Neuromancer
Augur
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2018
- Messages
- 1,238
I made it to the Lost Forest before I lost interest.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Incline The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild for Wii U and Switch
- Thread starter TheHeroOfTime
- Start date
both open world action adventure games, this should be pretty obvious...
Yeah it's a shame they didn't manage to implement that on an open world scale, would have been cool but i can see the problems there.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 7, 2020
- Messages
- 121
What would the problem be?
dacencora
Guest
So the Witcher 3 is closer to Zelda 1 than any other Zelda too, is that right? They’re both open world action adventure games.
The point is that they only share the broadest elements. My point in that post is to say that BOTW is not the Zelda game closest to Z1, as it does not have many of the same gameplay elements, unlike ALttP, which does.
Last edited by a moderator:
DJOGamer PT
Arcane
Zelda 1 is mostly a non-linear game, where the player can explore the world and tackle it's challenges in their own way and pace (all within the confines of the sandbox mechanics of course)
Shigeru Miyamoto created Zelda 1 with the goal to capture the "joy of adventure" he felt when exploring the countryside as a boy
That's why, aside from BotW, Zelda 1 is a remarkably "liberating" game in the series
ALttP on the other hand has a very well defined structure, a linear sense of progression and a specific "solution" for all it's challenges
The sense adveture is created by the absolute controls the devs exercise over every moment of the campgain
Not to say it's bad or worse, since it was this "formula" that gaves us Majora's Mask, but it's clear that original aspect of "freedom of exploration" had to be sacrificed to make this happen
BotW is the only game since ALttP to reject its formula and attempts to bring back the non-linearity and player agency of Zelda 1
Hence all the comparasions to Zelda 1 and also why your statement about Skyward Sword makes no sense as that game very much operates solely within the ALttP formula
dacencora
Guest
Skyward Sword felt like it was held back by the tech of the Wii. To me, it seemed that they would have rather made a seamless world, rather than a hub world. The gathering materials and item durability were different to me from most Zeldas I had played and when I played BOTW, I didn’t think “this feels like Zelda 1”, it felt like a continuation of some of the new mechanics in SS, as well as trying to emulate other popular games. Emulating other games (such as Ubisoft games) is probably the number one reason that BOTW doesn’t feel like a Zelda game much of the time.
I didn’t think that Z1 had this ground-breaking “player agency” that you’re talking about. The most basic similarity between Z1 and BOTW is the removal of the first state of the world, right? All the other Zeldas essentially have two world states, or two actual worlds. You have the introductory dungeons and then the 7/8 dungeons that are the meat of the game. Zelda 1 just has the 7/8 dungeons, and not the 3/1 starter dungeons. BOTW also does not have introductory dungeons, but it also doesn’t really have dungeons at all. While I like the Divine Beasts, they felt more similar in length and challenge to starter dungeons. But the point is that Zelda 1 has dungeons and overworld puzzles that BOTW lacks in many respects.
If Zelda 1 conjures feelings of openness and player agency, that’s cool. That’s not what I think of. I think of dungeons and puzzles. BOTW is lacking in those regards.
DJOGamer PT
Arcane
Skyward Sword introduced nothing new. That game was pathetically derivative - which isn't surprising given the fact that had been using the same formula for 20 years.
Also, material gathering and item durability already been introduced years ago. BotW expanded on those mechanics, and rigthly so, to accomodate the radical changes the game made.
Zelda 1 dropped the player in a fantastical world with little fanfare, gave him a simple ultimate goal and very little in the way of guidance.
How the player pursued that goal was mostly up to him, and rigth from the get go he could explore the majority of overworld as he pleased.
That was the primordial idea behind this entire franchise. The unrestricted freedom to explore a wondrous landscape was it's appeal.
Now it can be argued that the ALttP formula is for all intents and purposes the "real" way a Zelda game should be like
But that wouldn't change 2 things:
With BotW, Nintendo made the best possible choice they could've made - ditch the formula, go back to the foundation, build something new
And they should've done this years ago, right after Twiligth Princess IMO
Now what they have is raw and unpolished, but its been decades since this series had this much potential to grow
Also, material gathering and item durability already been introduced years ago. BotW expanded on those mechanics, and rigthly so, to accomodate the radical changes the game made.
Zelda 1 dropped the player in a fantastical world with little fanfare, gave him a simple ultimate goal and very little in the way of guidance.
How the player pursued that goal was mostly up to him, and rigth from the get go he could explore the majority of overworld as he pleased.
That was the primordial idea behind this entire franchise. The unrestricted freedom to explore a wondrous landscape was it's appeal.
Now it can be argued that the ALttP formula is for all intents and purposes the "real" way a Zelda game should be like
But that wouldn't change 2 things:
- The formula peaked MM and produced nothing but increasingly derivative and shallower experiences after the Oracle games
- Buried under all that the formula built, the fact remains that Zelda was founded on a concept that doesn't need a unique, irreplaceable structure to work
With BotW, Nintendo made the best possible choice they could've made - ditch the formula, go back to the foundation, build something new
And they should've done this years ago, right after Twiligth Princess IMO
Now what they have is raw and unpolished, but its been decades since this series had this much potential to grow
Last edited:
DJOGamer PT
Arcane
The game has 7 dungeons, all the classical items plus more and the most versitile magical powers in the series
Also stop with this autism that dungeons were the main focus of the 1st game
Also stop with this autism that dungeons were the main focus of the 1st game
dacencora
Guest
Dungeons have always been one of the biggest parts of Zelda, even back to the 1st one. The “dungeons” in BOTW are pretty disappointing for someone who loves Zelda dungeons. There were flashes of greatness, like the dark parts of the lizard Divine Beast, but overall, they were lackluster. The dungeons were clearly not the focus of the design of the game. For someone like me, where gathering and cooking is of little interest, the game felt lacking.
Look, I get that you like BOTW, but there is a reason that people who love the formula of Zelda aren’t its biggest fans. In many ways, it feels like it takes more cues from Assassin’s Creed and Arkham/Mordor than Zelda.
The order of the dungeons in Z1 also are not totally up to the player. I think that you, and others like you, overemphasize the “player agency” that Z1 has and then act like other Zeldas have none of that at all. ALttP doesn’t have a rigid order for the dungeons, but just like LoZ, you must complete some of them before others. Also “dropping you in with little fanfare” has everything to do with the NES, and little to do with intentional design. Most games on the NES drop you in with little fanfare. In fact, many games from the 80s do that.
Maybe it’s just me, but I like the magic powers in OoT more than in BOTW. Urbosa’s Fury deserves special mention because it’s a fun little spell.
- Joined
- May 7, 2020
- Messages
- 121
There are zero proper dungeons in the game.
I have never claimed that the dungeons were the main focus in LoZ. I would say that the balance were 50/50, perhaps 66/33 skewed towards the open world/exploration.
DJOGamer PT
Arcane
> BotW doesn't have any dungeons!
> It has 7 big and fairly complex dungeons. Plus you could count places like the Labyrinths, Yiga Hideout and larger shrines (like Eventide Island) as smaller side dungeons.
> Those don't count!
> Why?
> Because they don't fit my subjective view of what a Zelda dungeon is!
You claim you love the formula, but mostly likely you barely played Zelda games after MM (like most people here that claim BotW isn't Zelda).
Yet you expect me to believe oldfags would've preferred this series keep on becoming increasingly miserable by insisting on beating a now 20 year dead old horse, because "muh nostlagia"?
Yeah right... had this game still followed the formula you probably wouldn't have played it, and if you did you would have promptly discarded it as yet another derivative Zelda trash game and come here bitch about how the series is dead.
The formula already gave out everything good it had to offer, 21 years ago!
It was no longer a source of strong design but a weigth that with every new game sunk this series deeper and deeper in the muck.
Hence why I used the words "mostly".
And yes ALttP clearly has a much more linear structure of how the player is supposed to progress compard to LoZ1.
By OoT that shit was carved in stone and only BotW finally killed it.
BotW is the only Zelda game where the magic is truly versitile and actually expands the gameplay mechanics in a meaningfully way.
> It has 7 big and fairly complex dungeons. Plus you could count places like the Labyrinths, Yiga Hideout and larger shrines (like Eventide Island) as smaller side dungeons.
> Those don't count!
> Why?
> Because they don't fit my subjective view of what a Zelda dungeon is!
You claim you love the formula, but mostly likely you barely played Zelda games after MM (like most people here that claim BotW isn't Zelda).
Yet you expect me to believe oldfags would've preferred this series keep on becoming increasingly miserable by insisting on beating a now 20 year dead old horse, because "muh nostlagia"?
Yeah right... had this game still followed the formula you probably wouldn't have played it, and if you did you would have promptly discarded it as yet another derivative Zelda trash game and come here bitch about how the series is dead.
The formula already gave out everything good it had to offer, 21 years ago!
It was no longer a source of strong design but a weigth that with every new game sunk this series deeper and deeper in the muck.
Hence why I used the words "mostly".
And yes ALttP clearly has a much more linear structure of how the player is supposed to progress compard to LoZ1.
By OoT that shit was carved in stone and only BotW finally killed it.
BotW is the only Zelda game where the magic is truly versitile and actually expands the gameplay mechanics in a meaningfully way.
Last edited:
dacencora
Guest
Ok none of the dungeons are "big". None of them are very complex, either. ALBW has the best final dungeon, IMO. Last boss fight is also fantastic.
Yiga Hideout is my least favorite part of BOTW. Shrines are poor replacements for traditional Piece of Heart puzzles.
Also 7? There are 4 Divine Beasts, 1 Hyrule castle. The DLC adds 1 more divine beast. What's the last one?
Wrong. I love the Zelda formula. Favorites are the 2D ones, which is why earlier in this thread I sung the praises of ALBW.
I didn't much care for TP and didn't get far in it, but Wind Waker is great. Skyward Sword has its issues too, but I had a lot of fun with it.
Bigg Boss
Arcane
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,528
DJOGamer PT
Arcane
Yes the dungeons are big and complex.
The divine beasts are literraly giant fucking mechs that traverse the overworld, and where every moving part is part of the dungeon puzzle.
I can only imagine the nigthmare it must have been to have these things perform as intended without any technical issues. And also the pain for the level designers to intregrate cool overaching puzzles in these constructs.
These things are marvels of game design. And their puzzles are actually something new and original.
And Hyrule Castle is the best iteration of this dungeon.
It's huge, it's challenging, it has multiples entryways, routes, secrets, and you can tackle it in so many ways that no replay of this dungeon is the same.
Also each DLC adds 1 dungeon.
Honestly I thought you were going to say shrines were ubiquitous and poor replacements for traditional dungeons.
Which I would agree.
But Heart Pieces puzzles? Really?
Shrines like Eventide btfo of most puzzles in zelda games after Oracle, let alone heart piece "puzzles" - which have always been a strecth calling them that...
Holy shit what is becoming of this place...
Last edited:
dacencora
Guest
The divine beasts are pretty small, dungeon wise. Are you asinine enough to say “it’s a big beast, therefore a big dungeon” because that’s pretty retarded. And counting Trials of the Master Sword as a dungeon is similarly retarded.
Yes the dungeons are big and complex.
The divine beasts are literraly giant fucking mechs that traverse the overworld, and where every moving part is part of the dungeon puzzle.
I can only imagine the nigthmare it must have been to have these things perform as intended without any technical issues. And also the pain for the level designers to intregrate cool overaching puzzles in these constructs.
These things are marvels of game design. And their puzzles are actually something new and original.
And Hyrule Castle is the best iteration of this dungeon.
It's huge, it's challenging, it has multiples entryways, routes, secrets, and you can tackle it in so many ways that no replay of this dungeon is the same.
Also each DLC adds 1 dungeon.
Honestly I thought you were going to say shrines were too many and poor replacements for traditional dungeons.
Which I would agree.
But Heart Pieces puzzles? Really?
Shrines like Eventide btfo of most puzzles in zelda games after Oracle, let alone heart piece "puzzles" - which have always been a strecth calling them that...
Holy shit what is becoming of this place...
So, to recap, you are bored with the Zelda formula and you like BOTW specifically because it deviates so largely from the formula, proving exactly what I said about it, which is that it doesn’t feel like Zelda. That’s great, I’m glad that you were part of the target audience. I like old school Zelda, specifically the 2D ones the most. I thought that BOTW was lacking in almost all the aspects that I love about the series, which is why it’s one of the bigger disappointments to me as far as video games are concerned.
Piece of Heart puzzles are interwoven into the overworld and primarily utilize puzzles with the items you gain over time, encouraging you to revisit old areas. Shrines are boring and samey to me. They don’t really replace dungeons because you never gain new items out of them. They exist to give you spirit orbs, so their analogue is piece of heart puzzles. Some of the puzzles are fun, but the generic feeling to them made me sick of them after like 10 of them.
I don’t think the Divine Beasts are all that marvelous, technically or design wise. Some of them are memorable and fun, but a far cry from the excellent dungeon design of previous Zelda entries, especially 2D ones.
I definitely prefer ALBW Castle to BOTW Hyrule castle. But Hyrule Castle is probably the single strongest element of BOTW, and my favorite part I think. The Ballad of the Champions DLC was pretty nifty and I’m glad I purchased it, otherwise I would have a much lower opinion of BOTW.
Ventidius
Arbiter
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2017
- Messages
- 552
I didn't want to make this post, because my thoughts on BOTW and the franchise at this point have become so complex that there is no way I can get into it without a classic wall-o-text. But since we are talking about it, might as well.
BOTW and the first Zelda do share the ideal of open world freedom as an important aspect of their core design, but that's pretty much where the similarities stop. The actual philosophy behind the content design and mechanics of both games are about as different from each other as can be. I'd say BOTW does in fact have more in common with Ubisoft games than with the first Zelda, even though I don't think BOTW actually has much in common with Ubisoft games beyond the fact that it is open world. For one thing, long and medium term resource management is not a thing in Ubisoft games at all (not even in Far Cry games, where you need bullets but these are way too plentiful). Resource management is certainly a core element of the design philosophy of BOTW, however flawed its implementation may have been (with spammable bombs and plentiful food being the biggest issues). Another thing that set it apart from Ubisoft games is the 'simmy' interactivity that the engine allows for: in terms of intuitive physical and elemental interactions and emergent gameplay, BOTW is probably closer to Bethesda games than to Ubisoft. I mean, this is a game where you can throw Ice Chu Jelly into a the searing floor of a volcano and it turns into Red Chu Jelly and where you can beeline towards the final boss from the start. Ubisoft goes for a far more cinematic and on-rails experience, not to mention the side content in Ubisoft games is generic copypasta fare that is disconnected from the rest of the game and is geared mostly towards achievements, unlike the rather handcrafted situations that affect gameplay that you see in BOTW, such as the fairies (including the fifth one) or collecting the special armor like the Ancient and Barbarian sets. Even Kilton, who is closer to collectathon design, is more organically woven into the world and experience, not to mention his quest has a cool reward.
In fact, I'd say BOTW is a fairly unique take on the open world subgenre, one of the most unique actually. Witcher 3 did actually import Ubisoft design into the Bioware-ish stucture of Witcher 2 in a very hamfisted way, and the difference with BOTW is night and day. The open world in Witcher 3 feels like something that is superfluous and alien to the core of the experience, while, for better or worse, the open world is essential and central to BOTW's feel and gameplay, it is the gameplay. Whatever one thinks of BOTW, it is clear Aonuma has too much class as a developer to do something so crude as to outright rip off the design of another franchise or company, let alone the popamolism of Ubisoft. That said, it is clear that some elements of BOTW were inspired from other games, including probably Ubisoft (the climbing/parkour and towers are certainly reminiscent of Assassin's Creed), however, there is a big difference between copying the template and structure of another game and synthetizing parts of aspects of extant games into your overall design scheme. I think BOTW does the latter a lot, but there is nothing wrong with adopting good ideas from other games and learn from the collective experience of your industry, so long as there is a unifying vision that he developer has either innovated or at least internalized guiding it all. And I think that is certainly the case with BOTW, whatever its flaws may be. It is not a game that lacks focus or integrity. Its shortcomings spring from other sources.
I would also say that I never felt like the game wasn't a 'true Zelda', even as someone who has been playing these games since childhood. It's a different kind of Zelda to be sure, much like Zelda 2 was in its time, yet that one was not less of a 'true Zelda' either. A Link to the Past was also a departure from previous conventions, we simply take it for granted that games in this style are the very essence of Zelda due to the fact that this formula has produced the bulk of the catalogue of the series (both 3D and 2D). Make no mistake, games that use the ALttP and OoT formula are very much my favorite Zeldas, but there is nothing wrong with trying something new, I welcome both iteration and innovation, so long as the execution is competent. Though Aonuma has taken a backseat as producer, his knowledge of and experience with the franchise is palpable throughout the experience, and BOTW definitely does have the franchise's DNA, even if sometimes it does go a bit too far in calling that to your attention to it through some bits of worldbuilding that veer into fanservice territory.
Ultimately, the big question when considering the quality of this game is how well it succeeds in its own terms, and in accomplishing the design goals that it has set itself for. That's why I don't criticize its dungeon design. If this was a conventional Zelda (in the ALttP/OoT sense) it would be a bad game, because the dungeons would simply not measure up to the rest of the series, neither in quality nor in quantity. I mean, Majora's Mask also had only four 'real' dungeons, but at least three of those are among the very best ever designed in the franchise (the Stone Tower and Great Bay Temples, in particular, are both easily Top 5 material). The dungeons in BOTW are nowhere close to that level of quality.
That said, I have no complaints whatsoever with the Divine Beasts, because this is not a conventional Zelda and their purpose here is very different from games in which dungeons were the core of the gameplay experience. The dungeons in BOTW could not carry a game on their own, but they fulfill their role in the overall flow and pace of BOTW more than adequately. They are there to serve as mega-shrines that give you very useful rewards that offer a sense of progression and enhance engagement of the overworld content (Mipha's Grace and Revali's Gale are especially notable in this regard). Furthermore, they complement the worldbuilding by being part of an overall theme, where others see blandness and repetition, I see a consistency in the ambience and the logic of their navigation that is unique in the series. In the other Zeldas, there was something of a 'theme park' feel to the many different dungeons because of how radically different they were from each other, both in tone and gameplay. Naturally, I don't think that is a major flaw of conventional Zelda, for the simple fact that those games didn't have a particular focus in creating a coherent-feeling world like BOTW does. Their immersion came from the almost surreal, dreamlike quirkiness and charm of the settings (something that peaked with Majora's Mask), with perhaps only Wind Waker and Twilight Princess coming close to BOTW's attempt to create a seamless setting. Even in the latter two cases though, the primacy of the dungeon-focused design demanded strong contrast between dungeons in order to reinforce a sense of variety that was a key strength of these areas.
The Divine Beasts then, are just there to reinforce progression, break the flow of gameplay with something different, supplement the immersion of a coherent world, and offer puzzles that are elegant and intuitive whole also being more complex than the shrines (even if they are quite simple compared to conventional Zelda dungeons). Yes, they are the only areas in the game that are similar to the traditional 'self-contained puzzle box' that conventional Zeldas used as their design core, and there is no doubt that they are at least an homage to traditional Zelda dungeons in some way. That makes it tempting to compare, but ultimately they play a different role in the general design paradigm of BOTW, and they fulfill that role well enough.
So this takes us again, to my previous point: evaluating that general design paradigm of BOTW. So, how well does it achieve its own design goals? In short, it is a mixed bag, and this is where most of my actual complaints with the game come from. That said, I will preface my observations on that by saying that I actually think BOTW is a very impressive achievement. They took a beloved, established franchise and made a mainline entry built on entirely different design foundations. It was one thing to experiment back in the days of Zelda II, when the IP was still new, but to do it at this point in the game took a lot of balls. Indeed, if there is a sense in which BOTW can be said to be a throwback to the old-school days, it is not due to the fact that it has Zelda 1-like freedom as much as due to its desire to experiment and reinvent itself. I can certainly respect that, and what's more, they not only made a radical change, but they managed to - for the most part - meet the level of overall quality that we have come to expect from a Zelda game, even if I considered it the worst 3D Zelda when it came out (my opinion of it has improved quite a bit since then, and I'll get into that, but I still don't think it is in the Top 3 of even the 3D games). Also, remember that the design of this game was rather troubled, and it was originally meant to be released for the Wii U, and they ended up having to port it to the Switch by release.
So, not only did they have to transition to the HD gaming (remember, Skyward Sword was a Wii game), they also had to work on getting it to function on two different platforms, and they also had to build an engine meant for an entirely different - and likely far more technically demanding - kind of gameplay, and then they had to design the whole game - one with a very extensive world at that - under completely different design guidelines than those of previous entries.
There is no doubt that there were some anticipations of BOTW's gameplay in Skyward Sword (the stamina and climbing, item durability), but at the end of the day, SS was another game in the vein of OoT with some modern flourishes (complete with some fine old-school style dungeons). In fact, it was actually more linear than previous Zeldas of the conventional sort: can't really do dungeons out of order in SS in the way you can in OoT, for example. Meanwhile, BOTW belongs to the open world subgenre and, as I mentioned before, has a rather idiosyncratic approach to that very subgenre. So, it was a radical departure, probably the most drastic one since the leap to 3D that happened from ALttP to OoT, and in some ways, perhaps even a more daunting one, since OoT mostly had to adapt the ALttP paradigm to 3D while BOTW had to find its design grounding anew.
That's why I've never really been a true detractor of the game, because to me, the fact that they managed to achieve this level of quality against those odds is a sure sign that Aonuma is as passionate about this franchise as he has ever been. And this plays a major role on my thought on the future of the franchise, something to which I'll get to later.
For now, on to what I think the issues that hold back BOTW are:
-Exploration: First of all, let's make a distinction between exploration and traversal. I happen to think that traversal is brilliant in BOTW, but exploration? Not so much. Now, by traversal, I mean having ways to interact with and travel through the environment, and I don't think I need to elaborate why I think BOTW is incline in this regard. Climbing, paragliding, using Cryonis to freeze water platforms, horseback riding, shield surfing, Revali's Gale, dealing with low and high temperatures... there are plenty of interesting - and often, but not always, emergence-friendly - ways in which the game both allows you to reach areas, and challenges you in accessing them. What's more, there is plenty of unique content and catalysts of meaningful progression in the world that make it satisfying to crisscross between the many points of interest. Sure, I would like to see some old methods of traversal return, like the swimming and diving of Twilight Princess (if not the sheer fun of OG MM's transformation-based locomotion), but the traversal is there: we have endpoints and engaging paths towards those endpoints. However, we are not quite yet at exploration.
So what's the problem? To simplify, the main issue is content density. We have a massive world, and as I said previously, it is a world that has a very consistent and seamless feel, more so than any other Zelda in fact, and that despite the representation of most the classic Zelda biomes (desert, volcano, lake/water area, forest, field), this is by far the least 'theme park-ish' Zelda game. Much of that comes from the fact that the biomes are large, which allows them to be fleshed out and feel authentic. However, this is a double-edged sword, since with biomes this large, the developer was naturally gonna have a problem filling every corner with engaging content. I think we can all agree that games don't have to stimulate the player every 5 seconds, and that a sense of scale is a strength in itself , but when we consider how large the game is, it does seem like the points of interest, while not few, are certainly far in between.
This relates to exploration because the very point of exploration is to search around outside the critical path for interesting content. Something awesome doesn't have to happen every time you do, and indeed, your observational skills should be challenged (which the game does well from time to time). There should be scammer quest givers and dead ends (and this game has plenty of those, to its credit). However, there should be a certain pace to the incentivization of the player if a dev wants to encourage this explorative behavior, and it would be a strawman to say that everyone who thinks that this pace is unsatisfactory in BOTW simply wants a Monty Haul of awesome rewards. I certainly think that it is a valid criticism, especially since I found that BOTW expects you to trudge through quite a bit of monotony to reach its juicier rewards without metagaming. This isn't much of an issue at the beginning, because the sense of wanderlust is strong at that point, so you explore every nook and cranny naturally, and pretty much every reward, even basic weapons and rupees, is welcome. Indeed, the fact that rupees - and consumables in general - are actually worth something now for a change, makes this even more natural. But already by the midgame, and once you have hoarded enough things, you start to wonder what's the point of going out of your way to get this or that chest or see what lies at every seeming point of interest. And this is exacerbated by the fact that unique items are not always properly signposted, something that is essential to any properly designed exploration-centric game and should not be confused with handholding.
Again, the content density and the pace of rewards are the issue here. There should be more 'intermediate' rewards between things like unique armor sets and rupees to keep the player engaged and not feel his time is being wasted. Frankly, there should also simply be more content. The world is by no means empty, as some of the less nuanced criticism of the game would indicate, but if you want a world as massive as this to be exploration-friendly, you really need more content and venues of progression than the game has. The latter element, in particular, is something I'll elaborate on further below.
Some might say that this is subjective, and some people might be fine with the content density as it is, but I'm sure anyone who is familiar with game and can look at the issue in a cool-headed manner can at least see where the many people who have brought it up are coming from, and that this is definitely something that should be improved in the sequel.
-Resource Management: a bit of a can of worms, if not a dead horse. I'll say up front that I don't hate the weapon degradation system, it does not 'ruin' the game (that's indeed autism), nor am I frustrated by it (I always have more than enough quality weapons and find myself throwing high level weapons in the ground despite Korokmaxxing, as there are some really good spots to obtain good weapons after a Blood Moon, like Hyrule Castle). I do, however, think this was a lost opportunity, because it would have been much better to keep, and iterate on, the weapon upgrade and repair system from Skyward Sword. That system would have added a venue for progression that would have synergized perfectly with the game, not to mention enhanced exploration, since you can't take a new weapon when you are full, but you could still take upgrade and repair materials, which would allow more 'liquidity' to the rewards of exploration, and thus more incentive to explore.
Apart from that, it feels a bit disjointed, from a design standpoint, that they went so far to encourage resource management and a survival feel and still allowed you to hoard and be stingy with your weapons by spamming bombs. Yes, the usefulness of this falls off over the game. Yes, you can always self-impose the restriction of not using bombs. Doesn't change the fact that it is a design flaw that encourages degenerate gameplay, and that by midgame you should already have snowballed in terms of resources to the point that you can always replenish your losses without much issue. At the end of the day, it ends up being a nuisance that doesn't actually make the game more tense, especially since, to top it all off, food is extremely easy to come by, doesn't spoil, and is not significantly limited by inventory space (both factors that go against the otherwise immersive design and mean you can hoard massive amounts of it). Ultimately, this last point is not so much about simulation autism as it is about finding ways to limit food from being such a powerful safety net.
It doesn't help that in most cases it is very easy to avoid combat and still get where you want and what you want without paying the resource tax. There should be more fast enemies, like the horseback bokoblins.
-Enemy variety and design: Especially by the standards of the franchise. Some of the designs here are really cool, like the Lynels and the Hinox, not to mention that the Lizalfos are at their best. However, the Zelda series has such an extensive bestiary with so many cool designs (both in terms of visuals and combat variation) that it is a bit disappointing to see that many old favorites have not made a return, even though the prospect of fighting them with the new combat system is a very appealing prospect. The total amount of enemy variants is unimpressive, and if you don't count the various elemental, power (silver, gold, etc), and stal versions you'd probably struggle to reach 30 enemy variants. Meanwhile, just for reference, Twilight Princess had easily over 50 enemy types without even counting some shadow versions.
And it's not only a matter of quantity, but also of diversification. One of the distinctive characteristics of the Zelda series from the first game onwards was that each enemy had a 'gimmick', they had a strength and a weakness, and often in the series you needed a special weapon to counter a specific enemy. This wasn't so much a system of hard counters (though some might see it that way) as it was a continuation of the centrality of puzzles to the design of the series, as each enemy was like a mini-puzzle. There is no doubt that they had to tone this feature down, for the sake of immersion, of making the most of the new combat system, and the player freedom that was now central. However, they went too far, and apart from very unique enemies like the overworld bosses and Guardians, you are not really encouraged to change your tactics at all against most enemies. And it is interesting that people often cite the game's supposed incentivizing of switching tactics/weapons as a justification of the weapon degradation system, when in fact, there are few things that can't be killed with minimal hassle by slashing them with a sword. So long as the sword in question is not of sub-standard damage output, of course. Sure, some tactics may be more effective than others against certain enemies, but the way the game is tuned now, you rarely feel too rewarded about keeping a diversified toolbox to deal with each different threat. Guardians may be an exception, but even as someone who loves to craft Guardian arrows, has practiced the shield counter, and collected the Guardian set, I still feel time stop and cutting their limbs with the Master Sword works well enough in 1-on-1 situations for those that don't want to go through the hassle. The flying ones and the Shrine bosses are a different story, though.
Beyond all of that, I really would like to see some old classics return, such as Darknuts, Wallmasters, Poes, Eyegores, Like Likes, and a favorite of mine... Dead Hand. As I said, the series has such an extensive bestiary and catalogue of enemy concepts that you can't help but to be a bit disappointed by what's on offer here. That said, I understand that this, like the lack of overworld content, is probably a consequence of the fact that they had to develop both the engine and the mechanics/content. Hopefully, the sequel will fix these things, since they will reuse the engine (a wise decision, IMO).
-Progression: As my previous post in the game pointed out, I have grown to appreciate the progression elements of this game quite a bit. Some of them are a bit out of the way, but there is plenty to sink your teeth in here: Equipment slot upgrades, Fairy fountain and armor upgrades, armor sets, Spirit Orbs, Champion abilities, and some of the more distinct and powerful items like the Master Sword and the Hylian Shield. Still, given how big this game is, you'd think they'd either add more granularity to the progression systems in place, or at least add more progression venues. As I said, the lack of weapon upgrading was a missed opportunity here, and in general I get the feeling that the game could have done a better job of tuning the different elements of progression in order to encourage you to explore.
In particular, it would have been nice to see more rewards to fighting enemy camps, maybe add more progression-related items that can generally be obtained by clearing enemy camps. I wish equipment slot increase was linked to something other than the Korok minigames, which are not very interesting. Why not instead encourage combat - which is fun - by forcing you to get materials you can use at a blacksmith to upgrade equipment slots or weapons? Increasing the hidden player level rank spawns stronger enemies with weapons that have modified/increased values, but if you know what you are doing and you are far into the game, whatever upgrade to your arsenal you can get from clearing an enemy camp is usually not particularly worth it, as a general thing. Gate more meaningful upgrades behind combat and genuine exploration of landmarks instead of Korok minigames and Shrines. Yeah, the Shrines are probably one of the least interesting parts of the world. Some have interesting puzzles inside, and some are even interesting to find and reach, but for the most part I often find myself wishing I'd spent less time in Shrines, and more time exploring winding landmarks and defeating squads of enemies for treasure. A more versatile system to upgrade Health and Stamina would have been great here. Honestly, even the old Pieces of Heart would have been better, but I think a system of potions that permanently increase your stats (like the Yellow Herbs of the RE4 games, or the Elixirs of Gothic 2 which are made from herbs found in exploration), potions that would require materials that you get through exploration. Shrines could still have been part of that or given some other upgrade.
Part of the reason getting the Guardian armor was so much fun was because I had to do a lot of combat to get the materials, and not just combat, but also plenty of expeditions into Hyrule Castle, which was pretty cool. What I'm trying to say is that the game needs more of that and less Shrine diving/Korok minigames, and the progression should encourage that, which the Ancient Armor set proves the game can do.
I think the progression options that are there could actually have been enough, but the way they integrated them into the world or implemented them as a whole did not always enhance exploration, which was a significant missed opportunity. It also doesn't help that a lot of the armors are really sidegrades of each other, and there are very few armor sets that can beat the Soldier's set in combat effectiveness (probably the Guardian and Barbarian sets only). But the question of whether a more vertical way of structuring armor itemization (such as that seen in RPGs) would have been better is probably a massive discussion in its own right, so I'll leave it at that.
-Healing during pause: Self-explanatory. This game is probably the first Zelda game that hasn't pulled any punches, difficulty-wise, which made this all the more disappointing. It is arguably the only Zelda game that has a genuinely fun and challenging combat system, and in which the combat is a major selling point. They should absolutely have capitalized on that. But instead of going all in and making healing require an animation (like in Monster Hunter or Soulsborne, for example), they went with this. You can carry a lot of healing items with you and you can spam them with abandon during combat, this hurts it and prevents it from reaching its full potential. It's also rather unimmersive, but whatever, that's least of it, I suppose. I mean, this is a Zelda game at the end of the day, and I suppose that it was hard for them to go from treating the player with kid gloves as they've always done to this. Honestly, it's probably remarkable enough that they were bold enough to unleash the combat as much as they did. Still, I hope they rethink this in the sequel.
It'd also be nice if they were to elaborate on the whole survival and exploration of the wild theme and make food mostly for hunger or at least something related to stamina like in Monster Hunter. Make healing based on potions or medicine that can be purchased or replenished at select places (like Estus in Dark Souls). Not so much a major omission that they should correct as something I'd like to see.
Some would say a lot of these critiques are not fair because many of them are more in the nature of 'what could have been' than of bad things that are there, and that's fair enough, I suppose. However, this is a game that departed from the classic formula. They took away our suite of dungeons, I'd expect them to replace that with something of similar overall quality, even if different in nature. It's hard to compare apples and oranges, but I'd say that for the tradeoff to be reasonable, they'd need to improve some of the elements I discussed quite a bit.
Anyway, despite these caveats, I have come to appreciate BOTW over time. I thought it was the worst 3D Zelda after my first playthrough, but after getting to know the nuances of the game better during my second playthrough, I'd probably bump it up a few of spots in my top ranking of the series. As it stands, I'd say it's a very good game, perhaps even great. I think the game is more enjoyable with meta knowledge, and that can be considered a flaw, I suppose. However, it's undeniable that it can be a lot of fun if you go out of your way to engage with the progression systems that are there and have a good grasp of where the interesting locales are. The DLC content is also pretty cool, and people who think BOTW has bad bosses should check out Monk Maz Koshia. I would say, if you are skeptical like I was, try setting yourself some goals like obtaining the Ancient and Barbarian sets. Explore Hyrule Castle. You should be able to get a couple dozen hours from that alone. Despite my complaints on the consistency of the quality of Shrines, some of them are actually fun, and you can take your pick of the best ones in order to get the Master Sword and then move on to other things. It's not like you'll need a lot of health or stamina, especially with all the food you'll hoard (not to mention fairies and Mipha's Grace). Activating the towers is also fun. The world itself is mostly rather immersive and very consistent in feel, not to mention it has plenty of interesting bits of worldbuilding if you know where to look, including environmental storytelling in the form of things like Zonai Ruins or the remains of the Leviathans. I'd even say the Divine Beasts themselves are enjoyable, but you need to approach them with a different mindset. They are not the meat of the game.
Also the penultimate boss fight is much less disappointing once you realize you are not actually fighting Ganon or Ganondorf, but most likely...
By this point it should be clear that the game has flaws, but then again, so does pretty much every other game. All things considered though, it's just a good, fun game. To a large extent, I chalk up its shortcomings to the development factors I discussed above, and in retrospect, it would have been unreasonable to expect Nintendo to get everything right in their first attempt. This is why I absolutely want them to keep going in this direction. I want them to build up on the design foundation and engine of BOTW, iterate on the formula, correct the flaws, and bring out the full potential of the new paradigm. I am actually very hyped for BOTW 2, because they are clearly going to use the same engine, which some people seem to be mad about, but AFAIC is the best thing they could have done, since they will be able to iterate on the actual design of the game - in other words, the content and mechanics - and hopefully they will refine it to the same level that previous games were able to refine the old formula. I think they can do it, because BOTW is an extremely solid foundation, and the pieces for the best open world game so far are clearly there. I also think they have the will to do it, because you can tell that Aonuma and co. put a lot of heart in this game. Lich Ganon and the direction for the setting that he heralds is also something to look forward to.
BOTW and the first Zelda do share the ideal of open world freedom as an important aspect of their core design, but that's pretty much where the similarities stop. The actual philosophy behind the content design and mechanics of both games are about as different from each other as can be. I'd say BOTW does in fact have more in common with Ubisoft games than with the first Zelda, even though I don't think BOTW actually has much in common with Ubisoft games beyond the fact that it is open world. For one thing, long and medium term resource management is not a thing in Ubisoft games at all (not even in Far Cry games, where you need bullets but these are way too plentiful). Resource management is certainly a core element of the design philosophy of BOTW, however flawed its implementation may have been (with spammable bombs and plentiful food being the biggest issues). Another thing that set it apart from Ubisoft games is the 'simmy' interactivity that the engine allows for: in terms of intuitive physical and elemental interactions and emergent gameplay, BOTW is probably closer to Bethesda games than to Ubisoft. I mean, this is a game where you can throw Ice Chu Jelly into a the searing floor of a volcano and it turns into Red Chu Jelly and where you can beeline towards the final boss from the start. Ubisoft goes for a far more cinematic and on-rails experience, not to mention the side content in Ubisoft games is generic copypasta fare that is disconnected from the rest of the game and is geared mostly towards achievements, unlike the rather handcrafted situations that affect gameplay that you see in BOTW, such as the fairies (including the fifth one) or collecting the special armor like the Ancient and Barbarian sets. Even Kilton, who is closer to collectathon design, is more organically woven into the world and experience, not to mention his quest has a cool reward.
In fact, I'd say BOTW is a fairly unique take on the open world subgenre, one of the most unique actually. Witcher 3 did actually import Ubisoft design into the Bioware-ish stucture of Witcher 2 in a very hamfisted way, and the difference with BOTW is night and day. The open world in Witcher 3 feels like something that is superfluous and alien to the core of the experience, while, for better or worse, the open world is essential and central to BOTW's feel and gameplay, it is the gameplay. Whatever one thinks of BOTW, it is clear Aonuma has too much class as a developer to do something so crude as to outright rip off the design of another franchise or company, let alone the popamolism of Ubisoft. That said, it is clear that some elements of BOTW were inspired from other games, including probably Ubisoft (the climbing/parkour and towers are certainly reminiscent of Assassin's Creed), however, there is a big difference between copying the template and structure of another game and synthetizing parts of aspects of extant games into your overall design scheme. I think BOTW does the latter a lot, but there is nothing wrong with adopting good ideas from other games and learn from the collective experience of your industry, so long as there is a unifying vision that he developer has either innovated or at least internalized guiding it all. And I think that is certainly the case with BOTW, whatever its flaws may be. It is not a game that lacks focus or integrity. Its shortcomings spring from other sources.
I would also say that I never felt like the game wasn't a 'true Zelda', even as someone who has been playing these games since childhood. It's a different kind of Zelda to be sure, much like Zelda 2 was in its time, yet that one was not less of a 'true Zelda' either. A Link to the Past was also a departure from previous conventions, we simply take it for granted that games in this style are the very essence of Zelda due to the fact that this formula has produced the bulk of the catalogue of the series (both 3D and 2D). Make no mistake, games that use the ALttP and OoT formula are very much my favorite Zeldas, but there is nothing wrong with trying something new, I welcome both iteration and innovation, so long as the execution is competent. Though Aonuma has taken a backseat as producer, his knowledge of and experience with the franchise is palpable throughout the experience, and BOTW definitely does have the franchise's DNA, even if sometimes it does go a bit too far in calling that to your attention to it through some bits of worldbuilding that veer into fanservice territory.
Ultimately, the big question when considering the quality of this game is how well it succeeds in its own terms, and in accomplishing the design goals that it has set itself for. That's why I don't criticize its dungeon design. If this was a conventional Zelda (in the ALttP/OoT sense) it would be a bad game, because the dungeons would simply not measure up to the rest of the series, neither in quality nor in quantity. I mean, Majora's Mask also had only four 'real' dungeons, but at least three of those are among the very best ever designed in the franchise (the Stone Tower and Great Bay Temples, in particular, are both easily Top 5 material). The dungeons in BOTW are nowhere close to that level of quality.
That said, I have no complaints whatsoever with the Divine Beasts, because this is not a conventional Zelda and their purpose here is very different from games in which dungeons were the core of the gameplay experience. The dungeons in BOTW could not carry a game on their own, but they fulfill their role in the overall flow and pace of BOTW more than adequately. They are there to serve as mega-shrines that give you very useful rewards that offer a sense of progression and enhance engagement of the overworld content (Mipha's Grace and Revali's Gale are especially notable in this regard). Furthermore, they complement the worldbuilding by being part of an overall theme, where others see blandness and repetition, I see a consistency in the ambience and the logic of their navigation that is unique in the series. In the other Zeldas, there was something of a 'theme park' feel to the many different dungeons because of how radically different they were from each other, both in tone and gameplay. Naturally, I don't think that is a major flaw of conventional Zelda, for the simple fact that those games didn't have a particular focus in creating a coherent-feeling world like BOTW does. Their immersion came from the almost surreal, dreamlike quirkiness and charm of the settings (something that peaked with Majora's Mask), with perhaps only Wind Waker and Twilight Princess coming close to BOTW's attempt to create a seamless setting. Even in the latter two cases though, the primacy of the dungeon-focused design demanded strong contrast between dungeons in order to reinforce a sense of variety that was a key strength of these areas.
The Divine Beasts then, are just there to reinforce progression, break the flow of gameplay with something different, supplement the immersion of a coherent world, and offer puzzles that are elegant and intuitive whole also being more complex than the shrines (even if they are quite simple compared to conventional Zelda dungeons). Yes, they are the only areas in the game that are similar to the traditional 'self-contained puzzle box' that conventional Zeldas used as their design core, and there is no doubt that they are at least an homage to traditional Zelda dungeons in some way. That makes it tempting to compare, but ultimately they play a different role in the general design paradigm of BOTW, and they fulfill that role well enough.
So this takes us again, to my previous point: evaluating that general design paradigm of BOTW. So, how well does it achieve its own design goals? In short, it is a mixed bag, and this is where most of my actual complaints with the game come from. That said, I will preface my observations on that by saying that I actually think BOTW is a very impressive achievement. They took a beloved, established franchise and made a mainline entry built on entirely different design foundations. It was one thing to experiment back in the days of Zelda II, when the IP was still new, but to do it at this point in the game took a lot of balls. Indeed, if there is a sense in which BOTW can be said to be a throwback to the old-school days, it is not due to the fact that it has Zelda 1-like freedom as much as due to its desire to experiment and reinvent itself. I can certainly respect that, and what's more, they not only made a radical change, but they managed to - for the most part - meet the level of overall quality that we have come to expect from a Zelda game, even if I considered it the worst 3D Zelda when it came out (my opinion of it has improved quite a bit since then, and I'll get into that, but I still don't think it is in the Top 3 of even the 3D games). Also, remember that the design of this game was rather troubled, and it was originally meant to be released for the Wii U, and they ended up having to port it to the Switch by release.
So, not only did they have to transition to the HD gaming (remember, Skyward Sword was a Wii game), they also had to work on getting it to function on two different platforms, and they also had to build an engine meant for an entirely different - and likely far more technically demanding - kind of gameplay, and then they had to design the whole game - one with a very extensive world at that - under completely different design guidelines than those of previous entries.
There is no doubt that there were some anticipations of BOTW's gameplay in Skyward Sword (the stamina and climbing, item durability), but at the end of the day, SS was another game in the vein of OoT with some modern flourishes (complete with some fine old-school style dungeons). In fact, it was actually more linear than previous Zeldas of the conventional sort: can't really do dungeons out of order in SS in the way you can in OoT, for example. Meanwhile, BOTW belongs to the open world subgenre and, as I mentioned before, has a rather idiosyncratic approach to that very subgenre. So, it was a radical departure, probably the most drastic one since the leap to 3D that happened from ALttP to OoT, and in some ways, perhaps even a more daunting one, since OoT mostly had to adapt the ALttP paradigm to 3D while BOTW had to find its design grounding anew.
That's why I've never really been a true detractor of the game, because to me, the fact that they managed to achieve this level of quality against those odds is a sure sign that Aonuma is as passionate about this franchise as he has ever been. And this plays a major role on my thought on the future of the franchise, something to which I'll get to later.
For now, on to what I think the issues that hold back BOTW are:
-Exploration: First of all, let's make a distinction between exploration and traversal. I happen to think that traversal is brilliant in BOTW, but exploration? Not so much. Now, by traversal, I mean having ways to interact with and travel through the environment, and I don't think I need to elaborate why I think BOTW is incline in this regard. Climbing, paragliding, using Cryonis to freeze water platforms, horseback riding, shield surfing, Revali's Gale, dealing with low and high temperatures... there are plenty of interesting - and often, but not always, emergence-friendly - ways in which the game both allows you to reach areas, and challenges you in accessing them. What's more, there is plenty of unique content and catalysts of meaningful progression in the world that make it satisfying to crisscross between the many points of interest. Sure, I would like to see some old methods of traversal return, like the swimming and diving of Twilight Princess (if not the sheer fun of OG MM's transformation-based locomotion), but the traversal is there: we have endpoints and engaging paths towards those endpoints. However, we are not quite yet at exploration.
So what's the problem? To simplify, the main issue is content density. We have a massive world, and as I said previously, it is a world that has a very consistent and seamless feel, more so than any other Zelda in fact, and that despite the representation of most the classic Zelda biomes (desert, volcano, lake/water area, forest, field), this is by far the least 'theme park-ish' Zelda game. Much of that comes from the fact that the biomes are large, which allows them to be fleshed out and feel authentic. However, this is a double-edged sword, since with biomes this large, the developer was naturally gonna have a problem filling every corner with engaging content. I think we can all agree that games don't have to stimulate the player every 5 seconds, and that a sense of scale is a strength in itself , but when we consider how large the game is, it does seem like the points of interest, while not few, are certainly far in between.
This relates to exploration because the very point of exploration is to search around outside the critical path for interesting content. Something awesome doesn't have to happen every time you do, and indeed, your observational skills should be challenged (which the game does well from time to time). There should be scammer quest givers and dead ends (and this game has plenty of those, to its credit). However, there should be a certain pace to the incentivization of the player if a dev wants to encourage this explorative behavior, and it would be a strawman to say that everyone who thinks that this pace is unsatisfactory in BOTW simply wants a Monty Haul of awesome rewards. I certainly think that it is a valid criticism, especially since I found that BOTW expects you to trudge through quite a bit of monotony to reach its juicier rewards without metagaming. This isn't much of an issue at the beginning, because the sense of wanderlust is strong at that point, so you explore every nook and cranny naturally, and pretty much every reward, even basic weapons and rupees, is welcome. Indeed, the fact that rupees - and consumables in general - are actually worth something now for a change, makes this even more natural. But already by the midgame, and once you have hoarded enough things, you start to wonder what's the point of going out of your way to get this or that chest or see what lies at every seeming point of interest. And this is exacerbated by the fact that unique items are not always properly signposted, something that is essential to any properly designed exploration-centric game and should not be confused with handholding.
Again, the content density and the pace of rewards are the issue here. There should be more 'intermediate' rewards between things like unique armor sets and rupees to keep the player engaged and not feel his time is being wasted. Frankly, there should also simply be more content. The world is by no means empty, as some of the less nuanced criticism of the game would indicate, but if you want a world as massive as this to be exploration-friendly, you really need more content and venues of progression than the game has. The latter element, in particular, is something I'll elaborate on further below.
Some might say that this is subjective, and some people might be fine with the content density as it is, but I'm sure anyone who is familiar with game and can look at the issue in a cool-headed manner can at least see where the many people who have brought it up are coming from, and that this is definitely something that should be improved in the sequel.
-Resource Management: a bit of a can of worms, if not a dead horse. I'll say up front that I don't hate the weapon degradation system, it does not 'ruin' the game (that's indeed autism), nor am I frustrated by it (I always have more than enough quality weapons and find myself throwing high level weapons in the ground despite Korokmaxxing, as there are some really good spots to obtain good weapons after a Blood Moon, like Hyrule Castle). I do, however, think this was a lost opportunity, because it would have been much better to keep, and iterate on, the weapon upgrade and repair system from Skyward Sword. That system would have added a venue for progression that would have synergized perfectly with the game, not to mention enhanced exploration, since you can't take a new weapon when you are full, but you could still take upgrade and repair materials, which would allow more 'liquidity' to the rewards of exploration, and thus more incentive to explore.
Apart from that, it feels a bit disjointed, from a design standpoint, that they went so far to encourage resource management and a survival feel and still allowed you to hoard and be stingy with your weapons by spamming bombs. Yes, the usefulness of this falls off over the game. Yes, you can always self-impose the restriction of not using bombs. Doesn't change the fact that it is a design flaw that encourages degenerate gameplay, and that by midgame you should already have snowballed in terms of resources to the point that you can always replenish your losses without much issue. At the end of the day, it ends up being a nuisance that doesn't actually make the game more tense, especially since, to top it all off, food is extremely easy to come by, doesn't spoil, and is not significantly limited by inventory space (both factors that go against the otherwise immersive design and mean you can hoard massive amounts of it). Ultimately, this last point is not so much about simulation autism as it is about finding ways to limit food from being such a powerful safety net.
It doesn't help that in most cases it is very easy to avoid combat and still get where you want and what you want without paying the resource tax. There should be more fast enemies, like the horseback bokoblins.
-Enemy variety and design: Especially by the standards of the franchise. Some of the designs here are really cool, like the Lynels and the Hinox, not to mention that the Lizalfos are at their best. However, the Zelda series has such an extensive bestiary with so many cool designs (both in terms of visuals and combat variation) that it is a bit disappointing to see that many old favorites have not made a return, even though the prospect of fighting them with the new combat system is a very appealing prospect. The total amount of enemy variants is unimpressive, and if you don't count the various elemental, power (silver, gold, etc), and stal versions you'd probably struggle to reach 30 enemy variants. Meanwhile, just for reference, Twilight Princess had easily over 50 enemy types without even counting some shadow versions.
And it's not only a matter of quantity, but also of diversification. One of the distinctive characteristics of the Zelda series from the first game onwards was that each enemy had a 'gimmick', they had a strength and a weakness, and often in the series you needed a special weapon to counter a specific enemy. This wasn't so much a system of hard counters (though some might see it that way) as it was a continuation of the centrality of puzzles to the design of the series, as each enemy was like a mini-puzzle. There is no doubt that they had to tone this feature down, for the sake of immersion, of making the most of the new combat system, and the player freedom that was now central. However, they went too far, and apart from very unique enemies like the overworld bosses and Guardians, you are not really encouraged to change your tactics at all against most enemies. And it is interesting that people often cite the game's supposed incentivizing of switching tactics/weapons as a justification of the weapon degradation system, when in fact, there are few things that can't be killed with minimal hassle by slashing them with a sword. So long as the sword in question is not of sub-standard damage output, of course. Sure, some tactics may be more effective than others against certain enemies, but the way the game is tuned now, you rarely feel too rewarded about keeping a diversified toolbox to deal with each different threat. Guardians may be an exception, but even as someone who loves to craft Guardian arrows, has practiced the shield counter, and collected the Guardian set, I still feel time stop and cutting their limbs with the Master Sword works well enough in 1-on-1 situations for those that don't want to go through the hassle. The flying ones and the Shrine bosses are a different story, though.
Beyond all of that, I really would like to see some old classics return, such as Darknuts, Wallmasters, Poes, Eyegores, Like Likes, and a favorite of mine... Dead Hand. As I said, the series has such an extensive bestiary and catalogue of enemy concepts that you can't help but to be a bit disappointed by what's on offer here. That said, I understand that this, like the lack of overworld content, is probably a consequence of the fact that they had to develop both the engine and the mechanics/content. Hopefully, the sequel will fix these things, since they will reuse the engine (a wise decision, IMO).
-Progression: As my previous post in the game pointed out, I have grown to appreciate the progression elements of this game quite a bit. Some of them are a bit out of the way, but there is plenty to sink your teeth in here: Equipment slot upgrades, Fairy fountain and armor upgrades, armor sets, Spirit Orbs, Champion abilities, and some of the more distinct and powerful items like the Master Sword and the Hylian Shield. Still, given how big this game is, you'd think they'd either add more granularity to the progression systems in place, or at least add more progression venues. As I said, the lack of weapon upgrading was a missed opportunity here, and in general I get the feeling that the game could have done a better job of tuning the different elements of progression in order to encourage you to explore.
In particular, it would have been nice to see more rewards to fighting enemy camps, maybe add more progression-related items that can generally be obtained by clearing enemy camps. I wish equipment slot increase was linked to something other than the Korok minigames, which are not very interesting. Why not instead encourage combat - which is fun - by forcing you to get materials you can use at a blacksmith to upgrade equipment slots or weapons? Increasing the hidden player level rank spawns stronger enemies with weapons that have modified/increased values, but if you know what you are doing and you are far into the game, whatever upgrade to your arsenal you can get from clearing an enemy camp is usually not particularly worth it, as a general thing. Gate more meaningful upgrades behind combat and genuine exploration of landmarks instead of Korok minigames and Shrines. Yeah, the Shrines are probably one of the least interesting parts of the world. Some have interesting puzzles inside, and some are even interesting to find and reach, but for the most part I often find myself wishing I'd spent less time in Shrines, and more time exploring winding landmarks and defeating squads of enemies for treasure. A more versatile system to upgrade Health and Stamina would have been great here. Honestly, even the old Pieces of Heart would have been better, but I think a system of potions that permanently increase your stats (like the Yellow Herbs of the RE4 games, or the Elixirs of Gothic 2 which are made from herbs found in exploration), potions that would require materials that you get through exploration. Shrines could still have been part of that or given some other upgrade.
Part of the reason getting the Guardian armor was so much fun was because I had to do a lot of combat to get the materials, and not just combat, but also plenty of expeditions into Hyrule Castle, which was pretty cool. What I'm trying to say is that the game needs more of that and less Shrine diving/Korok minigames, and the progression should encourage that, which the Ancient Armor set proves the game can do.
I think the progression options that are there could actually have been enough, but the way they integrated them into the world or implemented them as a whole did not always enhance exploration, which was a significant missed opportunity. It also doesn't help that a lot of the armors are really sidegrades of each other, and there are very few armor sets that can beat the Soldier's set in combat effectiveness (probably the Guardian and Barbarian sets only). But the question of whether a more vertical way of structuring armor itemization (such as that seen in RPGs) would have been better is probably a massive discussion in its own right, so I'll leave it at that.
-Healing during pause: Self-explanatory. This game is probably the first Zelda game that hasn't pulled any punches, difficulty-wise, which made this all the more disappointing. It is arguably the only Zelda game that has a genuinely fun and challenging combat system, and in which the combat is a major selling point. They should absolutely have capitalized on that. But instead of going all in and making healing require an animation (like in Monster Hunter or Soulsborne, for example), they went with this. You can carry a lot of healing items with you and you can spam them with abandon during combat, this hurts it and prevents it from reaching its full potential. It's also rather unimmersive, but whatever, that's least of it, I suppose. I mean, this is a Zelda game at the end of the day, and I suppose that it was hard for them to go from treating the player with kid gloves as they've always done to this. Honestly, it's probably remarkable enough that they were bold enough to unleash the combat as much as they did. Still, I hope they rethink this in the sequel.
It'd also be nice if they were to elaborate on the whole survival and exploration of the wild theme and make food mostly for hunger or at least something related to stamina like in Monster Hunter. Make healing based on potions or medicine that can be purchased or replenished at select places (like Estus in Dark Souls). Not so much a major omission that they should correct as something I'd like to see.
Some would say a lot of these critiques are not fair because many of them are more in the nature of 'what could have been' than of bad things that are there, and that's fair enough, I suppose. However, this is a game that departed from the classic formula. They took away our suite of dungeons, I'd expect them to replace that with something of similar overall quality, even if different in nature. It's hard to compare apples and oranges, but I'd say that for the tradeoff to be reasonable, they'd need to improve some of the elements I discussed quite a bit.
Anyway, despite these caveats, I have come to appreciate BOTW over time. I thought it was the worst 3D Zelda after my first playthrough, but after getting to know the nuances of the game better during my second playthrough, I'd probably bump it up a few of spots in my top ranking of the series. As it stands, I'd say it's a very good game, perhaps even great. I think the game is more enjoyable with meta knowledge, and that can be considered a flaw, I suppose. However, it's undeniable that it can be a lot of fun if you go out of your way to engage with the progression systems that are there and have a good grasp of where the interesting locales are. The DLC content is also pretty cool, and people who think BOTW has bad bosses should check out Monk Maz Koshia. I would say, if you are skeptical like I was, try setting yourself some goals like obtaining the Ancient and Barbarian sets. Explore Hyrule Castle. You should be able to get a couple dozen hours from that alone. Despite my complaints on the consistency of the quality of Shrines, some of them are actually fun, and you can take your pick of the best ones in order to get the Master Sword and then move on to other things. It's not like you'll need a lot of health or stamina, especially with all the food you'll hoard (not to mention fairies and Mipha's Grace). Activating the towers is also fun. The world itself is mostly rather immersive and very consistent in feel, not to mention it has plenty of interesting bits of worldbuilding if you know where to look, including environmental storytelling in the form of things like Zonai Ruins or the remains of the Leviathans. I'd even say the Divine Beasts themselves are enjoyable, but you need to approach them with a different mindset. They are not the meat of the game.
Also the penultimate boss fight is much less disappointing once you realize you are not actually fighting Ganon or Ganondorf, but most likely...
A new version of Puppet Ganon. Though to be fair, this hasn't been confirmed.
By this point it should be clear that the game has flaws, but then again, so does pretty much every other game. All things considered though, it's just a good, fun game. To a large extent, I chalk up its shortcomings to the development factors I discussed above, and in retrospect, it would have been unreasonable to expect Nintendo to get everything right in their first attempt. This is why I absolutely want them to keep going in this direction. I want them to build up on the design foundation and engine of BOTW, iterate on the formula, correct the flaws, and bring out the full potential of the new paradigm. I am actually very hyped for BOTW 2, because they are clearly going to use the same engine, which some people seem to be mad about, but AFAIC is the best thing they could have done, since they will be able to iterate on the actual design of the game - in other words, the content and mechanics - and hopefully they will refine it to the same level that previous games were able to refine the old formula. I think they can do it, because BOTW is an extremely solid foundation, and the pieces for the best open world game so far are clearly there. I also think they have the will to do it, because you can tell that Aonuma and co. put a lot of heart in this game. Lich Ganon and the direction for the setting that he heralds is also something to look forward to.
Last edited:
Neuromancer
Augur
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2018
- Messages
- 1,238
Also, to try to count additional DLCs, which you have to pay for and download extra, as part of the main game, is a kind of very bad argument.
So, basically in BOTW, the only real dungeon is Hyrule Castle and then you have 4 mini dungeons in form of the Divine Beasts.
And, yes Dungeons have been an integral part of Zelda games - even in Zelda 1.
So, basically in BOTW, the only real dungeon is Hyrule Castle and then you have 4 mini dungeons in form of the Divine Beasts.
And, yes Dungeons have been an integral part of Zelda games - even in Zelda 1.
mogwaimon
Magister
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,079
I'm hesitant to call Hyrule Castle a 'real dungeon', but it's the closest thing the game has. My first time through as a dainty 5 hearted Link trying to complete some stupid sidequest that I got early on and finding stuff like the Hyrule Shield and whatnot were pretty cool, but going back for the final battle after a few dozen hours and just climbing up the side of the mountain with no real issues made it feel meh in the end.
Excellent read by Ventidius, a bit long-winded sure but I think it's a fair assessment of the game and well-reasoned. Though I will say, of course A Link to the Past 'broke conventions', it was only the third game in the series after all! but even then if you were going to point out a Zelda game that early on that was outside of the norm at the time, Zelda 2 is like, right there. if anything ALttP was a return to form, IMO, albeit with more structure than Zelda 1.
also lawl at the guy who thinks it's bad to like Wind Waker, thinks the Divine Beast dungeons are big because the beasts themselves are big, and thinks Eventide ranks as a top-tier puzzle, kek. Eventide is literally, 'grab three orbs and put them on the pedestal', it's not even a puzzle it's just a test of resourcefulness. Yes it's one of the better challenges in BotW I agree but I don't consider it a puzzle.
...also on the subject of the DLCs 'both adding one dungeon' are you considering the Trial of the Sword to be a dungeon? I don't think it is, TBH, it's basically just the same as the pits of trials from Wind Waker and Twilight Princess (i think there was one in that game?) and it's not quite a dungeon, exactly, but still challenging.
Excellent read by Ventidius, a bit long-winded sure but I think it's a fair assessment of the game and well-reasoned. Though I will say, of course A Link to the Past 'broke conventions', it was only the third game in the series after all! but even then if you were going to point out a Zelda game that early on that was outside of the norm at the time, Zelda 2 is like, right there. if anything ALttP was a return to form, IMO, albeit with more structure than Zelda 1.
also lawl at the guy who thinks it's bad to like Wind Waker, thinks the Divine Beast dungeons are big because the beasts themselves are big, and thinks Eventide ranks as a top-tier puzzle, kek. Eventide is literally, 'grab three orbs and put them on the pedestal', it's not even a puzzle it's just a test of resourcefulness. Yes it's one of the better challenges in BotW I agree but I don't consider it a puzzle.
...also on the subject of the DLCs 'both adding one dungeon' are you considering the Trial of the Sword to be a dungeon? I don't think it is, TBH, it's basically just the same as the pits of trials from Wind Waker and Twilight Princess (i think there was one in that game?) and it's not quite a dungeon, exactly, but still challenging.
TheHeroOfTime
Arcane
The original Zelda for NES was an adventure game that focused a lot on the world exploration itself, way more than in it's dungeon. When you bought the game one of the things inside the box was this:
A world map. If you watch it closely you will realise that is very incomplete. It served as an initial guide and orientation manual, but the player has plenty to job to do regarding exploration. It was a fairly open experience, allowing the player to explore, get certain items and do dungeons in different orders. The dungeon themselves were quite simple but in atmosphere and structure, despite the final ones. Very samey in terms on visuals and the riddles were reiterative too. But they complete nailed their objective of filling the world with things to do. Also, the game included a sort of new game+ that rearranged items and stuff location. All things considered, it was a pretty big and solid game for a 8 bits console in 1986.
What does Breath of the wild share with it's oldest predecesor? Simply, the core: The game's about exploring the overworld and the rest of elements are there to reinforce that experience. That's where this "defense" of BOTW comes from, and it is a fair one. Breath of the wild does not follow the path built by A Link to the past, which was the first Zelda game offering the game formula that the series is known for. It follows the way of the original Zelda, while also capitalising the current open-world/sandbox popularity in gaming of course. Also, BOTW borrowed elements from other popular open world games and some not popular ones (Like survivals on PC: Temperature condictions and the climbing mechanics are in games like Conan exiles). But it managed to offer a solid proposition on its own merits, far from being just copy&pasting things that made other games succesful. Is not a perfect one though, the game lacks proper dungeons, more bosses variety and better side-quests. But it is a damn good entry in the rest of regards.
I'm really excited to see what Nintendo brings with its sequel, the thing is the Zelda dev team doesnt like making derivative sequels: Majora's mask was quite different from Ocarina of time, despite sharing rehashed content and engine. So Im not sure if they will just improve the formula they offered with BOTW or they just will try to do something different. My bet is actually the second option: I do believe they will "cut" in terms of freedom and exploration and they will go for a more focused experience, but keeping in the process all the engine and elements from the current game.
A world map. If you watch it closely you will realise that is very incomplete. It served as an initial guide and orientation manual, but the player has plenty to job to do regarding exploration. It was a fairly open experience, allowing the player to explore, get certain items and do dungeons in different orders. The dungeon themselves were quite simple but in atmosphere and structure, despite the final ones. Very samey in terms on visuals and the riddles were reiterative too. But they complete nailed their objective of filling the world with things to do. Also, the game included a sort of new game+ that rearranged items and stuff location. All things considered, it was a pretty big and solid game for a 8 bits console in 1986.
What does Breath of the wild share with it's oldest predecesor? Simply, the core: The game's about exploring the overworld and the rest of elements are there to reinforce that experience. That's where this "defense" of BOTW comes from, and it is a fair one. Breath of the wild does not follow the path built by A Link to the past, which was the first Zelda game offering the game formula that the series is known for. It follows the way of the original Zelda, while also capitalising the current open-world/sandbox popularity in gaming of course. Also, BOTW borrowed elements from other popular open world games and some not popular ones (Like survivals on PC: Temperature condictions and the climbing mechanics are in games like Conan exiles). But it managed to offer a solid proposition on its own merits, far from being just copy&pasting things that made other games succesful. Is not a perfect one though, the game lacks proper dungeons, more bosses variety and better side-quests. But it is a damn good entry in the rest of regards.
I'm really excited to see what Nintendo brings with its sequel, the thing is the Zelda dev team doesnt like making derivative sequels: Majora's mask was quite different from Ocarina of time, despite sharing rehashed content and engine. So Im not sure if they will just improve the formula they offered with BOTW or they just will try to do something different. My bet is actually the second option: I do believe they will "cut" in terms of freedom and exploration and they will go for a more focused experience, but keeping in the process all the engine and elements from the current game.
Ventidius
Arbiter
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2017
- Messages
- 552
Heh, I figured someone would say that. That's a fair enough take. But yes, Zelda II is more than enough to prove that particular point of mine.
DJOGamer PT
Arcane
Except I don't have any problem with people liking WW
The same way I don't have a problem with people liking Skyrim
I have a problem with people that consider a mediocre game (if we're being nice) is actually great...
dacencora
Guest
Zelda 1 is the originator of the formula, not ALttP. ALttP reinforced and perfected the formula, but Zelda 1 originated it. Yes the overworld has always been a major part of Zelda as well. The two work together, the dungeons and the overworld. This is the reason I prefer Zelda to a pure dungeon crawl (also why I like Might and Magic more than most other blobbers).
Here’s a good test for it. If someone really really loved BOTW, which Zelda would you recommend they play next? Do you really think someone whose first Zelda was BOTW would be super interested in the OG LoZ?
Here’s a good test for it. If someone really really loved BOTW, which Zelda would you recommend they play next? Do you really think someone whose first Zelda was BOTW would be super interested in the OG LoZ?
mogwaimon
Magister
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,079
Skyrim is a mediocre game, Wind Waker is at least good to great. It's not my favorite Zelda game, I'll give you that but it's a hell of a lot better than Skyrim and it certainly isn't mediocre.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.