Why is Zelda BOTW Considered so amazing.
- Thread starter Fonejackerjon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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 amazingPyrian said:
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
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 said:
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.Mitchell Tanner said:
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.
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.
I honestly couldn't tell Mipha and Zelda apart. They both sound like chronically-depressed narcoleptic twins.Dragonbums said:
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.Fonejackerjon said:
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.MC1980 said:This argument is so unbelievably silly, I'm confused why people still make it.Squilookle said: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.Fonejackerjon said:
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.
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.
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.MC1980 said:This argument is so unbelievably silly, I'm confused why people still make it.Squilookle said: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.Fonejackerjon said:
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 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.
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.
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.
I don't know, but it would make more likely to say 'this is a good Elder Scrolls game (for once)'.WeepingAngels said:
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.WeepingAngels said:
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.CaitSeith said:
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 said:
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.CaitSeith said:
