I mean it's a good game but why are so many rabid fans hailing it as the second coming? It kind of looks like a late ps2 early ps3 game. Don't get me wrong it's bloody good but certainly not better than other aaa third person games out there.
Why is Zelda BOTW Considered so amazing.
- Thread starter Fonejackerjon
- Start date
Because it is Zelda.
The power of that name, and the fanbase behind it is simply overwhelming. People, and reviewers, will overlook bullshit and terrible mechanics simply because it is a Zelda game.
The power of that name, and the fanbase behind it is simply overwhelming. People, and reviewers, will overlook bullshit and terrible mechanics simply because it is a Zelda game.
The way it handles open-world exploration -- which it does amazingly so -- has blinded many people to its faults I think. Like the crappy, superfluous voice acting, the shitty characterisations, and the sloppy inventory screen.
So the voice acting is that bad?Casual Shinji said:
Does it feel like Final Fantasy X in the sense that this was clearly Nintendo's first attempt at it like how it was Square's first attempt?
I have a very high tolerance for VO. I didn't have any issues with the Voices in the game. In fact I thought them kind of charm in a very nintendo child-like way. I really enjoyed the VO, but I can see why people might have just prefered to not have VO at all.GZGoten said:
Well it's the first proper Zelda game since I don't know when (Wind Waker?).
Part of me also wonders if all the hullabaloo is just Nintendo fans finally coming into touch with the AAA-style sandbox game the rest of the world has already grown bored of.
Part of me also wonders if all the hullabaloo is just Nintendo fans finally coming into touch with the AAA-style sandbox game the rest of the world has already grown bored of.
Final Fantasy 10 had better voice acting, so yeah...Samtemdo8 said:
It's not Tenchu bad, but in the context of this being the first time we hear voices in a Zelda game and the infrequency with which it is used, the awkwardness of it amplifies the badness by about 6. Oh, and add to that that whenever you hear voices the dialoge spoken is of the piss poor anime variety.GZGoten said:
And I'm sorry, but the characters are awful. I haven't finished it yet, so maybe I'll come across someone that'll shift the balance, but so far I am dreading the next story-centric character encounter. I've already come across the demure anime waifu, and the boasting, competitive rival (but actually caring best friend). And Link is just a personality vacuum. Whenever I look at his face I feel my sense of self draining. Some of the NPCs are okay, but no one memorable.
It does a number of things fantastically well. Open-world design and exploration. The shrines and dungeons. I really like the combat (though I understand why people might have issues with it).
There are definitely problems, the mediocre voice acting being the most obvious. It's not hilariously awful ? la Megaman 8 or Symphony of the Night, but it's not fantastic either. Mipha's voice actor is probably the worst offender, at no point does she actually sound interested in what she's saying.
Characterisation isn't fantastic either. With the exception of Zelda (who I think they did a good job with) the characters aren't really given enough of a backstory or personality. The Four Champions are basically the Totally Wasted Potential Squad. My biggest gripe is with Ganon, who gets no character what-so-ever.
The quick select menu is garbage. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Skyward Sword did that shit much better. There are framrate problems as well, with the game freezing up more than once during combat.
On the whole, the story and characters could be better (as in, much better), but the open-world mechanics make up for it. I think the thing people don't understand about this is that a 10/10 never means a perfect game, usually it means "you should play this because when it's good, it's really fucking good and that makes up for the flaws".
There are definitely problems, the mediocre voice acting being the most obvious. It's not hilariously awful ? la Megaman 8 or Symphony of the Night, but it's not fantastic either. Mipha's voice actor is probably the worst offender, at no point does she actually sound interested in what she's saying.
Characterisation isn't fantastic either. With the exception of Zelda (who I think they did a good job with) the characters aren't really given enough of a backstory or personality. The Four Champions are basically the Totally Wasted Potential Squad. My biggest gripe is with Ganon, who gets no character what-so-ever.
The quick select menu is garbage. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Skyward Sword did that shit much better. There are framrate problems as well, with the game freezing up more than once during combat.
On the whole, the story and characters could be better (as in, much better), but the open-world mechanics make up for it. I think the thing people don't understand about this is that a 10/10 never means a perfect game, usually it means "you should play this because when it's good, it's really fucking good and that makes up for the flaws".
That could be said for a lot of games, then. Imo, 10/10 should be reserved for something that excels across all major aspects of the game. In this case, it clearly isn't when it comes to performance, storyline, characters or side quests.Rangaman said:
Poor Voice acting, UI, or weapon durability mechanics are not as relevant ( for some players).
That could be high praise, if you mean combat style <_<.josemlopes said:
Or utter condemnation if you mean world building, inventory management, crafting, quest design, and characters and writing.
And really harsh criticism for open world/sand box elements.
So? Minecraft looks like a NES game. Didn't stop it being one of the best selling games of all time.Fonejackerjon said:
And frankly having played BotW for a few hours now I think it's beautiful looking game. I much prefer it's animated style graphics to ultra realistic ones anyday
A lot of people say this about a lot of new games, and I always think the same thing... Have you SEEN some PS2 games? They look like shit! (Some look great though, KH comes to mind)Fonejackerjon said:
As for the voice acting... I think it's fine. It's serviceable. I think Mipha and Zelda get it pretty bad, but I rather like the VAs for all of the male cast. Maybe I don't listen to enough voice acting to know what's considered "bad", but besides the two examples above, I never really felt like it took me out of things.
I'm about to storm Hyrule Castle after beating the 4 dungeons as of writing this post, and I don't see why it's gotten so many 10's. It's Skyward Sword reviews all over again. I really like the game, and what it does it does well. But it does have its flaws, absolutely
I'm more curious about the need to put the game down. People love different things and a lot of them love Zelda.
Breath of the wild does a lot of things well, even compared to established sandbox games.
The map is vast but invites exploration without being cluttered the way Skyrim is.
The combat difficulty curve is very steep but allows room for experimentation in tactics.
To say it looks like late ps2\early ps3 is unfair and just not right, it doesn't. It looks way better than that and does so in a timeless style that makes it feel more like playing a cartoon in a way no game before it has ever done.
It's not a flawless game for me, I'm not fond of having my weapons break but that's a personal issue. This is simply not a game in which your weapons don't break and I can't judge it's quality for not being what I want from it.
Nintendo isn't late to the market of open world exploration, it simply does what it does. The Legend of Zelda was arguably the first game to ever do it well and Zelda has been in a league of it's own since.
As always, Zelda is uncomparable simply because it doesn't try to be comparable.
Breath of the wild does a lot of things well, even compared to established sandbox games.
The map is vast but invites exploration without being cluttered the way Skyrim is.
The combat difficulty curve is very steep but allows room for experimentation in tactics.
To say it looks like late ps2\early ps3 is unfair and just not right, it doesn't. It looks way better than that and does so in a timeless style that makes it feel more like playing a cartoon in a way no game before it has ever done.
It's not a flawless game for me, I'm not fond of having my weapons break but that's a personal issue. This is simply not a game in which your weapons don't break and I can't judge it's quality for not being what I want from it.
Nintendo isn't late to the market of open world exploration, it simply does what it does. The Legend of Zelda was arguably the first game to ever do it well and Zelda has been in a league of it's own since.
As always, Zelda is uncomparable simply because it doesn't try to be comparable.
...but it doesn't play much like Zelda at all so can we really say "It's Zelda" anymore. Let me put it another way, what if the next Elder Scrolls game became alot more linear and had all new weapons hidden in dungeons behind a mini boss? Wouldn't people be saying 'this isn't a proper Elder Scrolls game'.CritialGaming said: