Breath of the Wild has great systems, but is not a great video game (READ OP)

NattyBo said:

I can't say I agree with the OP. I think the systems are pretty much what ruined the game for me.

I logged about 10 hours with BOTW and gave up in frustration. The weapon degradation is just absolutely unforgivable in my eyes. Adding Ubisoft style towers and then compounding that by making climbing an absolute slog...just not my idea of fun. The story...well, it's thin, to say the best. And people complain about Dark Souls narrative?

I have felt like I'm living in an alternate reality where no one sees this but me. I guess thrre's no accounting for taste. I'm not saying it's a bad game, or even, not a good game, but I was truly stunned after all the 10/10 scores and then playing it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The towers are supposed to be a challenge to climb... the first time. It's basically conquering an area to reveal it. Then the portal is open and you can teleport to them instantly. You realize that, right?

And I really don't understand the "Ubisoft towers" remark. So did Ubisoft patent towers in games or something? For someone who doesn't play Ubisoft games or intends to, this is a mind-boggling nothing criticism. It's like if people start calling cars in games "EA cars" without adding anything else as why the cars are inherently bad for, because the reality is that it isn't a complaint that holds any water so we'll just associate this gaming element with some shoddy developer that has a habit of using it and see if it sticks as an insult. This is an open-world game where you can go anywhere you see and where you progress by finding your own points of interest in the landscape and marking them. Plus there's a cool glider. The towers are fucking awesome.

Indeed there is no accounting for taste.

Dance Inferno said:

This is a great post, and outlines a few other issues I had with the game. I never shield surfed in the game because I never wanted to ruin my shields. I only have capacity for 4 shields I think, and I rely on them a lot in combat, so why would I ever shield surf if they're just going to break after a few hills? I also felt the anxiety at solving puzzles in a shrine and hoping my weapon doesn't break, because I kept needing to reset the puzzle.

Like I said in the OP, the game is more committed to its systems than it is to the idea of player fun.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Like most of your OP, this is just more of you calling the game bad because of your refusal to actually play most of it

jts said:

The towers are supposed to be a challenge to climb... the first time. It's basically conquering an area to reveal it. Then the portal is open and you can teleport to them instantly. You realize that, right?

And I really don't understand the "Ubisoft towers" remark. So did Ubisoft patent towers in games or something? For someone who doesn't play Ubisoft games or intends to, this is a mind-boggling nothing criticism. It's like if people start calling cars in games "EA cars" without adding anything else as why the cars are inherently bad for, because the reality is that it isn't a complaint that holds any water so we'll just associate this gaming element with some shoddy developer that has a habit of using it and see if it sticks as an insult. This is an open-world game where you can go anywhere you see and where you progress by finding your own points of interest in the landscape and marking them. Plus there's a cool glider. The towers are fucking awesome.

Indeed there is no accounting for taste.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I appreciate the non flame response - this is why ERA is pretty good!

My response is that I just used Ubisoft style towers as the colloquial term for them, since they are the developer most associated with them (IMO, of course).

I'm not against the towers in principle. In fact, they were implemented in a much cleverer way in Horizion: Zero Dawn. Formulating a plan to get onto the longneck and hijack it was exhilarating. For me, waiting for Link to catch his breath so I could climb another few feet was not.

Labor said:

Like most of your OP, this is just more of you calling the game bad because of your refusal to actually play most of it

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

He makes great points. The game is a flawed gem indeed.

In due time the game will slip down the ranks of best zelda games, especially when BOTW2 improves on everything that this game does so poorly. OOT and A Link to the past are much better games imho.

Edit. Majoras Mask too.

E.T. said:

In due time the game will slip down the ranks of best zelda games, especially when BOTW2 improves on everything that this game does so poorly. OOT and A Link to the past are much better games imho.

Edit. Majoras Mask too.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

While I didn't like BOTW as much as I wanted to, I am looking forward to a sequel as long as it irons out the kinks. You could have one of the best open world games of all time there.

Jo-TM said:

I think about it like this, viewed from the perspective of someone who looks at a game like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 and thinks yea, I don't mind people calling this a masterpiece; Breath of the Wild is not that great of a game.

To give a concrete example, one of the objectives in that game is to say score 80.000 points, but the thing that makes this task meaningful and interesting is that the game only gives you 2 minutes to do it. This means that the game forces you to explore its systems, mechanics and level design and manipulate them in such a way that you overcome the obstacle placed before you. Breath of the Wild is like Tony Hawk but without the timer; there is potential for a great game, but if the systems don't place careful restrictions then what stops you from repeating the simplest, most boring trick in the game that after say 30 minutes of repetition accumulates the needed 80.000 points? In Zelda this would be grinding tons of health items to bring to a battle, and pausing mid-game to replenish hearts as much as you like, which enables brute force tactics and thus circumvents any mechanical depth associated with that fight. Like how I killed the Hinox in the Eventide Island by kiting it around forever and dropping bombs that slowly ticked its health away until it finally died. Yes there are better ways of dispatching them which involve amazing discoveries or clever use of the environment but unless the game forces me to play it in the most interesting fashion by incorporating systems a la the timer in Tony Hawk, then it's bad design. You should be dying over and over or be stuck on a puzzle for a long time until you become a better version of yourself and manage to overcome the task ahead, not enable optional easy modes or bypassing intended challenges completely. I consider these things to be an oversight, a mistake on the developer's part who didn't foresee these 'exploits' of the system.

Breath of the Wild only works if your view the game as finished when you are ready to tackle Ganon. If you treat everything in the game as a means to get stronger in order to fulfill this goal then it actually somewhat holds up, but for this you barely have to scratch the surface of what the game offers, which renders the vast majority of content in the game redundant.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Ehh, having a wide variety of options isn't bad design. You could argue that the game doesn't do enough to dissuade you from taking the boring route, however in this specific case I'd think that how long it takes to whittle down a Hinox using only bombs is enough of a hint that you should be using a different strategy.

E.T. said:

In due time the game will slip down the ranks of best zelda games, especially when BOTW2 improves on everything that this game does so poorly. OOT and A Link to the past are much better games imho.

Edit. Majoras Mask too.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The Zelda games I consider it to be better than are Zelda 1, 2, Twilight Princess, Spirit Tracks, Phantom Hourglass, and Skyward Sword (worst in the series). Without the physics system there to hold everything together the game would really fall apart because its individual elements are weak, some of the weakest in the series.

Jo-TM said:

Yes there are better ways of dispatching them which involve amazing discoveries or clever use of the environment but unless the game forces me to play it in the most interesting fashion by incorporating systems a la the timer in Tony Hawk, then it's bad design.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

In what universe does one game having a timed challenge for scoring points have anything to do with another game having an enemy that you can dispatch however you want? And, moreover, in what universe would the latter game be better if it didn't let you dispatch the enemy however you want?

NattyBo said:

I can't say I agree with the OP. I think the systems are pretty much what ruined the game for me.

I logged about 10 hours with BOTW and gave up in frustration. The weapon degradation is just absolutely unforgivable in my eyes. Adding Ubisoft style towers and then compounding that by making climbing an absolute slog...just not my idea of fun. The story...well, it's thin, to say the best. And people complain about Dark Souls narrative?

I have felt like I'm living in an alternate reality where no one sees this but me. I guess thrre's no accounting for taste. I'm not saying it's a bad game, or even, not a good game, but I was truly stunned after all the 10/10 scores and then playing it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Why is the weapon degradation bad? You don't like switching?

Dance Inferno said:

The point is that Tony Hawk is designed in a way where you need to use more advanced techniques to progress. With Zelda you can get through the whole game by button mashing. You're right, there is a lot of flexibility to play however you want, but the game isn't funneling players into more advanced playstyles because button mashing is easier and is a perfectly valid way to progress through the game.

I'd say a better example is Dark Souls. You'll never get very far in Dark Souls by button mashing. If you try doing that, you'll get your ass handed to you within an hour. You then realize button mashing is not viable, and you start experimenting with its other mechanics: i-frames, blocking, crowd control. Ultimately, the game is designed to force players to utilize more advanced combat techniques.

BotW never does this. You can play the entire game smacking goblins with a stick. Will it take you longer? Yes. Is the game less fun this way? Yes. Are you playing the game wrong? Not really, because you can probably beat the game playing this way, so it's a perfectly valid approach.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Why would you go out of your way to not have fun when the game provides you with plenty of other options? You could get through Dark Souls without ever using any items or spells and you could play through the entire game with the weapon you started out with. But that wouldn't be nearly as fun as experimenting with all of the tools you are given. I don't buy the argument that you aren't incentivized to deviate from button mashing either. There are countless times in Zelda where using your environment or specific tactics would be the most efficient way of dealing with enemies. Using lightning based attacks on enemies in water, sneaking up on all of the enemies, using exploding barrels to your advantage, cutting down trees or pushing boulders to deal with more than one enemy in a single action... the list goes on.

Dance Inferno said:

I'd say a better example is Dark Souls.

You'll never get very far in Dark Souls by button mashing. If you try doing that, you'll get your ass handed to you within an hour. You then realize button mashing is not viable, and you start experimenting with its other mechanics: i-frames, blocking, crowd control. Ultimately, the game is designed to force players to utilize more advanced combat techniques.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

To highlight how bad an example Dark Souls is, I got through the entire game without ever two-handing weapons or parrying, without upgrading my armor, and without relying on i-frames.

Why? Because the game's designed to be fully clearable without those advanced mechanics.

I'd also dispute your suggestion that BotW can be beaten by button mashing. I'm just touring the world hunting for Koroks at this point, and when I get lazy during combat I'll still die despite having a pretty stacked arsenal most of the time. Sure, if I'm not being lazy and actually trying, I'm overpowered enough to demolish anything, especially if I put on tough armor. But every RPG in existence can be trivialized if you stock up on the right gear. It's an innate part of the way RPGs appeal to players with multiple skill levels.

If you don't find it intuitive or interesting to try out a particular strategy, there are dozens of other strategies you could try, which will work with varying levels of success depending on your skill level and equipment. This is good design, and the kind of design that popularized the open-world genre in the first place, way back during the Ultima days.

BotW never does this. You can play the entire game smacking goblins with a stick. Will it take you longer? Yes. Is the game less fun this way? Yes. Are you playing the game wrong? Not really, because you can probably beat the game playing this way, so it's a perfectly valid approach.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is all true.

But why does it make BotW badly designed?

Kinsei said:

Ehh, having a wide variety of options isn't bad design. You could argue that the game doesn't do enough to dissuade you from taking the boring route, however in this specific case I'd think that how long it takes to whittle down a Hinox using only bombs is enough of a hint that you should be using a different strategy.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Everyone focuses on the Hinox example without addressing the health system as a whole for some reason. Why can I replenish Link's HP from low to max several times in a single fight?

When it comes to puzzles in shrines and dungeons, or Moons in Odyssey for that matter, I think the fact that there are options hurt the design. The only way to ensure the developer that you've picked up on the idea they were trying to communicate is to eliminate other options, like for example a coin trail might lead you to experiment with Mario's moveset meant to teach you a new technique or an odd placement of a chest forces you to narrow down the options until you've realized that you can apply the items in an unexpected fashion that you would've never thought before you saw that chest. This is the only way the devs can safetly assume that you've learned a basic concept so that they can develop it in more complex situations later, and combine concepts together which leads to even more possibilities.

Think about the opening of Super Metroid and how you're stuck after obtaining the morph ball, while the only way of progressing the game is to learn the specific mechanic of turning into a ball. Letting you simply jump over the platform as an "option" could easily lead to frustration later when it's necessary to turn into a ball again, since the number of possibilities is much vaster now than inside the confined space. The rest of the game is designed with the assumption that the player is aware of this mechanic.

This is the reason why Odyssey and BotW have flat complexity curves, i.e. every shrine is self-contained and doesn't require bringing knowledge from elsewhere. In The Witness it's much harder, and sometimes practically impossible to solve a panel before extracting the knowledge contained inside the preceding one. This is also why linear progression is forced upon you. It's the only way you can structure a game that continuously ramps up and builds upon its ideas. A game designed with freedom, both in terms of the order you tackle content and how you clear that content is unable to ramp up satisfyingly, and thus every shrine treats the player as someone who just came out of the Plateau. It baffles me that more people aren't bothered by this.

LegendofLex said:

But why does it make BotW badly designed?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Because the combat, puzzles, shrines and dungeons never ramp up to satisfying degrees of complexity. You can't tell which order the Divine Beats would be in a linear Zelda game since they're roughly on the same level of difficulty and none of them require the application of ideas obtained from another (i.e. they're self contained entities)

The developer can't create intricate situations that demand accumulated knowledge and skill to overcome when a game allows complete freedom.

Jo-TM said:

A game designed with freedom, both in terms of the order you tackle content and how you clear that content is unable to ramp up satisfyingly, and thus every shrine treats the player as someone who just came out of the Plateau. It baffles me that more people aren't bothered by this.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

While I agree that BotW is never bold enough to actually maintain a solid ramp up of difficulty and complexity across varying parts of the game, this isn't a consequence of freedom. Zelda 1 lets you access Level 6 from the very start of the game. It's definitely a harder level than Level 1. You can tackle it at the beginning if you want, but you're really much better off going through the other dungeons first and getting the upgrades and tools you'll earn in the process.

The low-number dungeons are also way more straightforward, with fewer secrets and shortcuts and item-based obstacles and so forth - despite being able to tackle them in a bunch of different orders.

Zelda should definitely embrace this kind of design again, and BotW (and ALBW) definitely didn't use this kind of difficulty scaling to very good effect. But the problem isn't freedom.

I thought the systems in question were superbly designed. To the point, where if you engaged in them, the flow felt natural and ongoing constantly throughout the game. I know many don't appreciate the weapon system, but the reason it clicked for me is because I literally never sat and considered it. I engaged in combat at every turn, always had a plethora of interesting weapons with different move sets, and was seemingly always rewarded with little surprises, whether being chests or monster parts or new areas. The amount of ways to engage an enemy was equally exciting to me. Cutting ropes, lighting objects on fire, throwing bombs, hitting enemies with special arrows. It all felt very dynamic to me in a way most action adventure titles in this genre do not. A lot of times the weapon criticisms seem leveled in a way where gamers are conditioned to be hoarders. Never using items in RPGs until the last boss, saving all their materials, or (in Bethesda games) picking up every single object. I know this was my friend's problem with the game. He was the kind of person who would hit analysis paralysis in games that give you skill trees because he wasn't sure what was the best one. In Zelda, I threw caution to the wind and felt rewarded constantly for my choices to use and abuse every item the game left at my disposal. It felt new, fresh, and exciting, because let's be honest - a lot of the reason we are conditioned to hoard is because in many games it actually pays off. Zelda let me play in it's sandbox and rewarded my play time with a constant stream of newer and nicer toys to play with.

The story and music I feel both together have a great understated vibe to them. Not all games require a sweeping plot with linear resolution to resonate. The characters of Link's world made it up for me and I found the hidden memories very touching and a unique spin. There was a lot of world lore, trying to figure out what happened the last 100 years and piecing together the legacy that was left. I thought the champions (old and new) brought some very nice dynamics to the world. And to agree on one point, gosh the world is beautiful. I never tired of exploring it over 200 hours and am gearing up to do a Master Difficulty run very soon to hopefully put another 200 in. I disagree that it did not feel like a real universe. To me it was a living and breathing fantasy world. I'll never forget the times where I walked around a high mountain ridge to see the sun come up and a light fog cover the area. I got chills when unplanned events like that happened, because the world really was that dynamic. I never felt more invested in an open world before, as the stamina / climbing / and special item mechanics perfectly complemented each other to make traversing each area feel truly like a journey.

Puzzle and dungeon-wise, I'm not as down on the beasts as most. I think they were fine, but they were not a highlight for me. I thought the shrines were exquisite though and loved every single one of them as I completed all 120 without a guide. So let's call it a partial agree on the beasts being relatively disappointing chunks. But between the Korok seed riddles, the shrines, and the other open-world puzzles and how seamlessly they interact with the item set you are given and can be solved in numerous different ways? I'd say it more than evens out some good-not-great dungeons (at least for me.)

So for me, to say it feels like a tech demo is crazy. I get in concept a lot of your complaints, but in practice, I struggled with virtually none of what was stated in the OP. In fact, I didn't read or realize how people were reacting to the systems until I had beat the game (took off a week from work and played every single day > 12 hours.) It shocked me, and this extrapolation of it shocks me even more. In my mind this is a master class in game design. Not only was it my favorite game of 2017, it will rank very nicely in my all-time list. I haven't had this much fun with a mainline Zelda title since Wind Waker and don't know that I've ever played an open-world game that quite matches what was constructed here. If anything, looking back with a sober view on things almost a year later has only enhanced my view on the game. So many times last year was I playing one of the excellent newest releases and yet thinking about Zelda, fighting off the need to get back in and do more or start a new game. If I reviewed games I'd have given it a 10/10 then and would still give it a 10/10 now.

LegendofLex said:

While I agree that BotW is never bold enough to actually maintain a solid ramp up of difficulty and complexity across varying parts of the game, this isn't a consequence of freedom. Zelda 1 lets you access Level 6 from the very start of the game. It's definitely a harder level than Level 1. You can tackle it at the beginning if you want, but you're really much better off going through the other dungeons first and getting the upgrades and tools you'll earn in the process.

The low-number dungeons are also way more straightforward, with fewer secrets and shortcuts and item-based obstacles and so forth - despite being able to tackle them in a bunch of different orders.

Zelda should definitely embrace this kind of design again, and BotW (and ALBW) definitely didn't use this kind of difficulty scaling to very good effect. But the problem isn't freedom.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The reason why it works in Zelda 1 is because the overworld map is compact, but yes you are right that freedom isn't the core issue. However, freedom combined with a vast world to explore would never work, under any circumstance. This is why you need linear progression and artificial gating.

NattyBo said:

I'm not against the towers in principle. In fact, they were implemented in a much cleverer way in Horizion: Zero Dawn. Formulating a plan to get onto the longneck and hijack it was exhilarating. For me, waiting for Link to catch his breath so I could climb another few feet was not.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Okay, this whole thread is off piste, but now I really feel like I'm in crazy town.

There are 14 towers in BotW. Over half of them have some puzzle element, be it an additional challenge to the climb, or complication to your approach, or nearby enemy placements. Maybe you have to knock down stone columns with bombs, or stack metallic objects with Magnesis, create and ride updrafts with fire, use Cryonis to make ice platfroms, etc.

There are, what, 6 Tallnecks in HZD? And each of them is basically the same: Kill a bunch of enemies then climb aboard and do the same little bit of platforming.


The Tallnecks are the objectively lesser and less interesting implementation of effectively the same mechanic.

LegendofLex said:

I'd also dispute your suggestion that BotW can be beaten by button mashing. I'm just touring the world hunting for Koroks at this point, and when I get lazy during combat I'll still die despite having a pretty stacked arsenal most of the time. Sure, if I'm not being lazy and actually trying, I'm overpowered enough to demolish anything, especially if I put on tough armor. But every RPG in existence can be trivialized if you stock up on the right gear. It's an innate part of the way RPGs appeal to players with multiple skill levels.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yep, you can fuck-up and get fucked up real quick in BotW.

I was gliding through the Hebra mountains just now when I got low on stamina, decided to drop and catch my breath. Dropped right in the middle of 5 Moblins and two Lizalfos. Ice cold so had my less-armoured snow gear on. Got smacked around so much I Mipha's Grace'd before I even menu'd, then once I'd recovered my wits had a hell of a fight to not waste fairies just because my head wasn't in the game.

BotW is absolutely challenging and absolutely has progression. Suggesting it's a non-stop cakewalk is as wide of the mark as suggesting you spend the whole game breaking trash weapons in 5 hits.

Jo-TM said:

The reason why it works in Zelda 1 is because the overworld map is compact, but yes you are right that freedom isn't the core issue. However, freedom combined with a vast world to explore would never work, under any circumstance. This is why you need linear progression and artificial gating.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I don't see why it suddenly wouldn't work if the world is bigger. You'd just need a skill-based combat system rather than one that's driven by pure numbers, and we've already got that. Players who are more skilled could venture into more dangerous areas sooner, or players could rack up better gear (either through progression in other areas or through natural discovery outside of dungeons) and go there as soon as they're ready.

BotW already does this to limited extent. I agree that the curve doesn't feel obvious enough, though.

Jo-TM said:

. It baffles me that more people aren't bothered by this.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This was very well argued, but I think you just outlined the benefits of linear gameplay design and weaknesses of open game design, without doing the opposite.

LegendofLex said:

I don't see why it suddenly wouldn't work if the world is bigger. You'd just need a skill-based combat system rather than one that's driven by pure numbers, and we've already got that. Players who are more skilled could venture into more dangerous areas sooner, or players could rack up better gear (either through progression in other areas or through natural discovery outside of dungeons) and go there as soon as they're ready.

BotW already does this to limited extent. I agree that the curve doesn't feel obvious enough, though.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It goes back to the morph ball example, that unless the space is confined the number of possibilities are endless and thus if you are 1 particular mechanic short of being able to progress, then looking for it can be both confusing and frustrating in such a vast world. It's like finding a needle in a haystack, except you don't even know what it is you're looking for and the haystack consists of many kinds of objects.

Think about the glass tube in Super Metroid that needs to be power bombed to enter Maridia from the left, how unlikelier it would be to figure it out if the map was 5-10 times larger and completely open for exploration. Players would be hopelessly stuck, moreso than they were in the actual game. Confined space means higher chance of discovery, and reduced frustration.

FrostyLemon said:

This was very well argued, but I think you just outlined the benefits of linear gameplay design and weaknesses of open game design, without doing the opposite.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Sure, there are weaknesses but at least the most important aspect of game design imo is intact this way. The priority of a game besides introducing novel gameplay concepts is to maintain proper curves, only after those things are satisfied would I look into other complaints and see if there are ways to remedy them at least somewhat without hurting the overall game.

Like, I can accept the compromise in 2D Mario that merely reaching the flag in the first set of 8 worlds isn't the most involved experience, but with extra worlds and opportunities for expert play within the levels (star coins, secrets, speedrunning) I would be fine with it. However there is nothing similar to cling on to in the latest Mario & Zelda. I play them to completion and still left unsatisfied.

Jo-TM said:

Sure, there are weaknesses but at least the most important aspect of game design imo is intact this way. The priority of a game besides introducing novel gameplay concepts is to maintain proper curves, only after those things are satisfied would I look into other complaints and see if there are ways to remedy them at least somewhat without hurting the overall game.

Like, I can accept the compromise in 2D Mario that merely reaching the flag in the first set of 8 worlds isn't the most involved experience, but with extra worlds and opportunities for expert play within the levels (star coins, secrets, speedrunning) I would be fine with it. However there is nothing similar to cling on to in the latest Mario & Zelda. I play them to completion and still left unsatisfied.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Out of curiosity then. How would you have incorporated logical difficulty curves and linear design into a game like BOTW? Keeping in mind the spirit of the game.

FrostyLemon said:

Out of curiosity then. How would you have incorporated logical difficulty curves and linear design into a game like BOTW? Keeping in mind the spirit of the game.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's a good question it seems nobody has an answer to. I would just not make that kind of game.

If you're making a massive open-world that places emphasis on exploration then they nailed it on their first attempt. I don't see a way to satisfy both camps, it boils down to the additive vs multiplicative approach they discussed in the GDC talk. I prefer additive design but, in their words, it's not feasible to fill so much space with the kind of hand crafted and fine-tuned content you see in traditional Zelda games, so they came up with the idea of 'multiplication' to solve this problem. This implies that they first set out to make a massive world, and then tried to figure out how to make a good game out of it, which involved breaking the established conventions.

Zelda 1 is actually a good example, but you have to drastically reduce the world size.

Jo-TM said:

That's a good question it seems nobody has an answer to. I would just not make that kind of game.

If you're making a massive open-world that places emphasis on exploration then they nailed it on their first attempt. I don't see a way to satisfy both camps, it boils down to the additive vs multiplicative approach they discussed in the GDC talk. I prefer additive design but, in their words, it's not feasible to fill so much space with the kind of hand crafted and fine-tuned content you see in traditional Zelda games, so they came up with the idea of 'multiplication' to solve this problem. This implies that they first set out to make a massive world, and then tried to figure out how to make a good game out of it, which involved breaking the established conventions.

Zelda 1 is actually a good example, but you have to drastically reduce the world size.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Thanks for sharing that video, and your thoughts. I'll give it a watch, it sounds interesting.

FrostyLemon said:

Out of curiosity then. How would you have incorporated logical difficulty curves and linear design into a game like BOTW? Keeping in mind the spirit of the game.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's not possible. In order to keep the open air spirit of BotW you can't have a bunch of skill gates in the world.

Kinsei said:

It's not possible. In order to keep the open air spirit of BotW you can't have a bunch of skill gates in the world.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Would it have been possible to design a range of shrines from simple to complex and rather than have these sporadically spread around the oveworld, they are tied to your characters progression. So for example Link has 3 hearts, he enters his first shrine outside the plateau and a simple shrine is generated in that location. 10 hours later Link decides to wander off to the Gerudo region and finds a shrine. He now was 10 hearts, so the game generates a slightly more complex design from the catalogue, so on and so forth until he is nearly at max hearts and the most complex designs are then applied to whatever shrines he stumbles upon towards the end of the game.

I think they did this with the combat shrines already.

Gonna hop in and address the OP rather than the conversation.

I understand you don't like Zelda or Mario (which I actually prefer to Zelda honestly), but that doesn't make a game bad...just not for you. See, some people want a tightly structured, linear experience (and I enjoy them as well), but others want a game that is pure system. Games like Minecraft were born of that desire. Games with no objective other than to immerse yourself.

Your tone and description of how you played BotW indicate you're more the former, but BotW is more the latter. As someone who enjoys systemic games (and would be happy with a true Zelda sandbox with no main objective), the things like weapons are just part of those survivalist systems. I enjoyed the freestyle nature of combat where I'm constantly breaking, switching, and grabbing weapons as I go. Felt very John Wick at times.

Okay, so I think the response to this is a bit more nuanced than people are making it out to be. The OP has valid criticisms, but I don't agree with the conclusion the game is bad. It's true the story and dungeons are weak... however the real meat of the game is everything outside of those activities. People are enamored with this game because of the exploration and sense of discovery; completely open nature and how the systems encourage this type of exploration; and the fact that no other open world game feels like this one. if you do not like the exploration and are here purely for the dungeons and wish there was a feature to fast travel to every shrine to skip exploring the world because it is boring to do so, then this game is going to be pretty mediocre. When people say they love being immersed in a world, I think what they are really saying is being lost in the discovery of the world, to be invested. BOTW invest the player by shoving interesting things into their face constantly, and does world building through the environment, without talking to people. The world itself is what makes this game great and really innovative. The fact people can come up with solutions, like a circuit to flip a switch using steel weapons, is only part of the reason.

There are lots of reasons to like this game and lots to not. If you want a traditional Zelda game or RPG you won't like this game. The weapon system is bad and the rewards for doing the shrines and dungeons are bad. They should fix these issues, and I think that is possible in a sequel. For an example I thought of, simply having the master sword be unbreakable while being weaker against normal enemies would go a long way. The player would always have a weapon, even if it wasn't optimal. Then you can keep all the more crazy weapons be breakable without the player thinking they could lose all their options. Have the beasts power up the master sword to keep them optional. This is a simple band-aid solution that I think would fix a bunch of the criticism about the weapons breaking. The bigger issue is how to reward players for exploring the world, I think seeds and shrine orbs for hearts and stamina is a bad solution. I would rather have cool optional items to interact with the systems in the game, or maybe key items for dungeons. Maybe they need a little bit of structure to make it better. However I think this was a very good first attempt and is a huge shake up to traditional Zelda. Some people don't want the franchise to be changed or are tired of open worlds and have no desire to explore or interact with them.

People here for the dungeons are going to be disappointed, I disagree the story combat and dungeons are the meat of the game. Those are just systems to encourage the meat of the game, which is exploring this vast world in anyway you desire. They are meatier rewards over seeds. You know when you find a shrine it will give the an orb that will help you explore better by making Link more durable or have more stamina. Weapons break to encourage the player to hunt the world for more weapons. Memories are scattered around with pictures being the only clue, the player must find these locations, the reward being a slice of story. Combat is better than old Zelda combat but it isn't great. You can beat the whole game by doing the dodge flurry, they should add more depth to the combat in the sequel, but the combat isn't the main draw. Its true that the issues the OP lines out are under-baked but in my opinion the game is a flawed masterpiece. This is the only open world game to actually fulfill the promise of "see that thing, you can go to it" and have the whole game designed around this concept. There is no structure to this game except for the plateau where you are forced to do the first shrines to get the power ups. After that, you are free to do whatever you want.

FrostyLemon said:

Would it have been possible to design a range of shrines from simple to complex and rather than have these sporadically spread around the oveworld, they are tied to your characters progression. So for example Link has 3 hearts, he enters his first shrine outside the plateau and a simple shrine is generated in that location. 10 hours later Link decides to wander off to the Gerudo region and finds a shrine. He now was 10 hearts, so the game generates a slightly more complex design from the catalogue, so on and so forth until he is nearly at max hearts and the most complex designs are then applied to whatever shrines he stumbles upon towards the end of the game.

I think they did this with the combat shrines already.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It doesn't; I had done fifteen or so Major and Minor Tests before I knew Modest Tests even existed. I would've like this being in the game, though, and this could've worked for dungeons, too.

Rewind said:

Okay, so I think the response to this is a bit more nuanced than people are making it out to be. The OP has valid criticisms, but I don't agree with the conclusion the game is bad.[....]

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I feel like this describes me pretty well, lol. I don't like open world sand box or survival games; I felt like I was trying to "find the Zelda game" in my exploration (people compare it to the original but I don't really think that translates with the scale). I couldn't help but imagine a game with infinite stamina and no weapon durability and enough item space to collect weapons like armor. And, of course, NieR:A had just come out and played more or less just like I'd wanted a new Zelda to play.

Dance Inferno said:

This is a great post, and outlines a few other issues I had with the game. I never shield surfed in the game because I never wanted to ruin my shields. I only have capacity for 4 shields I think, and I rely on them a lot in combat, so why would I ever shield surf if they're just going to break after a few hills? I also felt the anxiety at solving puzzles in a shrine and hoping my weapon doesn't break, because I kept needing to reset the puzzle.

Like I said in the OP, the game is more committed to its systems than it is to the idea of player fun.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You can shield surf on snow and sand without ever damaging your shield. That's where you're meant to use it. That's ignoring that you can expand your shield inventory space. And having to hit a switch only requires something to hit it. So a bomb will do if you're really resetting a puzzle so many times that your weapons are breaking.

It's not that the game is committed to systems over fun. It's that you're committed to playing in an obtuse way without ever thinking about it. You just kind of decide it's not gonna work. I feel like you would use a normal sword to break an ore deposit and then complain that the sword broke.

Dance Inferno said:

I'm committed to playing in an obtuse way? Is this a joke?

Hitting a switch with a weapon by pressing Y is obtuse? But hitting a switch with a bomb by holding the down arrow, using the right analog stick to pick the bomb, pressing L to pull the bomb out, pressing A to drop the bomb, running away, then pressing L to detonate the bomb, all in order to reset a puzzle without breaking my weapons isn't obtuse?

Come on man.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Dance Inferno said:

I'm committed to playing in an obtuse way? Is this a joke?

Hitting a switch with a weapon by pressing Y is obtuse? But hitting a switch with a bomb by holding the down arrow, using the right analog stick to pick the bomb, pressing L to pull the bomb out, pressing A to drop the bomb, running away, then pressing L to detonate the bomb, all in order to reset a puzzle without breaking my weapons isn't obtuse?

Come on man.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Come on man, it takes two seconds tops to throw a bomb and detonate it. It's not rocket science. You're acting like it's a five minute process with your long exaggerated text description that's more complex (it's not) than it has to be.

The reason you're being obtuse is because you're presented with a simple issue with a simple solution and you just keep doing the same thing convincing yourself there's no better way. Like, if you want to smash your weapons by hitting a switch 20 times, that's up to you but don't complain about it when you don't have to do it. Same with the shield surfing, there are clear places to use it. Of course using it in places where it's not wise to use it causes problems for you.

Like I said, do you use your normal weapons on ore deposits and and get upset that they break even though there are obvious ways to break them without doing that? Like... using bombs? Or maybe it's too obtuse to use one of the first items you get in the game that is repeatedly used throughout the entire game and is quick and simple to use.

Look, I'm not trying to joke or come at you. It's fine if the game isn't for you. It's just that reading most of your complaints, it sounds like you were determined to play the game in one way even if the end result was frustration for you. It just seems stubborn like you tried one way, it didn't work the way you wanted and so it's the game's fault.

Dance Inferno said:

I'm committed to playing in an obtuse way? Is this a joke?

Hitting a switch with a weapon by pressing Y is obtuse? But hitting a switch with a bomb by holding the down arrow, using the right analog stick to pick the bomb, pressing L to pull the bomb out, pressing A to drop the bomb, running away, then pressing L to detonate the bomb, all in order to reset a puzzle without breaking my weapons isn't obtuse?

Come on man.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That takes like 2 secs or so, is there any reason youre making it out to be a 5 min. process ? ( theres also bomb arrows )

Dance Inferno said:

I'm committed to playing in an obtuse way? Is this a joke?

Hitting a switch with a weapon by pressing Y is obtuse? But hitting a switch with a bomb by holding the down arrow, using the right analog stick to pick the bomb, pressing L to pull the bomb out, pressing A to drop the bomb, running away, then pressing L to detonate the bomb, all in order to reset a puzzle without breaking my weapons isn't obtuse?

Come on man.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

:D

Dance Inferno said:

I'm committed to playing in an obtuse way? Is this a joke?

Hitting a switch with a weapon by pressing Y is obtuse? But hitting a switch with a bomb by holding the down arrow, using the right analog stick to pick the bomb, pressing L to pull the bomb out, pressing A to drop the bomb, running away, then pressing L to detonate the bomb, all in order to reset a puzzle without breaking my weapons isn't obtuse?

Come on man.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Not hitting something with your weapon if you don't want your weapon to break is not obtuse, no.

The game is very clear, within the first few minutes, that hitting stuff with weapons will eventually break them. The harder the thing being hit, or the weaker the weapon, the faster they break. It is obvious and works exactly as you would expect.

Acting like the series of inputs you describe is in any way obtuse is asinine, you're reaching so hard to justify your position it's impossible to take it seriously or treat it as in good faith.

Agreed OP, not trying to dogpile, but they have a point. It is actually easier to activate that switch one of several other ways than hack at it with your sword and watch it break and get frustrated, and then be forced to change your weapons. Use an arrow then pick up the arrow. Use a bomb. Don't blame the game for giving you multiple options. Or just keep something weak and disposable like a tree branch in your inventory and switch to it on your way into the shrine for just that purpose.

SuperiorTrashTalk said:

You can shield surf on snow and sand without ever damaging your shield. That's where you're meant to use it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The game could do a much better job at communicating that. I don't believe anyone mentions that you don;t lose durability in the snow or sand and the tutorial for it is on a small grassy hill in central Hyrule. They really should have taught it to the player on the snowy mountain on the great plateau.

Dance Inferno said:

I'm committed to playing in an obtuse way? Is this a joke?

Hitting a switch with a weapon by pressing Y is obtuse? But hitting a switch with a bomb by holding the down arrow, using the right analog stick to pick the bomb, pressing L to pull the bomb out, pressing A to drop the bomb, running away, then pressing L to detonate the bomb, all in order to reset a puzzle without breaking my weapons isn't obtuse?

Come on man.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I think you are stuck on playing it a certain way and that's weird to a lot of people. I frequently threw bombs to activate switches or as a mechanic in fighting. It's another way of playing. Fine if you don't like it but i wouldn't call it obtuse. You get it in the beginning. How is it obtuse? The game dares you to use bombs within 15 minutes.

My family started playing and encountered the same thing. They felt like they was playing a tech demo and always felt lost and kept on losing weapons

MORJ said:

That takes like 2 secs or so, is there any reason youre making it out to be a 5 min. process ? ( theres also bomb arrows )

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

He's making it out to be a 5 min process because he's pushing an agenda and a narrative, and often things have to be exaggerated, twisted, and dramatized to maintain such a narrative. Funny how in 250 hrs I never noticed any of these "major issues", I guess because I was playing the game, and not actively looking for reasons to hate it.

Yeah, you can't really claim a game is bad if you're explicitly playing against the system. You play the game you have, not the game you want. If it's not the game you want, then just don't play instead of claiming it's a bad game.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything in the OP. The systems in this game are fantastic, but the narrative and mechanics are awful chores to deal with. Actually, I wouldn't even extend that praise to all of the systems in this game. The world and the rules that govern it are really all that this game has going for it. That aspect of Breath of the Wild is great, but every part of playing it just feels real bad. The game also does a pretty bad job of telling you how to interact with its world, in my experience. I had no idea how to shield surf, so once progression necessitated it, I had to turn to Google. I made it 80% of the way through a dungeon before I realized you could rotate it. So I spent hours fiddling with sideways and upside-down balls and tracks before I opened my map and found strange arrow markers on it, all because the tutorial text was obtuse. Shrines are pretty good, though.

That being said, I still put over 120 hours into it because it was the Switch launch game. And it still made it onto the bottom of my top 10 list based on the strength of its world. And it's probably my second favotrite Zelda game after Wind Waker (I just don't care much for the series).

Paradoxal Utopia said:

He's making it out to be a 5 min process because he's pushing an agenda and a narrative, and often things have to be exaggerated, twisted, and dramatized to maintain such a narrative. Funny how in 250 hrs I never noticed any of these "major issues", I guess because I was playing the game, and not actively looking for reasons to hate it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Exactly, i get some of the complaints the OP has, im not saying hes wrong on all accounts. But the original thread title was that this game was a tech demo, and then you see the posts like i quoted.

Dance Inferno said:

I'm committed to playing in an obtuse way? Is this a joke?

Hitting a switch with a weapon by pressing Y is obtuse? But hitting a switch with a bomb by holding the down arrow, using the right analog stick to pick the bomb, pressing L to pull the bomb out, pressing A to drop the bomb, running away, then pressing L to detonate the bomb, all in order to reset a puzzle without breaking my weapons isn't obtuse?

Come on man.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Really? Now you're just being ridiculous. If you want to spare your weapons's durability, you have that option by using bombs. The process of throwing bombs isn't nearly as complicated as you're trying to make it seem. It may take one or two extra seconds when compared to a weapon swing, but it has the advantage of being an unlimited resource which makes it a good option if you're worried about breaking your weapons.

Calling it obtuse to use such a simple feature that is presented to you so early on in the game is insane. At this point it sounds like you just don't want to play the game, period.

billion said:

My family started playing and encountered the same thing. They felt like they was playing a tech demo and always felt lost and kept on losing weapons

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

What's the relation between "feeling lost/losing weapons" and being a "tech demo"? Besides you can't ever get lost in the game, since you can always go towards your main objective, which is the castle, visible from miles away.

Actually if they felt lost constantly, they're probably not in the best position to call it a tech demo since, you know, you actually have to engage with a game (any game) at least on some basic level to pass a judgement.

Kinsei said:

The game could do a much better job at communicating that. I don't believe anyone mentions that you don;t lose durability in the snow or sand and the tutorial for it is on a small grassy hill in central Hyrule. They really should have taught it to the player on the snowy mountain on the great plateau.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

One central theme of the game is exploration and discovery, and how the physics and chemistry intertwines. I love that stuff like this is hidden and left to the player to discover.

Dance Inferno said:

This is a great post, and outlines a few other issues I had with the game. I never shield surfed in the game because I never wanted to ruin my shields. I only have capacity for 4 shields I think, and I rely on them a lot in combat, so why would I ever shield surf if they're just going to break after a few hills? I also felt the anxiety at solving puzzles in a shrine and hoping my weapon doesn't break, because I kept needing to reset the puzzle.

Like I said in the OP, the game is more committed to its systems than it is to the idea of player fun.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

If you played the game you'd have enough slots. I shield surf all day brah. If you're running out of weapons find more seeds and upgrade. You are your own shackles. If you're not into exploration the game isn't for you. Because exploration gives you so much seeds to upgrade.