marlowe221 wrote:marurun wrote:Read the Ars Technica review at https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/03/refreshing-new-zelda-breath-of-the-wild-is-an-instant-classic/. It is the most detailed review I've read so far. It really hits home the implications of this core design change. I think Nintendo has had some kind of weird revelation. Totally unexpected.
This is the thing I don't really understand. A lot of the reviewers/news outlets are all like, "OMG! New Zelda is all new and stuff! We've never seen anything like this before!!!"
Are our memories so short? Does no one remember pre-3D Zelda when relatively open, free-form game design was pretty much the norm for the series?
For old school Zelda fans, Breath of the Wild should look more like a return to form rather than a new, ground-breaking design.
Sure, since OoT the series has become increasingly linear and hyper-focused on dungeons and heavy handed narratives. Much to the detriment of the series, IMHO. So I can see how people might refer to BotW as "refreshing" but I don't see how anyone can call it "new" since a more open-ended approach to design was how the series started on the NES.
The enthusiasm from reporters is not solely on the open ended aspect of the game. Yes, there are secrets everywhere. What is being lauded more importantly is how combat works. Zelda has never been like this in a combat and planning experience. You have to think and plan when engaging combat. The most planning you did in old zelda games was reserved solely for boss fights and were inconsequential.
There is scale unprecedented in any game of the series, there is clear sense of character and scope and elements that affect how you play in a more dynamic way.
Reviewers are saying that they have plunked down 50 hours and experienced 30% of the game. That seems insane.