Why is Zelda BOTW Considered so amazing.

[Hades]

I don't really understand the complaints regarding the characterization of the characters. It certainly doesn't rock my world but its also hardly any worse then we've seen in previous Zelda games. I had an expectation of how well developed Zelda characters generally are and these characters entirely meet these expectations.

The champions are characterized well enough. Mipha being the clasical meek anime girl with a crush may not be to your taste but she pulls off the archtype decently. Revali seems more of a direct reference to Falco Lombardi than an anime rival and both the Goron and Gerudo serve their roll well enough.

Zelda and the king return in forms we have not yet seen which sets them apart from earlier incarnations of them.

The mayor NPC's also seem to have fairly defined personalities. The Zora prince is a total bro and the Gerudo chieftain doubts herself due to still being a kid.

I would agree that I like human Ganondorf more than the eldrich abomination that Calamity Ganon is going for but since Ganon's mind having degraded seems to be the point I think his portrayal here is justified.

 

[Drathnoxis]

So? Minecraft looks like a NES game. Didn't stop it being one of the best selling games of all time.
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

I'd like to see what kind of ultra jacked up NES you had that could play a game that looks like Minecraft!

 

[Fonejackerjon]

Thing about Zelda is, it has a tried and true gameplay loop that few, if any have been able to match: the triforce (pun intended) of exploration, puzzle solving and combat that it combines near-perfectly, especially in the form of dungeons. Not even the Souls games have this trifecta.

Having said that, it is behind the times in some areas, most notably presentation and well, anything beyond that trifecta. Which pretty much falls in line with the general criticisms reasonable people have had with the game.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

From what I gather, and full disclosure I haven't played it, it apparently nails the open-world concept in just enough right ways that it rings as good as Horizon: Zero Dawn in that category. It still apparently has issues, but from all reports from the sources I trust I gather its well put together in terms of making the world feel alive, not just random encounters on a large scale map but a feel that the inhabitants are actually part of the world.

 

[Dragonbums]

This is my Goty because Prince Sidon is the hottest piece of shark hunk of a Zora to ever grace the videogame screen.

12/10 would buy a dating sim featuring him in it.

 

[Dragonbums]

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?

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?

It's not 'bad' in the sense that Mario Sunshine Voice acting is bad...It's just painfully average and as a whole generic. It just feels out of place in a game series that doesn't do VA'ing outside of character grunts.
Also they hired the most generic fantasy accent voices ever.

Mipha could not of shut the fuck up sooner.

 

[Vigormortis]

From what I've gathered thus far, it seems to be:
"Zelda: Breath of the Wild. It has many flaws, a cool open world, most of it ranges from adequate to mediocre with intermixed moments of great, and it bears the Legend of Zelda name. 20/10, Game of the Millennium"

I mean, I'm genuinely not upset over it receiving so much praise. Good for the team behind it. Kudos. Seriously. And, generally speaking, I don't care what games people do or don't like.[footnote]Unless many NOT liking a game leaves one of my preferred multiplayer games with a dying player-base.[/footnote] However, I am curious why it's received so much universally high praise. Many reviews seem to mirror reviews for other, similar triple-A games[footnote]And can we stop pretending that Nintendo isn't a triple-A publisher? Please?[/footnote], down to the same complaints and criticisms, yet BOTW aggregates several points higher than those other reviews.

I'm having trouble sussing out why...

 

[Fonejackerjon]

It kind of looks like a late ps2 early ps3 game.

And that's relevant how?

Relevant in that it's been released on a new console in 2017 for ?59.99 I'd say that pretty relevanty friend.

 

[Fonejackerjon]

It kind of looks like a late ps2 early ps3 game.

So? Minecraft looks like a NES game. Didn't stop it being one of the best selling games of all time.
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

Minecraft isn't ?59.99 that's why.

 

[CaitSeith]

It kind of looks like a late ps2 early ps3 game.

And that's relevant how?

Relevant in that it's been released on a new console in 2017 for ?59.99 I'd say that pretty relevanty friend.

If it were a port of a PS2 / early PS3 game, you may have point. But PS2 games didn't look like that, and they don't play like that, pal.

 

[Bedinsis]

Never having played it I'll speculate on what I do know:

Nintendo makes accessible games. They are REALLY good at that. That is the reason why they've garnered such a fandom; for all the negative things one can say about them, they really are good at it.

It is my understanding that BotW is a Ubi-style sandbox. Sandboxes have kind of gotten stale in the last years due to overuse, but the reason they became popular is because there is value in the design.

So we have a popular game format, which has been developed through Nintendo's accessible design sensibilities. That should be sufficient for it to turn out a great game.

As I said, I haven't played it, so it is entirely possible I am way of the mark in my assessment.

 

[CritialGaming]

It kind of looks like a late ps2 early ps3 game.

And that's relevant how?

Relevant in that it's been released on a new console in 2017 for ?59.99 I'd say that pretty relevanty friend.

Graphics don't mean shit. If graphics make a good game then you shouldn't be playing anything less than The Order 1886

 

[DrownedAmmet]

From what I've gathered thus far, it seems to be:
"Zelda: Breath of the Wild. It has many flaws, a cool open world, most of it ranges from adequate to mediocre with intermixed moments of great, and it bears the Legend of Zelda name. 20/10, Game of the Millennium"

I mean, I'm genuinely not upset over it receiving so much praise. Good for the team behind it. Kudos. Seriously. And, generally speaking, I don't care what games people do or don't like.[footnote]Unless many NOT liking a game leaves one of my preferred multiplayer games with a dying player-base.[/footnote] However, I am curious why it's received so much universally high praise. Many reviews seem to mirror reviews for other, similar triple-A games[footnote]And can we stop pretending that Nintendo isn't a triple-A publisher? Please?[/footnote], down to the same complaints and criticisms, yet BOTW aggregates several points higher than those other reviews.

I'm having trouble sussing out why...

I think it's a balance thing. Yes it has the same flaws as some other games, but maybe for those people the good parts are just that good to make up for it.

It shouldn't be that surprising, if the worst thing people say about the game is "its good, but it's not that good', then maybe the game is just bloody good

 

[Mcgeezaks]

It kind of looks like a late ps2 early ps3 game.

And that's relevant how?

Relevant in that it's been released on a new console in 2017 for ?59.99 I'd say that pretty relevanty friend.

Graphics don't mean shit. If graphics make a good game then you shouldn't be playing anything less than The Order 1886

Yes they do mean shit to alot of people but that doesn't mean every game has to be the best looking game ever. If graphics truly didn't mean shit then people wouldn't buy gaming PCs.

 

[BadNewDingus]

I haven't played it. My brother plays it in the background and all I hear is grunts along with oh and/or ah's.

I know it's not porn because the music is too nice.

Oh, and there is a song that sounds like, "A Whole new world" from Aladdin.

 

[CritialGaming]

It kind of looks like a late ps2 early ps3 game.

And that's relevant how?

Relevant in that it's been released on a new console in 2017 for ?59.99 I'd say that pretty relevanty friend.

Graphics don't mean shit. If graphics make a good game then you shouldn't be playing anything less than The Order 1886

Yes they do mean shit to alot of people but that doesn't mean every game has to be the best looking game ever. If graphics truly didn't mean shit then people wouldn't buy gaming PCs.

That isn't the point.

The was that if you are instantly going to dismiss a game based on graphics then you can't possibly be judging any game fairly because you aren't giving great games a chance because they don't look good enough.

 

[Fonejackerjon]

It kind of looks like a late ps2 early ps3 game.

And that's relevant how?

Relevant in that it's been released on a new console in 2017 for ?59.99 I'd say that pretty relevanty friend.

Graphics don't mean shit. If graphics make a good game then you shouldn't be playing anything less than The Order 1886

Riiiiight so by your logic you would be cool playing games with SNES/ps1 graphics that cost ?50 as long as the game play was good. Its called progression, Yes gameplay matters but if graphics didn't we would still be play nes or atari looking games *slow clap*

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It kind of looks like a late ps2 early ps3 game.

And that's relevant how?

Relevant in that it's been released on a new console in 2017 for ?59.99 I'd say that pretty relevanty friend.

Graphics don't mean shit. If graphics make a good game then you shouldn't be playing anything less than The Order 1886

Riiiiight so by your logic you would be cool playing games with SNES/ps1 graphics that cost ?50 as long as the game play was good. Its called progression, Yes gameplay matters but if graphics didn't we would still be play nes or atari looking games *slow clap*

I dunno about them, but I would, sure.

EDIT: Main limitations on playing NES and Atari games is the size of the cart, and I don't mean just for graphics. Shovel Knight wouldn't have actually been possible on an NES cart, despite looking like it could be late NES era.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Never having played it I'll speculate on what I do know:

Nintendo makes accessible games. They are REALLY good at that. That is the reason why they've garnered such a fandom; for all the negative things one can say about them, they really are good at it.

It is my understanding that BotW is a Ubi-style sandbox. Sandboxes have kind of gotten stale in the last years due to overuse, but the reason they became popular is because there is value in the design.

So we have a popular game format, which has been developed through Nintendo's accessible design sensibilities. That should be sufficient for it to turn out a great game.

As I said, I haven't played it, so it is entirely possible I am way of the mark in my assessment.

Nintendo did a better job in the open-world department by not littering the map with bullshit and icons. While it does sometimes feel like there isn't enough, it's nice to see the map fill out with activating a tower, and then... that's it. Go find the stuff in said section of the map yourself. You don't have to go get 100 hawk ass feathers to get an achievement, or go find useless item #50 for some NPC across the map.

Granted, one thing I'm surprised by for both an open-world game and a Zelda title in general is the enemy variety. It's... surprisingly small. Even Dodongos don't make a return

 

[McMarbles]

It kind of looks like a late ps2 early ps3 game.

And that's relevant how?

Relevant in that it's been released on a new console in 2017 for ?59.99 I'd say that pretty relevanty friend.

Graphics don't mean shit. If graphics make a good game then you shouldn't be playing anything less than The Order 1886

Riiiiight so by your logic you would be cool playing games with SNES/ps1 graphics that cost ?50 as long as the game play was good. Its called progression, Yes gameplay matters but if graphics didn't we would still be play nes or atari looking games *slow clap*

If it had the quality of FFVI or ALTTP? You're damn right I would.