Why is Zelda BOTW Considered so amazing.

[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.

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.

It's alright to play to enjoy the game. But you speak like the only way (or the right way) to enjoy a game is by its gameplay; and that's silly. Enjoying one specific aspect of a videogame doesn't make the other aspects (or other people enjoying them) inferior or irrelevant.

 

[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.

It's alright to play to enjoy the game. But you speak like the only way (or the right way) to enjoy a game is by its gameplay; and that's silly. Enjoying one specific aspect of a videogame doesn't make the other aspects (or other people enjoying them) inferior or irrelevant.

Graphics matter to some but I think they objectively have less value than good gameplay because graphics age and within a few years what used to be amazing graphics are merely mediocre and a few years later they can be ugly. There are exceptions, like Wind Waker but they are rare. 2D graphics are more likely to not age horribly. Bad gameplay tends to age too and the more time that passes, the more unplayable something becomes. For example, I tried to play Morrowind the other day and the bad journal and the accuracy problems killed it for me real quick. Good gameplay will always outlast good graphics.

 

[VarietyGamer]

To answer OP's question efficiently; because it is amazing.

 

[votemarvel]

I'm more curious about the need to put the game down. People love different things and a lot of them love Zelda.

I think NIntendo is going through a Bioware moment.

What I mean by that is that their audience who once thought that they could do no wrong and whose eyes glazed over any flaws, are now seeing those problems jump out in detail and the internet provides a far easier way of talking about them with a larger number of people.

Can Nintendo weather this better than Bioware did? I think they can.

 

[Fonejackerjon]

With the graphics thing, one only needs to go through a conditioning period to adjust to almost anything. For example, I went back to Dark Souls on PS3 after playing through a good chunk of Bloodborne and immediately felt the difference in not only visuals, but controls. It felt quite a bit looser, and of course looked like a layer of Vaseline was added to the screen.

But after about an hour back with the game the differences were washed away, like a distant memory.

 

[CritialGaming]

I think a lot of people don't understand the difference between graphics and art style. They tend to lump those two things in together as if they mean the same thing to a game. Graphically there is nothing wrong with Zelda, however I can see how people would be annoying at the pseudo cell shaded style of the game and not like it based on that. They will call it graphics when it isn't. And for some people if a game doesn't appeal to them visually, then the greatest gameplay in the world isn't going to keep them playing the game.

At the same time there are people who don't care what the game looks like so long as it plays nice and has mechanics that they enjoy.

However when you really break it down, "Graphics" are functionally the least important part of any game. Because a really fun game system can make you overlook it's visual design. It's like looking at a painting. You might initially not enjoy a painting, until you spend more time with it, learning about it. AS your understanding of the painting grows, the flat visual part of the painting starts to mean less and less, you begin to see THROUGH the visuals and see the layers of meaning underneath.

A good video game can have this same affect. And I think a lot of you guys here understand that and that is why when someone says a game has shitty graphics, you mostly just go, "Lol Wut bro? Open your mind." kind of things. You immediately go on the defensive because you understand that there are layers to a game to peel back. There is more to enjoy than what you see.

If that makes sense.

However all that being said. Breath of the Wild is a terrible video game. So....take that for whatever.