Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Post Reply New Topic

Wow, I can't believe nobody's made a single thread about this yet. It's pretty much the biggest game of the year so far. I'm interested in it-- and seeing how I just bought a PS4 last week, the fact that it's managed to catch my attention at all is impressive. Has anybody played it? What are your thoughts? I'm putting serious thought toward buying it for my Wii U (no need to buy a Switch when this is the only game I'll play on it), but I'm still hesitant. I generally don't like open world games. I just bought The Witcher 3, which was almost unanimously declared the greatest open world RPG ever, and ended up not liking it very much. How would you say BotW compares? What does it have that sets it apart from other open world games?

Never owned a wii u or switch, as i've no income I don't see myself playing it so i've sort of spoiled myself by watchin livestreams/speedruns. I think the level of detail that the engine can barely run is sort of equivalent to Bethesda's engine and Blizzards WoW engine, relating to how it generates the world, and how you view things in the distance, i compare it to WoW because the textures look almost as cartoony, low res up close but high res far away.

I'm confident there will be people trying to replicate the world like they do with previous nintendo games within the Unreal engine for example. Sony were able to create such a vast (however empty) world in Shadow of the Colossus on the PS2 which i'm inclined to compare the hardware to the Wii-U/Switch if thats the extent of the engine capabilities.

I have been playing it, and have been enjoying my time.

I do think it is apt for open world games that you bring up Witcher 3, ThisAdamGuy, in that I too am not actually much of a fan of that game. Well, on that game my interest in mythology did have me interested, I think that it was something like needing to put so much attention into preparation and staying alert, that I cannot actively listen to a podcast while playing like I have tended to become without keep stopping it. I don't think BotW is nearly as bad, I think there is some need to prepare, your equipment breaks after some use, and their is only so much you can carry at any one time, and "hearts" don't naturally appear in the game world, so you need to have food. But I actually think these are not bad things, equipment can be found from enemies and in the world, and the restriction has kind of forced me to experiment with all the weapons and experience them, which does not feel odd for the Zelda experience of managing equipment. And food can be found in around in places, but cooking gives uses for all the ingredients I find out while exploring, and there are other effects to be gained from cooking, it is kind of fun experimenting, and there is no limit to these items in you inventory.

Thinking through the game, it really does feel like the very first Legend of Zelda game, you have a big world that you can go all over, but you will probably want to work your way up to certain areas first, some can be down right dangerous, and I need some better clothes, more hearts, and better weapons and shields. I have run into areas, but being killed in single swing or losing my shield in one is not good.

For the longest time I have had an interest in the Sheikah part of The Legend of Zelda, and there being so much in this game makes me very happy. And I think an interesting observation is that some of the advanced Sheikah tech looks quite a lot like the Twili tech/magic. Which I think gives credit to the theory that the Twili were once Sheikah.

I'd been wondering about this myself, but.... to be honest from what I've seen of this game, I think it'd just put me to sleep. It looks like one of those sorts of things where yes, it's a game in the same series.... but really in name only. It doesnt look whatsoever like a Zelda game to me. Granted, I'm not the biggest fan of the series to begin with (mostly I just like the ones that came before Ocarina), but still.

Heck, the one thought I had when seeing this originally was "Oh great, now even Nintendo is jumping onto the open-world bandwagon". Lots and lots of open (and thus, blank) areas, lots of running through blank areas (SO MUCH), lots of STUFF NOT HAPPENING. Which has always been one of my issues with that genre. They make these huge worlds, but they put very little in them, so 50% of each game of this type is just a blank void. Just looking at videos of this one (since various Youtubers I follow are of course playing it), it looks... pretty much exactly like that.

@ Misery
As I said, the very first game was actually an open world game, in that you could take on any of the dungeons at any time or order, and you are not locked out except for some difficulty curves. It is Zelda is not jumping on the open world bandwagon, it is simply coming back to what it should have been. It is like the original part of the games to have a wide open world that becomes more accessible as you go along.

And I would not call it a blank void, there are a surprising amount of different environments like various ruins or landscapes that have their own unique look, which house different monster setups, animals, bugs, fish, flowers, fruit, vegetables. There could be a hidden chest, or weapons might be left from a previous battle (rusted weapon sticking out of ground). There are subtle puzzles that have Koroks that reward items that can be used for carry upgrades, shrines with puzzles or combat challenges that reward general upgrades. You can try and improve your database by taking pictures of everything, the picture you take is the one used, so getting a better picture from a different place might feel like an accomplishment. I am getting lost unless I use the map, but it is not from everything looking and being the same, everything is kind of different that I can kind of get distracted.

You can set markers to get to a place you see, the marker appearing on your map, but the game does not hold your hand to get there. I keep going around and some character suddenly has something like a mission they want me to do, or something to talk about, and none of it is shown on the map, like only the main missions seem to show up on the map, and the game does not tell you how to get there. One set has me going to the different corners of the game world, but I have no idea how I can get to those until I have gotten to the towers to unlock the map for those sections, the towers of which to do so I have set with markers to try and figure out how to get to and climb. And there are still characters that do seem to have their own personality.

If you are saying you only really liked the games before OoT, that is like 4 games. And the ones I have played, I can say that it is quite like the first in wide open and things going around it. Even the second I would say in the combat (minus not being 2D), with jumping and some difficulty to it. And from what I know of A Link to the Past and Link's Awakening, it is not too different in navigating the world. With the additions of climbing and gliding. For calling those games all better and BotW worse, I would probably call nostalgia blindness. Otherwise, tell me what you actually liked about those games that the new game does not have?

The thing about the first game though was that the design was VERY different. One of my biggest complaints with every single game in the current open-world genre is that the vast majority of areas are just.... empty. Nothing happens, because there's nothing that CAN happen.

The original Zelda? It was stuffed with THINGS. Gaming back then was a bit different in terms of design: You had very limited space available for things, and that meant you had to make every bit of it really count. So the first Zelda was just crammed with stuff. EVERY screen (aside from maybe that south-west shoreline that was like 4 screens long) had tons of things on it. There were monsters, there were walls and trees and other stuff, there were caves and stairways everywhere, there was ALWAYS something happening and something to do. In that type of design, EVERYTHING must have a purpose and reason for being there, or it breaks down. This was the case with Link to the Past as well (the gameboy one I dont remember as well).

It's kinda like how I describe good level design in something like the Super Mario series (and Mario Maker). Every single block, platform, enemy, needs a REASON for being there. Avoiding superfluous design is very important for making a truly good level, and the two most common things I spot in "bad" levels are 1. Objects that are there for no reason, clogging it up without adding anything, and 2. oversized blank spots, and areas that have no actual function or need to be there. Hell, just look at the famous world 1-1 of the very first Super Mario: That has been analyzed to freaking death, and one of the reasons why it's so legendary for it's good design is that it COMPLETELY follows this rule. NOTHING in that level is superfluous, everything, every single block, every pipe, every enemy, has a purpose for being there, and there's always something happening.

This can be applied to pretty much every genre out there, to varying degrees... this isnt just something from the old days. Even the roguelike genre... which doesnt use hand-crafted worlds... goes out of it's way to avoid the "void" issue. Which is part of why I've never understood open world games: Because there's very long stretches of absolutely nothing happening. Blank areas that you simply run through, serving no other purpose than making the world look "big". Why are they there? What is the point? All they seem to do is artificially lengthen the game (and considering how long games are these days, this is unnecessary).

One of the few exceptions in that genre I can think of is Just Cause 2, which lacked such blank areas, (unless you count the surrounding ocean, but you're not really meant to go there, the game focuses entirely on the giant island it takes place on) as they absolutely stuffed the world with objects and structures and explody things, and enemies could be up your nose at any time. There was ALWAYS something to do (and these things were quite varied), always something happening, always something to find (usually all 3 at the same time) yet you had the same freedom, and the same very high amount of tasks that needed doing. It just seems like such obvious design to me that it baffles me that everything else doesnt do it.

Granted, with the Zelda series, this isnt the first time this has happened. Hell, one reason why I didnt like Ocarina (and outright loathed Wind Waker) was the torment that was Hyrule Field (the ocean in WW), another blank area that was so fantastically dull that it spawned random skeletons at night to keep the player from falling asleep. There was nothing in it... you simply crossed it to get to actual places where stuff occurred. It was there to look "impressive" (or to give the horse a reason to exist). To me though, it was an absolute waste of space. Why not just link the interesting areas together in a more direct fashion?

Stuff like missions, also, I dont really count as "things to do" in the same sense as what I'm saying here. Because between those (and often DURING them), in open world games, there's NOTHING to do. They move you from one point to the next, as is their purpose, but between those points was the same void. The old Zeldas did effectively have missions as there was always important tasks that needed doing (like getting the letter from the old woman, heading towards the mountain to get the white sword, whatever, there were many major tasks in the first Zelda and you had freedom in the order of doing them) but every step of the way through these tasks... even outside of dungeons... was crammed with things happening. It kept the player constantly engaged with the game world and it's content, and kept the flow of the game from ever breaking down.

You could even apply this sort of design to something like Dead Rising. While it took place in a shopping mall, it still had that open-world design. There were missions to do, characters to rescue, people that needed you to do things for them, and a game "world" where you could go where you wanted, but every single part of the mall had other stuff in it. There were zombies to clobber, fun objects and weapons to mess with, items to find and grab, and complicated layouts to navigate while still dealing with threats, and even platforming sections. The only area I remember as being a bit too empty was what I *think* was sort of an outside zone.... but at the same time, they gave you a big truck that got you around super fast (so you never spent much time there) and also splattered zombies for extra hilarity. Even there, they realized that breaking the game flow with void areas really didnt add anything to the gameplay.

Grand Theft Auto is another one, and probably the most famous, that does the "fill it with stuff" idea. There is ALWAYS something around that you can interact with. The game world is crowded with stuff, and again, it keeps the flow from breaking. Hell, the series became outright legendary for the simple fact that the game world itself... not just the missions... was so much fun to interact with that players could just do random crap in it for hours, and there wasnt exactly any real travel time between one "stuff to do" area and the next... they were right next to each other. And then it ALSO had all the missions. I dont particularly like the series myself (mostly the controls always bothered me too much, and I dont like the theme much) but I can see where the design elements are good, and why it just works so well and is so beloved.

It's not really nostalgia blindness in my case: One of my special interests is analyzing the funky hell out of game design. Which is good, since I now DO game design as well as help out developers with theirs. The experience in that has just pushed these ideas forward in my mind, as has feedback from players related to those projects during testing and after release. Stuff like the first Zelda isnt just legendary "because it's old". I can analyze old games and still see the flaws in them (such as the first Metroid being a buggy mess of buggy bugs that bug everything out, and the godawful nature of the secret passages in it, which I notice they were VERY quick to fix in the following games; it may be a classic, and it was a big part of my childhood, but holy crap does it have PROBLEMS). And of course even the first Zelda has it's issues, which I could rant about in similar detail (like the repeating, braindead bosses, or the fact that entire dungeon rooms also repeated, making them confusing, or the 4-way movement that was effectively stuck to an invisible grid). However, an empty world was NOT one of those issues. Nor was broken game flow or a lack of interaction with the game's content.


I'll stop here, if I rant too much I stop making sense. Provided I was making any sense to begin with. It's a topic I find very interesting though, even if I dont like the game in question. Still fascinating.

And as I said (so far) the game is stuffed with things. Every mini area (which I would compare to a screen) has monsters, animals, insects and possibly a puzzle, there are ruins, plants/trees, inclines, walls, but even better that those walls could be scaled, and they are not all just copy repeated from different areas, every area feels different. I have always had something to do, the area is big because of course a kingdom should be big, and there are horses and quick travel on the table, but I have to keep jumping off the horse because something catches my eye, like getting ingredients or some random NPC is out and about and might have something for me to do. The game also has me out on a scavenger hunt trying to track down areas from an album with no indication of where they are, but comparing the unique locations is just one added thing to do.

I dunno. MOST of the gameplay I've seen of it has been "run across open area for long distances towards place where stuff happens". I'd be bored out of my mind.

It's not that there arent things to do in relation to the game as a whole: It's that, in this genre, NOT doing things is 90% of the game (or just doing grindy things, which I notice this genre is REALLY fond of, like gathering ingredients or stuff like that). There may be many things, but the wonky spacing means you'll spend only a small percentage of the time actually doing them. Hell, the fact that quick travel even needs to exist is kinda evidence of it (even the devs realize that all that blank walking is dull). Incidentally, JC2 did not have such a feature (because it didnt need it). Come to think of it, neither does GTA if I recall correctly. They lack the need for it since those void moments simply dont exist.

And that would be from ignoring everything else around. Ignoring the monsters set all over the place, the fruit up a tree that require effort to pick them all, animals and insects that require being snuck up on before they get away. Because most gameplay footage has people wanting to show those things rather than distracted.

It is like a no win situation because some people have to be hipster about saying there is nothing long stretches of time. No, there are plenty to do, it just may be that the "main quest" is spread out, but the game is not just, there are items to get, and places to reach and once you reach a place you should not be under so much restriction to have to face the challenge of getting there and climbing that tower again. And that is not me saying the game is big and empty that I have to spend a lot of time to get somewhere, it is that there is a huge amount of things all over the place that doing one certain thing and ignoring all else can take a while, like if you had to go from Death Mountain back to the starting area. I should not have to desperately search for a stove or go across the game world to the one place to return and upgrade my clothes since I have already been there. And quick travel was in the first game with the recorder.

You are saying it is boring, but I think you are using false comparisons. JC2 lets you grapple hook and parachute all over the place with pretty limitless movement that there is probably little trouble getting from one place to the next as you are just going through the motions, and GTA is all about being a simulation. Really if you are bored it would be your own fault, because you have decided that there is nothing to do here and you are going to have a bad time. People are saying positive things so you have to show your a smart person and say it is bad because that will prove that you are not being a sheep.

I would even say that the more I got to the castle the more downtime I wish I had because Guardians moving around the area were too dangerous, getting a moment to breath between trying to get my horse faster without tiring it and getting killed has been too stressful. Because I am not looking I often lose the chance to catch something that would have been valuable if I had noticed it. And at any time I could find a better opportunity for a better picture, and a learning curve at being able to handle encounters better, and keeping track of where useful items might be to come back. Yesterday I came across some wizrobes that can give some interesting rod items, which now I am thinking I should have marked to know where to come back for some more.

.....The "sheep" comment? ....Seriously?

1. I dont care about "fitting in", but I also dont care about "staying out". Sometimes I stay away from the big popular games. But other times.... such as with both Overwatch and Destiny.... I jump right in. So, no "sheep" reasoning here, thanks (why do people use that term?). I simply buy whatever I bloody well feel like buying. Wether that's a high-end puzzle game or Angry Freakin' Birds is up to me... it doesnt have to look "smart". I cant imagine why anyone buys games to look "smart". I didnt know there WERE games that looked "smart".

2. Again, design analysis is a special interest of mine. If you REALLY think I rant about that just to look intelligent, consider how it would be if someone accused you of doing the same thing for rambling about your own special interest. Consider how it would be for any of us here. Besides: I never said anyone HAD to agree with me, now did I? I just rant anyway. I dont exactly have much else to do. Quite frankly I didnt EXPECT anyone to agree with me. Design analysis is USUALLY something that brings up LOADS of debate, even among developers.

3. One way or another, I've already seen more than enough of the game to get an idea for what it's like. The dungeons look kinda interesting, but.... Zelda's dungeons are always the high point, so that isnt saying much. But the actual moment to moment gameplay really just isnt interesting to me. There's so.... much.... walking. What may seem "active" to you isnt active to me.

There was more originally listed here, but... feh, screw it.

Also I have no bloody clue what a hipster is. Sounds like an internet term or some weird social thing. Cant be bothered to learn either.

Aaaaaanyway, again nobody MUST agree with me. Or even respond to me, for that matter. I just ramble, and people can do with it what they want. Listen, dont listen, read it, dont read it, write it all down and shove it up their nose... not really my problem in the end. ....And frankly, I only even get THIS rambly because there's no other bloody thing to do on this accursed forum. I probably wouldnt have even stepped into this topic on a more active place, but with this one being so slow, well... aint much else to talk about. I really need to find a new forum at some point here. Bah.

For now though, what I WILL do is step back OUT, rather than cause some big damn arguement. That's too much trouble and effort. I've noticed that usually what always seems like "minor debate" to me often gets perceived as "flaming war of screaming" to others (cant spot that, never could) and that caused a big damn incident recently on a certain other forum (and lots of confusion for me) so THIS time I'm going to jump out BEFORE that happens. I've said my piece, and in the end none of it is exactly too important anyway. You'll still play the game of course, I'll still continue not giving a fart, so nothing exactly even gets accomplished in any direction, not that there even WAS much to accomplish in the first place. Hell, I dunno why I even typed all that above, but... whatever, it's already there, may as well leave it even if it's useless.

Anyway, I'll leave you all to... er.... whatever else might happen here.

I think you misunderstand a point I made, nothing about buying games that are popular or not. It is like there is this subculture now days like the "everything wrong with" that people have to pick apart a hot new thing or the controversial classic, while others that are considered classics are kind of blinded by nostalgia. My own frustration came over the Everything Wrong With movies videos that say every cliché, trope, or thing they thought was a lapse in logic is a point against something, and then on their other podcast like videos they talk up ideas that are actually terrible and blind from nostalgia goggles.

I was a big fan of a video series called PBS game/show that quite logically went through a number of topics quite logically with games, from social issues to game design, one episode in particular was on the Mario first level deal. I quite often watch a channel that analysis trailers and other material to find out a lot about games and other discussion, and a favourite channel deals in theories from lore, all the way up to what makes different games tick. I can quite frankly say that things like design analysis of games is something I have an interest in, and I think attitude is important when you decide to analyse and discuss. If you come into a topic dismissive and negative, then more often than not you are going to come out with a negative opinion. And really most reviews of BotW have been quite positive, with most complaints being frame rate drops in certain areas.

In the past I have been quite into the topic of what makes a Zelda game, Egoraptor's negative review of OoT time kind of starting it off. And while I don't think of OoT as being bad, I do agree that he has good points on things like the waiting bit, even if I don't think of it as an as big deal. I can even look at those points the points he made and see that BotW actually stops those points, there is really not any one time that I have to wait until they are open. Going out on the offensive with a great sword can break a monster's stance with a shield, in general it is not too different from Dark Souls.

I get what you are saying. Like I learned that the first rule of making a good game, especially a simpler project, is to start simple, find out what the game's main mechanic is, nail that mechanic, and build it from there, making sure that the mechanic is done. I guess from a certain perspective you could see that the main mechanic in BotW should be, go to dungeon, fight enemies, beat dungeon, go to next dungeon, and continue until the game is beaten. But BotW's mechanic is arguably "Explore", there are a number of ways explore can be used in different ways, from explore environment for looks, for tools, for resources, for ways a fight can go and really for story, and saying that it is long stretches of nothing is really missing the point.

It is kind of the famous story of game design, that Nintendo in their early period took ideas for what a game could be, and separated them into two projects. With Mario it was a linear pathway to move from one side to the next, the mechanic being a simple locomotion and as an attack. Zelda was all the other ideas of where you are thrown in an area and left to the player to discover the path and secrets hidden all around, and BotW has really returned to that in full, it does not hold your hand and lets you make all of the discoveries. Like just yesterday I read a what would be fractured message on a tablet and was able to kind of piece together what it said, and later when I was in a little area that you might think it's reward is just looking interesting, but because I read the message I knew that looking a little harder rewarded me with a helmet that was quite useful. Going a bit off the track once offered me a pond filled with frogs, useful with elixirs, I know one place that I can get fairies that revive me when I am knocked down, I found out pulling rocks can give me minerals, I have figured out a bunch of useful strategies against certain enemies from trial, I see a circle of rocks with one piece missing which looked like it was inconsequential but putting a rock down to fill the circle rewarded me. You don't have to like it or be a fan of it's main mechanic, but say that it is failing on game design is just incorrect as it is doing what it has always done, or should have been, better than ever.

To be fair, the EWW videos are made to be a joke, and they're hilarious. I watch them every week.

^I might like them better if there wasn't so much swearing.

BotW actually seems really fun. I wish I could play it.

This is the best game I'm playing in years and this is by no means nostalgia talking or me saying this just because it's Zelda. Actually the lastest games of the franchise have been simply "good", for me. They're far from a disappointment, of course, but they haven't amazed me either. But GOD, Breath of the Wild changed this.
The way that the game make us feel really free is fenomenal and I don't remember being this hooked to the world of a game in a very long time.

Watching videos on youtube does not give you the real idea of what is like to play it, simply because the best thing about this game is not something that you can feel while just watching it. I'm talking about the feeling that you can do WHATEVER you want, THE WAY you want and how exciting it is to try to things that, theoretically, should work and see that it in fact does work. You never stop being amazed of how the physics and logic of the game works in a way that even when you try something crazy while thinking "well, of course this won't work", it actually does!

As an example, something as simple as assaulting a Bokoblin camp can be done in so many different ways.
You can sneak in and steal their weapons or one shot them if they are sleeping.
You can look for explosive material to blow them off.
You can simply go ahead and do an aggresive assault.
You can attract them one by one.
If there are mettalic objects around you can use them offensively or deffensively with your Magnesis Ability.
You can try to stay hidden and kill them using your bow.
You can throw a chicken in the middle of them so as soon as they attack it a lot of others chicken will appear and probably kill them all (you will understand this if you played previous games).
And if you really want to do something unusual you can even put some bombs on the ground, attach a few ballons to make them fly and when they are near your enemies you shoot an arrow to make the bomb explode on them.
And I'm completely sure that there are even more ways to do a simple assault like this one. The game is THAT amazing and well done.

Combat has also improved in a very good way.
While in the previous Zelda games monsters were basically a simple obstacle that almost always offered no risk, here enemies actually HURT you. It's not unusual to see monsters taking 60% of your HP in a single hit and the more dangerous ones can easily one shot you with some attacks. They also added some features that makes skilled moves be rewarded like a parry that makes enemies vulnerable for a second and perfect dodges that slow time so you can do an amazing combo.

The collection of resources is also very well done and every second spent exploring feels rewarded, be it with materials, food or some new gear.

The amount of secrets and puzzles is huge and in every direction you walk you find something interesting.

No, this is by no means the usual type of open world game where you keep walking from point A to point B to do your quest objectives while doing some boring side stuff while you're on your way. Sure, the game will tell you about the expected end of the world thing and tell you some things that you should do to prepare to save it but that's it. After that you are completely free to do it whenever and the way that you want (you can even try to rush to the final boss, at some point someone will probably figure it out how to do this).

The only "bad" aspect that I've faced is some bad framerate while inside of towns and when there are too much happening on the screen, but when the game is this amazing I can simply ignore those things.

Given that I haven't yet gotten to Witcher (2 or 3) or Horizon Zero Dawn yet and that I'm more of a 2D Zelda guy, this game has just been everything I've hoped for and then some. First off, I knew Nintendo needed a big hit just to stay in the console business, and it definitely looks like this is it. This will definitely increase demand and sales for the Switch (as if they weren't high enough already) and also serves as a "thank you" to the handful who took a chance on the Wii U.

Business aside, I've played the game (still trying to get the runes) and have just been in awe. I've been gaming for 30 years and not many games give off that feeling. While I've never beaten Ocarina Of Time, I've been respectful of its impact on gaming and on gamers. After the original Zelda and OOT, it appears that the series has sprung a third masterpiece (fitting for a series where the main object is the Triforce). Most importantly, this is the first 3D Zelda game I actually feel determined to see through to the end. Thank you, Nintendo.

It's nice that Link has a bit more of a personality in this game.