|
On August 22 2017 21:26 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 21:20 chocorush wrote:On August 22 2017 09:33 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 17 2017 19:09 CptMarvel wrote:
Having played a lot of open-worlds this year, GTA5 and TW3 most notably (a little late to the party I know, though both are excellent), I can safely say that BotW is indeed a complete overhaul and revolution for the genre. It's stellar from top to bottom, the level-design quality is fucking RIDICULOUS, Nintendo has really dropped the mic on this one, likely to be THE most influential game of the next two decades. BotW is an incredible game, but its quality is dwarfed by that of OoT, which is inarguably still 1) the greatest video game ever made and 2) one of, if not the, most influential in its genre to ever be released. It's really, really difficult to overstate how important OoT is to the gaming industry as a whole, and with that present on Nintendo's resume, it'll downplay anything that comes after it. I don't really understand this argument. Pretty much every thing OoT did was done before in other games that came before it. It's only particularly accomplished if you only played Nintendo games, but nothing would have really changed without OoT in my opinion. Everything except Z-targetting, IIRC. That's an innovation OoT came up with.
That's really only an innovation for the N64 controller.
|
On August 23 2017 07:13 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 21:26 Laurens wrote:On August 22 2017 21:20 chocorush wrote:On August 22 2017 09:33 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 17 2017 19:09 CptMarvel wrote:
Having played a lot of open-worlds this year, GTA5 and TW3 most notably (a little late to the party I know, though both are excellent), I can safely say that BotW is indeed a complete overhaul and revolution for the genre. It's stellar from top to bottom, the level-design quality is fucking RIDICULOUS, Nintendo has really dropped the mic on this one, likely to be THE most influential game of the next two decades. BotW is an incredible game, but its quality is dwarfed by that of OoT, which is inarguably still 1) the greatest video game ever made and 2) one of, if not the, most influential in its genre to ever be released. It's really, really difficult to overstate how important OoT is to the gaming industry as a whole, and with that present on Nintendo's resume, it'll downplay anything that comes after it. I don't really understand this argument. Pretty much every thing OoT did was done before in other games that came before it. It's only particularly accomplished if you only played Nintendo games, but nothing would have really changed without OoT in my opinion. Everything except Z-targetting, IIRC. That's an innovation OoT came up with. That's really only an innovation for the N64 controller.
Not really. Any controller with a button can do that. It's the software that makes it actually happen.
|
On August 23 2017 07:20 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 07:13 andrewlt wrote:On August 22 2017 21:26 Laurens wrote:On August 22 2017 21:20 chocorush wrote:On August 22 2017 09:33 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 17 2017 19:09 CptMarvel wrote:
Having played a lot of open-worlds this year, GTA5 and TW3 most notably (a little late to the party I know, though both are excellent), I can safely say that BotW is indeed a complete overhaul and revolution for the genre. It's stellar from top to bottom, the level-design quality is fucking RIDICULOUS, Nintendo has really dropped the mic on this one, likely to be THE most influential game of the next two decades. BotW is an incredible game, but its quality is dwarfed by that of OoT, which is inarguably still 1) the greatest video game ever made and 2) one of, if not the, most influential in its genre to ever be released. It's really, really difficult to overstate how important OoT is to the gaming industry as a whole, and with that present on Nintendo's resume, it'll downplay anything that comes after it. I don't really understand this argument. Pretty much every thing OoT did was done before in other games that came before it. It's only particularly accomplished if you only played Nintendo games, but nothing would have really changed without OoT in my opinion. Everything except Z-targetting, IIRC. That's an innovation OoT came up with. That's really only an innovation for the N64 controller. Not really. Any controller with a button can do that. It's the software that makes it actually happen.
What I mean is that it is an innovation that takes advantage and derives much of its worth from the N64 controller. It's not as big a deal on a controller that doesn't have a similar layout as the N64 does.
|
Ehh, even on a dual-analog controller, some form of auto-aiming is a necessity to make up for the lack of precision that controllers offer relative to KB+M. Even on the Gamecube controller, games like Metroid Prime make great use of it. Even if we look to PSX/PS2 games, something like Demon Souls effectively uses a Z-targeting variant despite having access to the Playstation dual analog controller because it just makes sense for the game to control that way.
I disagree that you get "mouse+keyboard-like controls" with dual-analog. Basically every console shooter ever made has relied on auto-aiming to make up the gap in precision. Z-targeting is just a more heavy-handed form of auto-aiming adapted to a genre where precise targeting isn't part of the expected skillset, compared to movement and timing.
|
Not so much that it gives you m+kb precision, but it allows you to move and control the camera at the same time.
This was particularly hard on the n64 controller because of it's terrible ergonomics in the dpad +analog hand position. Most games used the analog + face button combination.
|
botw feels empty and has no dungeons.
maybe revolutionary for open world games but not revolutionary for a zelda game. probably around SS/TP tier.
if they make a majora's mask style sequel with real dungeons then there might be something worth competing for best zelda title.
i see botw as a game that mostly appeals to people that like skyrim or maybe even dark souls but not really targeting the core zelda demographic at all.
it suffers from the same issue every other open world game does of having nothing to do but explore empty spaces.
|
not revolutionary for a zelda game
not really targeting the core zelda demographic at all.
Perhaps it is revolutionary then? Surely continuing to target the same "core zelda demographic" is the opposite of a revolution.
|
I guess they can only repeat a certain formula for so many times before it starts getting old. We're just getting old lads time to let LoZ go :'(
|
I can imagine that many people who play primarily Nintendo games would play a game by botw and be amazed by the amount of things to do. For these people, the game will seem revolutionary.
For others, it will feel empty and derivative. I was pretty done with the game after 10 hours or so after not really experiencing anything that was non-trivially challenging. Maybe if I played for another 5 hours it would have started getting better, but the whole concept of a bunch of micro dungeons where you solve a 3 piece puzzle wasn't enough to get me hooked.
|
On August 23 2017 22:39 chocorush wrote:
I can imagine that many people who play primarily Nintendo games would play a game by botw and be amazed by the amount of things to do. For these people, the game will seem revolutionary.
For others, it will feel empty and derivative. I was pretty done with the game after 10 hours or so after not really experiencing anything that was non-trivially challenging. Maybe if I played for another 5 hours it would have started getting better, but the whole concept of a bunch of micro dungeons where you solve a 3 piece puzzle wasn't enough to get me hooked.
3 piece puzle is only the starter shrines. Shrines are really varied. And then there are cool stuff like the shrine quests, some are text enigmas to solve to get a shrine location.
|
I always love when people regard themselves as representatives of a demographic. " as this did not appeal to me, it does not appeal to anyone of my group!"
|
On August 23 2017 22:39 chocorush wrote:
I can imagine that many people who play primarily Nintendo games would play a game by botw and be amazed by the amount of things to do. For these people, the game will seem revolutionary.
For others, it will feel empty and derivative. I was pretty done with the game after 10 hours or so after not really experiencing anything that was non-trivially challenging. Maybe if I played for another 5 hours it would have started getting better, but the whole concept of a bunch of micro dungeons where you solve a 3 piece puzzle wasn't enough to get me hooked.
I'm in the others category and nothing you said fits with me. I have friends who haven't touched a nintendo console since the original gameboy who are absolutely loving botw.
Trying to claim that it's just nintendo fans who haven't tried games that aren't from nintendo being amazed is patently false.
No game is ever going to be universally loved, people like different things.
|
My point was more that nothing Nintendo has done touches the open world concept, so botw will seem "revolutionary." Compared to other open world games, it's not particularly special. If you haven't played any other open world games, it would be similarly enlightening as to what is possible in games.
Obviously there's a spectrum of how you would perceive "things to do" in the game, and most people will fall somewhere in between the extremes. You can still find the game amazing even if there isn't that much to do (dare I say, OOT's overworld). That still doesn't change the fact that botw hasn't really done anything new for the genre as a whole.
|
On August 23 2017 23:34 chocorush wrote:
My point was more that nothing Nintendo has done touches the open world concept, so botw will seem "revolutionary." Compared to other open world games, it's not particularly special. If you haven't played any other open world games, it would be similarly enlightening as to what is possible in games.
Obviously there's a spectrum of how you would perceive "things to do" in the game, and most people will fall somewhere in between the extremes. You can still find the game amazing even if there isn't that much to do (dare I say, OOT's overworld). That still doesn't change the fact that botw hasn't really done anything new for the genre as a whole.
In a post above you said you only played for ten hours. I don't think you can really judge this huge game after having played that short. I almost quit after 10 hours myself, but it is really worth it to continue playing, because the fun just starts.
|
On August 23 2017 23:34 chocorush wrote:
My point was more that nothing Nintendo has done touches the open world concept, so botw will seem "revolutionary." Compared to other open world games, it's not particularly special. If you haven't played any other open world games, it would be similarly enlightening as to what is possible in games.
Obviously there's a spectrum of how you would perceive "things to do" in the game, and most people will fall somewhere in between the extremes. You can still find the game amazing even if there isn't that much to do (dare I say, OOT's overworld). That still doesn't change the fact that botw hasn't really done anything new for the genre as a whole.
It depends on what you value. If you're object oriented(korok seeds, shrines) the game feels like it could use a couple extra things - I still think it does despite loving it. If you're exploration oriented, around every wooded bend, hill, or valley is a treat.
The towers are better than Creed's because it isn't a matter of "just climb up, get the map, and 50 millions markers of things to do." You have to find out how to get up the tower, and when you're up there, look for something to do. There's no more gaming by GPS waypoints.
The collectables are better, because once you find them you have to figure out how to get them. How many people walked by 2 trees a decent space apart without noticing the boulder at the top of the hill. Or that did, but didn't put it together that if you pushed the boulder down between the trees they'd get a Korok out of it?
|
that it's such a controversial game really speaks to how overrated it is as I said. Game of the year? Don't make me laugh it's just nintendo's first big open world game, which isnt even a good genre.
if the game stood on it's own you wouldn't need people constantly coming out of the woodwork going b-b-but!!1
when you feel the need to justify something so badly, it's probably not that great.
|
Meh, the game isn't really all that controversial. Most popular games have at least a few naysayers, and the number isn't really higher for BotW than for other popular games.
That said, I'd be hard pressed to call it Game of the Year with 4 months of great releases still to come. That it's Game of the Year material speaks more to the lack of other good games released this year--it's only real contender thus far is Persona 5 (and between the two, I don't think it's outrageous to give it to P5). What other games out this year are even in contention with those two?
EDIT: Forgot about Nier, but I have no experience with it, so I can't comment.
|
|
|
People have been arguing over whether zelda games have been overrated ever since OoT. It's just a thing that happens when you have fans constantly calling them the best games of all time.
Nier is probably the game I enjoyed the most this year of the games that would be reasonably expected to compete for such a title, and has some obvious comparisons that can be drawn with zelda.
|
Sonic Mania's legit, though I'm not sure it has the widespread popularity to hit GotY.
@choco have you played DQ11 yet? The numbers are looking good for the JP release, but since it's not coming to the West till 2018, it's not in the running.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
