racketboy.com

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.

BogusMeatFactory wrote: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.

The combat thing is fair - that is unprecedented for the series from what I have seen/read about the game. You're right about that. I guess I was thinking more about the overall structure of the game.

I'm not quite sure that I agree about the scale thing though. Sure, the scale of BotW is the biggest Zelda ever but... aren't pretty much all modern AAA games bigger than ever before? Shouldn't we be accounting for "inflation" here? Wasn't the original LoZ a pretty damn big game for its time in 1986/87, especially on a console?

marlowe221 wrote:

BogusMeatFactory wrote: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.

The combat thing is fair - that is unprecedented for the series from what I have seen/read about the game. You're right about that. I guess I was thinking more about the overall structure of the game.

I'm not quite sure that I agree about the scale thing though. Sure, the scale of BotW is the biggest Zelda ever but... aren't pretty much all modern AAA games bigger than ever before? Shouldn't we be accounting for "inflation" here? Wasn't the original LoZ a pretty damn big game for its time in 1986/87, especially on a console?

A game should not be diminished because it has more content across more landmass. "Sure Breath of the Wild has 100x more content then the very first zelda, but it is a bigger game so it doesn't count." That does not add up.

How about this? Puzzles that are more complex, more open to interpretation and use tools that have never been in a zelda game before and done in a way that is always fun and creative throughout? Zelda has always had the problem of introducing new items at every dungeon and by the end you have a huge variety of items that are not used.

In Breath of the Wild it seems that everything is useful as your major tool set is giving from the beginning and the rest of the game is fleshing out how to use those tools in unique ways.

I have never finished a 3D Zelda game - I don't enjoy them by in large, and while I "get" the appeal, they aren't full of what appeals to me about the 2D entries.

The fact that this Zelda has been regularly compared in reviews to the 2D titles has me over the moon with anticipation.

dsheinem wrote:I have never finished a 3D Zelda game - I don't enjoy them by in large, and while I "get" the appeal, they aren't full of what appeals to me about the 2D entries.

If you have time, I'd be interested in reading you expand upon what facets of the previous 3D Zeldas you did not enjoy. Also what aspects of the 2D Zeldas you enjoy that aren't transferred as well (or at all) in previous 3D Zeldas.

BogusMeatFactory wrote:A game should not be diminished because it has more content across more landmass. "Sure Breath of the Wild has 100x more content then the very first zelda, but it is a bigger game so it doesn't count." That does not add up.

How about this? Puzzles that are more complex, more open to interpretation and use tools that have never been in a zelda game before and done in a way that is always fun and creative throughout? Zelda has always had the problem of introducing new items at every dungeon and by the end you have a huge variety of items that are not used.

In Breath of the Wild it seems that everything is useful as your major tool set is giving from the beginning and the rest of the game is fleshing out how to use those tools in unique ways.

I'm not saying that the size of BotW somehow "doesn't count." I'm saying that simply stating that the game is unprecedented in size/scale may or may not be a fair statement to make because comparing this game with, say the original title on the NES, is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

I am simply wondering if those making this claim about BotW have taken into consideration the level of technology that allows BotW to be so big and that was, of course, unavailable in 1986. Maybe they have! But I think it's a fair question to consider.

I also think it's fair to consider games in their historical context - were there other console games of comparable size/scope to the original LoZ in the NES days? Was the original LoZ the BotW of its day and time?

dsheinem wrote:I have never finished a 3D Zelda game - I don't enjoy them by in large, and while I "get" the appeal, they aren't full of what appeals to me about the 2D entries.

The fact that this Zelda has been regularly compared in reviews to the 2D titles has me over the moon with anticipation.

These are my sentiments exactly, though I have finished every 3D Zelda except Majora's Mask. I can't wait to try this game tomorrow.

Exhuminator wrote:

dsheinem wrote:I have never finished a 3D Zelda game - I don't enjoy them by in large, and while I "get" the appeal, they aren't full of what appeals to me about the 2D entries.

If you have time, I'd be interested in reading you expand upon what facets of the previous 3D Zeldas you did not enjoy. Also what aspects of the 2D Zeldas you enjoy that aren't transferred as well (or at all) in previous 3D Zeldas.

Sure, I can try to do that at some point. Added voice acting and changes to character design are two off-putting factors for me, though.

Two retro shops in Manhattan broke street date for the game. Plenty of Wii U copies. Only a couple of Switch copies.

dsheinem wrote:Sure, I can try to do that at some point.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

-

I'll say this about BotW, reading that the difficulty has been amped up significantly is like taking a breath of fresh air. One of my biggest contentions with the 3D Zeldas is that they are all too easy in general. I know WHY that is, but I think most players have more skill than Nintendo gives them credit for. I'm really hoping BotW is as difficult as people are saying it is.

marlowe221 wrote: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.

Your point is noted, but it's not entirely true. Look at the original Zelda. While the world itself was fairly open, there were lots of places you couldn't go without the right items. Every dungeon had another important item, and while sequence breaking some dungeons wasn't hard, you really were intended to take the dungeons in a specific order. It sounds like this is the first Zelda where sequence breaking is far less an issue. You can go almost anywhere right out the gate and you're getting your most-used mobility and puzzle-solving tools right from the get-go. That is indeed a change, even over the original Zelda. In fact, according to reviews, there may only be 4 main dungeons, with a hundred or so much shorter dungeons. There's original Zelda, and then there's this, which does sound somewhat different. These reviews have truly made me excited that someday I'll get to play this. This is much more what I've wanted Zelda to become.

And if we're being honest, LttP wasn't really that open. OoT may have made things a lot less open, but the "do these things in order" path had already been set.