Why is Zelda BOTW Considered so amazing.

[Johnny Novgorod]

Same thing you were trying to disprove: Japanese games aren't necessarily bound by silly anime standards.

I didn't say every and all games, I just said is something that's seen a lot by Japanese developers. Even in the list you put all of those games have silly anime tropes in them, hell Dark Souls is literally based on Berserk,

I don't understand why you take so much offense to that though. Aren't we all expressing opinions, if you don't agree with me or don't like anime and consider it insulting for it to be in your favorite games then just discuss it instead of looking for the one game that doesn't have any anime influences.

"Looking for the one game"? I posted 17 off the top of my head. Could post 17 more too.
The point is Zelda, or for that matter any Japanese game, doesn't have to be influenced by anime. That would be like expecting every Western game to look like a Nickelodeon cartoon. Now that I say that it occurs to me Splatoon does that. And that's Japanese.

 

[SixWingedAsura]

It's quickly becoming one of my favorite Zelda games. I've heard people talk about how BOTW is Nintendo making Zelda open-world, but I'm pretty sure the original NES Zelda already did that 30 years ago.

I actually really like the characters. To the point that this reincarnation of Zelda herself may be my favorite. As Yahtzee said in his review, she's an insecure nerd that constantly doubts herself and feels she in way over her head. (...Not that I know anyone that. Nope, not me.)

I do have some complaints. First off, the inability to climb at all when it rains. It makes sense, but when the rain is random and I'm trying to get somewhere, I end up just setting the game down for a few minutes and just do something else until it passes. I wish they made it so that the climbing gear set granted you a set bonus that allows you to climb in the rain, at least.

I know a lot of people have complained about the voice acting. Maybe I just have a high tolerance for that kind of thing, but I thought it was...ok. Not great, but serviceable. For the first Zelda game with voices, I expected worse.

Finally, everyone talks about the weapon durability and how awful it is. At first I thought it was bad, yes, but as I played the game and got better weapons, it didn't really become a problem for me. That said, it's almost become the opposite problem for me: I keep finding new weapons, and I constantly get told that my inventory is full. I'm sure this would be less of an issue if I found more Korok seeds to upgrade my weapon slot capability.

All the other nitpicks I have, like sidequest exhaustion and finding all the collectibles, can pretty much be attributed to the fact that it is an open-world game. Heck, I still love the original NES Zelda games, and I got stuck on those all the time when I was a kid.

Overall, it's a solid 9/10 for me.

I agree with pretty much every part of this, save for the end. I don't think it's quite 9/10, but a solid 8/10 for me. A great game, memorable, but not perfect.

Better than Skyward Sword was if I'm being honest.

 

[COMaestro]

Better than Skyward Sword was if I'm being honest.

From what I saw, that wouldn't take much. Every other Zelda game I had ever watched someone else play got me excited for my turn at the controller. Skyward Sword...I just couldn't be bothered.

 

[MetalDooley]

I don't get either side of this conversation. Yes, a full price game is expected to look better than a cheap game. On the other hand, BotW looks great, so what's the problem?

Simple really.One of the OP's complaints against BOTW getting such high praise was that it looks like an older game. My point was that given the popularity of retro looking games like Minecraft a game doesn't need to have the latest state of the art graphics to be considered amazing

OP then mentioned the price of the game as an argument against that. My counter question was does a game need to have graphics like Horizon to charge full price?

As you said a full price game should look better than a cheap one. BOTW looks a lot better than an awful lot of cheaper games imo

 

[go-10]

Same thing you were trying to disprove: Japanese games aren't necessarily bound by silly anime standards.

I didn't say every and all games, I just said is something that's seen a lot by Japanese developers. Even in the list you put all of those games have silly anime tropes in them, hell Dark Souls is literally based on Berserk,

I don't understand why you take so much offense to that though. Aren't we all expressing opinions, if you don't agree with me or don't like anime and consider it insulting for it to be in your favorite games then just discuss it instead of looking for the one game that doesn't have any anime influences.

"Looking for the one game"? I posted 17 off the top of my head. Could post 17 more too.
The point is Zelda, or for that matter any Japanese game, doesn't have to be influenced by anime. That would be like expecting every Western game to look like a Nickelodeon cartoon. Now that I say that it occurs to me Splatoon does that. And that's Japanese.

next time please read my reply before replying

 

[Mad World]

Looks very good. From what I've seen, it is in the 7-9 range. I am pretty annoyed by the weapon "durability" system, though; rather, as Jim Sterling puts it: weapon fragility - as they break before you know it (earlier weapons, anyway). I know that better ones can be repaired, but it's still annoying. Also, apparently, the ones that can be repaired require resources. This kind of thing doesn't make a game fun; it acts a a time waster.

 

[Mitchell Tanner]

Looks very good. From what I've seen, it is in the 7-9 range. I am pretty annoyed by the weapon "durability" system, though; rather, as Jim Sterling puts it: weapon fragility - as they break before you know it (earlier weapons, anyway). I know that better ones can be repaired, but it's still annoying. Also, apparently, the ones that can be repaired require resources. This kind of thing doesn't make a game fun; it acts a a time waster.

I actually enjoy the weapon durability system, it keeps combat interesting when you constantly have to change weapons and styles. it can have it's downsides like when I had to leave a dungeon to search for weapons to use on the final boss. But yeah it can be fun. Also weapons cant be repaired with the exception of the Master Sword which just re-spawns in your inventory after a set amount of time. Other special weapons can be remade with resources but there little point to it.

 

[Mad World]

I actually enjoy the weapon durability system, it keeps combat interesting when you constantly have to change weapons and styles. it can have it's downsides like when I had to leave a dungeon to search for weapons to use on the final boss. But yeah it can be fun. Also weapons cant be repaired with the exception of the Master Sword which just re-spawns in your inventory after a set amount of time. Other special weapons can be remade with resources but there little point to it.

Yeah - I was gonna mention the Master Sword's durability style in the game, but couldn't figure out the right tag which allows text to be hidden until highlighted. Anyway, I can totally appreciate how some may like it. I, personally, don't. Never liked it in games; I don't think it adds much. Some argue that due to the fact that very strong weapons can be obtained early in the game, having no durability would make it too easy. However, others counter that with the notion that that really doesn't matter due to the fact that one can easily possess multiple "overpowered" weapons simultaneously. Thus, they argue, it (durability) acts as a time waster, and that permanent weapons would not ruin the game. I'm inclined - at face value (since I haven't played the game) - to side with the latter (those who advocate for permanent weapons). Also, some like the aesthetics of certain weapons and don't want to be forced to alternate between different ones. I read about people who will open a chest to find a weapon, only to feel like they'd be punished for using it "at the wrong time" and wasting it; thus, they keep it hidden away for some theoretical rainy day which never comes - and that doesn't sound fun to me.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I think the game has plenty of flaws but asking something like "why do people think its good" seems a bit disingenuous. Especially since the next thing you bring up is the intentionally stylized graphics.

But ok bud I'll give you the answer you clearly want to hear: people give it a huge pass because it's zelda.

There. You can sleep at night now. You're welcome.

 

[MeatMachine]

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.

I honestly couldn't tell Mipha and Zelda apart. They both sound like chronically-depressed narcoleptic twins.

 

[Squilookle]

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

There's your problem right there. You, like so many others, seem to think that graphics are something worth comparing. When in reality graphics are to a game what paper is to a book: necessary to be there, but as long as it holds together it's not even worth mentioning.

 

[Squilookle]

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

There's your problem right there. You, like so many others, seem to think that graphics are something worth comparing. When in reality graphics are to a game what paper is to a book: necessary to be there, but as long as it holds together it's not even worth mentioning.

This argument is so unbelievably silly, I'm confused why people still make it.

Video games are a visual medium. Of course visuals are important. Art design, fidelity and other qualities are just as much a cornerstone to games as gameplay is. Advancement in both is expected and valued.

Zelda's fidelity is below standard, that's it. Art design and gameplay are both well realised however, to a degree most people are willing to overlook other shortcomings.

I never said art design and fidelity aren't important. Just graphics. Consider that Wind Waker is still considered beautiful, even though it runs on an engine that is now... how old? 15 years? Goodness. All the Mario games are bright and vibrant and more or less hold a visual charm regardless of their graphical prowess. Minecraft, Unturned, Dwarf Fortress, Mount and Blade, WoW, The Sims, every GTA game prior to GTA IV- they all valued gameplay over graphics and were better products for it. Then you have stuff like Crysis and Battlefield 4 that crank the graphics to the max over an experience that is utterly paper-thin.

So don't get me wrong, visual impact is most definitely a thing. But the graphical capacity of a game is no more important than page-space a book is printed on. Printing a pulp novella on A1 sized paper doesn't make a shred of difference on the quality of the book itself.

 

[WeepingAngels]

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

There's your problem right there. You, like so many others, seem to think that graphics are something worth comparing. When in reality graphics are to a game what paper is to a book: necessary to be there, but as long as it holds together it's not even worth mentioning.

This argument is so unbelievably silly, I'm confused why people still make it.

Video games are a visual medium. Of course visuals are important. Art design, fidelity and other qualities are just as much a cornerstone to games as gameplay is. Advancement in both is expected and valued.

Zelda's fidelity is below standard, that's it. Art design and gameplay are both well realised however, to a degree most people are willing to overlook other shortcomings.

It truly is a matter of opinion. If you can go back to an SNES or an N64/PS1 game and enjoy it despite it's graphics then you aren't all that concerned with graphics. Some people are concerned with graphics but you can't say it's silly to not care about graphics, it's reality for many people. Now I am going back to my GBA game.

 

[KoudelkaMorgan]

I haven't played it, but I have seen a bit and while I think I'd still like it I was shocked by how often weapons break. I mean I thought it was bad in Dark Souls 2, but seriously breaking 3-4 weapons to fight a couple enemies is ridiculous. Sure they seem to drop from literally everything but it seems really annoying to constantly see the never ending loop of "weapon weak" "weapon broke" every few hits over and over again in every fight for dozens of hours.

 

[sXeth]

With the disclaimer of only having played like 20 minutes of it and seen maybe an hour of a LP I was half ignoring while cooking dinner.

Good god, whoever thought adding weapon durability in was a moron to start with. You can literally look at other series ranging from Elder Scrolls to Dark Souls and they either removed it entirely or toned it down to the point its only a concern if you utterly disregard it. Zelda chooses the opposite approach of making it obnoxious as possible.

The whole cyber-(punk?) stuff feels kind of out of place. Maybe it'd win me over eventually, but it mostly seems to be trying to shill me on using the Wii U controller that I wasn't actually using.

Open world I was initially terribly confused by it being the "first open world Zelda". They prettymuch all have been open world in the basic sense, with a mostly linear order of objectives aside. Other then this one forsaking said order, not much has changed. If anything, the emphasis on being a *bigger* open world has compounded an issue the series has always had with dead space thats not really used for anything. Wind Waker would still narrowly beat it on that issue, since Wind Waker's open dead space was literally just flat giant stretches of water, but its a close second.

Inventory management, GUI, and controls have always been a bit of a bugaboo in Zelda. The swordplay is usually alright, but the rest has always been a chore. Again, BOTW only adds even more junk to juggle around this mess. Even for some bizarre reason choosing to make your lifehearts one of the smallest elements on the HUD despite their rather critical import (they're also just floating off in a corner away from the rest of it.). Basic ideas like popping up a menu or being able to quickslot food to cook it on the fire don't exist, instead you have to open the inventory, find the consumable section, add the items individually to be held in your hands, then drop them on a fire and hope the physics don't push them out.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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.

...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'.

I don't know, but it would make more likely to say 'this is a good Elder Scrolls game (for once)'.

 

[kilenem]

The game is extremely polished and over Watch was the last game to come out with this much polish.

 

[CaitSeith]

It truly is a matter of opinion. If you can go back to an SNES or an N64/PS1 game and enjoy it despite it's graphics then you aren't all that concerned with graphics. Some people are concerned with graphics but you can't say it's silly to not care about graphics, it's reality for many people. Now I am going back to my GBA game.

Pretty much. A matter of opinion. That's why it's silly to make fun of people who like games for their graphics, and to make an opinion to sound like common wisdom.

Now excuse me, I'm going back to play Chrono Trigger and get a nostalgic trip from when its graphic were considered fantastic.

 

[WeepingAngels]

It truly is a matter of opinion. If you can go back to an SNES or an N64/PS1 game and enjoy it despite it's graphics then you aren't all that concerned with graphics. Some people are concerned with graphics but you can't say it's silly to not care about graphics, it's reality for many people. Now I am going back to my GBA game.

Pretty much. A matter of opinion. That's why it's silly to make fun of people who like games for their graphics, and to make an opinion to sound like common wisdom.

Now excuse me, I'm going back to play Chrono Trigger and get a nostalgic trip from when its graphic were considered fantastic.

I am about to sit down to play a board game, Clue. Love this game and it reminds me of what's the most important, the gameplay. Clue (Monopoly too) has many different versions with different board graphics but that stuff matters very little. You can say video games are different but to me, I play because I enjoy it not because it's pretty so it's not really that different.