any extra special way that it has done for so many of us. Why the endless need to debate it. The game is a masterpiece. Like any other masterpiece in any other art form - it’s open to interpretation and subjective experience and enjoyment and the resultant feedback of that.
It says everything about you and your gaming needs and tastes if you don’t enjoy it as much as others.

That’s not a criticism or a dig. It’s just not ideally suited to those who wanted a more traditional Zelda adventure. Or who wanted more quests, activities etc. Within a big open world on top of that.

Each to their own. Like every other gaming masterpiece it will have its detractors. Look at those who don’t like TLOU or GTA V or in my case - Halo. It happens.

Why do you hate joy, Hime?

I’m not saying BotW’s my favourite game ever, but...

...wait a moment, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I do need to play more open-world games though.

Just to weigh in I'm almost 100hrs in and I've just discovered:

- a new town
- a several new enemy types
- a strawberry floating giant horse that finally got me to pay attention to the horse owning system
- a shrine with a completely new gameplay element
- a new tileset of terrain

It's not just koroks, and I have no problem at all with calling this game revolutionary.

I find it weird that people dislike the weapon degradation so much. Just because Assassin's Creed has a weapon upgrade system doesn't mean much really. It's carrying an expectation into BOTW and then disliking something that doesn't meet that expectation. I like Banjo-Kazooie but I was never disappointed when I tried to double jump and a red parrot thing didn't flutter out of my backpack.

AC leans on quite heavy RPG elements now, and weapon upgrades are a standard trope there. Does every open world game need to follow that system now?

The point of BOTW was to scrounge for resources, use them and then scrounge some more. You managed those resources while you had them and then went and got some more when you run out. You used and found things on a constant basis. Like with the cooking system, you wouldn't expect to cook a meal and keep it in your inventory for the entire game. Everything is a resource you are supposed to use pretty promptly.

And let's face it, games like AC like you carry thousand of weapons, of which you tend to stick to one. And "player freedom" doesn't really mean everything - every game has rules, systems and boundaries. Zelda's weapon system works because the enemies constantly drop interesting, cool new weapons that you use and move on.

Prior to Halo, most FPS games in the Doom mould, let you carry your vast amounts of weaponry throughout the entire game. Then, suddenly, Bungie restricted you to just two weapons, often severely restricting ammo for the likes of the sniper rifle or the pistol, so that you would kill enemies and then pick up their weapons. Chipping and changing as you go. It didn't often let you carry weapons through to the end of the level let alone the end of the game. That system worked. Doom's worked. Zelda's works. Assassin's Creed's works.

Crucially, the weapon system passes Jim Sterling's "Fog Test" - it's fun. It's fun to try out the myriad of weapons and be constantly changing your approach and style rather than relying on the same weapon and tactics from Hour 5 to Hour 50. It's fun to scavenge and find something. It's fun to rob enemies of their weapons and immediately use it against them. It's fun to experiment with a weapon type or effect you've not seen before.

I can't help but feel that this "flaw" is more just simply not liking what a game does and expecting it to be like another arbitrary game you've played.

I'd argue that a game doesn't necessarily need a strong story either. Again, it's a very, very different game to AC. The story is fine for what the game wants you to do, which is wander around for strawberry floating ages.

I can understand not liking the many elements from the Zelda series that the game dropped. I understand if you miss them. But just because a game doesn't do something another title does, or what you expect, does not necessarily make it full of flaws.

On the subject of scrounging for resources, I thought it was a little weird that you went plucking and collecting bomb flowers in Skyward Sword, and then in BOTW you just have a seemingly unlimited number of magic bombs. Would have probably made more sense to stick to the plucking mechanic.

I'm not complaining about unlimited bombs though