this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
304 points (93.4% liked)
Greentext
4437 readers
874 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pretty much any open world game, including Ubisoft ones.
In botw I realized once I disabled weapon durability that there is very little reason to explore the world once I got a decent weapon; that part of the game is contrived exclusively to justify weapon durability. So the open world sucks.
Then the "dungeons", the core and lifeblood of a Zelda game, are just one puzzle room that that takes 10 minutes. So it's a bad Zelda game.
And I know it's subjective but I just found the game boring. Like the game was made for young children so they couldn't make it too interesting to play. There was nothing interesting, or novel about it other than the glider, which other games have copies since then, so it's no longer unique. Compared to other open world games it was extremely bare bones. Even open world games before it had more stuff to do, and certainly more engaging combat.
It felt like a tech demo more than a game, and it's only impressive in the condescending way a console game can be called impressive. "Oh you made this game to work on a potato battery? Wow! Good for you!"
On top of that, I never appreciated Nintendo's business model of forcing me to buy a $300 console on top of $60 just to play the Mario, or the Zelda.
What was even original about the glider? Gliding / parachuting mechanics have been around forever. Just Cause had them ages ago. Even Spyro games in the 90's had them.
I’m so glad to have read your criticism as it summed up how I felt about BotW. For context I am NOT a huge Zelda nerd but I played Twilight Princess back in the day and loved it. BotW got such press and rave reviews everywhere I turned that I finally pulled the trigger and bought a Switch just to play it. I played a few hours and was like… I can’t do this it is so boring.
But weapons are a reward for exploring, because exploration is the game.
Sorry, you can't really compare a game like Zelda to spreadsheets with todo-items.
The exploration mechanics alone were masterfully done in a way that only Nintendo had both the budget and the courage to experiment with.
Most other open worlds just shit all these icons with busywork on your map, while Botw actually fostered exploration and curiosity.
The exploration in BoTW/ToTK was just exploration with shipping lists.
“I need new weapons, food, and some Korok seeds. Where’s my spreadsheet of Fibonacci numbers so I can remember how many seeds I need”
No, it was like"ohh, what's over there? That there looks interesting! Look, a shrine! Let's get to that tower to find more interesting places!"
I never tried to stats out my BotW run.
Just because you like the setting doesn't make it intrinsically more interesting.
Plenty of people feel that way about far cry and assassin's creed, it's exciting for them to climb the next tower and see what is in new areas.
I was talking about the mechanics, not the setting. AC and Far Cry jizz icons all over the map with a cinematic once you climb a tower, while Botw's exploration is more organic and free-form.
The mechanics are the same, that's my point. 800 korok seeds littered across the map, 150 copy paste shrines, towers to reveal new map areas. Just because they aren't shown on a map doesn't mean it's not there or the primary game loop.
Also, the towers in botw play a cinematic when you get to the top.
No, they're not, since Zelda encourages exploration. The Korok seeds are hidden in the environment, as well as the shrines. They only show up on the map after you've found them.
Far Cry shows you everything on the map once you've climbed the tower in the region. This leads to a checklist-like feeling, where you tick off all the icons, instead of actually engaging with the world.
The tower cinematic in Far Cry also shows you all the interesting locations in the region in the cutscene. Zelda doesn't. In Zelda, you discover all that shit yourself with your binoculars.