Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    [Breath of the Wild] Nitpicks and Flaws Thread
    • Let's be honest; outside of Skyward in a practical sense, this is an almost entirely cosmetic loss. No Zelda I have played has especially developed, complex or challenging one-on-one sword combat.
      It was a feature that was present in every 3D Zelda game (barring Skyward Sword) since Ocarina of Time. Why not include it? It would give more options and add more depth to the combat. For example, swords would have a thrust attack that takes more time to execute, but gives longer range. Even if in the end, it is as you say, just cosmetic, so what? Cosmetics are important as well. Going into combat and seeing the same animations over and over again is not a pleasant thing to see, and detracts from the experience. It seems like such a minor thing to include, and was standard, so I don't think it's unreasonable.


      Compared to the one or, at best, two types of weapons in other Zeldas?
      In the other Zelda games you had dungeon items along with the sword to add more weapon "types" to the game. Those items are for the most part, absent in this game. Because of this there is the expectation that there be a little bit more variety in terms of the available weapons. I'm not complaining about the amount of weapon types, it's fine to only have 6 or 7. What I'm complaining about is the lack of differentiated move sets between the weapon types. Every sword acts the exact same, even the
      Display Spoiler
      Master Sword
      . If you have played Dark Souls, think about how there are multiple Great Swords, and while they have similar move sets, there is some variation between how they act. Weapons as they are now are just reskinned versions of one another with different damage values.

      Would more enemy variety be nice? Of course, but when you think about the quality of the enemies (the AI, the challenge, the designs, and the variety that emerges from the various grades, weapon types, environmental context and so on)
      I wouldn't say the AI is that much better than any of the previous Zelda games, or that any challenge in fighting most enemies has to do with their AI. When I was playing through the game, fighting the same enemy with a different weapon never felt that much different to me. There isn't enough variance in the enemy recolors to consider them a separate enemy. It's not necessarily a game play issue, there is an emotional element as well. It is hard not to realize that you are fighting the same enemies over and over again. This detracts from the experience. Even if enemies had roughly the same move sets, but were entirely different looking, this would be a massive improvement. This is not to undercut the main point though. There are MANY niches that were not fulfilled by the available enemy types, and as a result fighting becomes a lackluster experience.

      Did WW have more enemies? Sure, but did that actually result in more diverse or engaging game-play? No way.
      No, I'm not so sure about that. I'll explain. If we're using Wind Waker as an example (another Zelda game with relatively poor enemy variety), you have to understand that each enemy has a purpose, a unique challenge. This is something that BOTW SEVERELY lacks. In BOTW you have bipedal armed humanoids that you are fighting most of the time. The strategy for fighting them, and the circumstances in which you fight them is all very similar. They are in camps, you see them and then go fight them. To beat them, dodge their attacks with side steps and backflips, then attack them. Compare this to Wind Waker:

      Armos: Usually encountered in groups, can only be attacked from behind. You need to get behind them to do damage. Once they are attacked they go berserk and you have to run away while they explode.

      Armos Knight: The exact opposite of Armos, you have to confront these enemies from the front with a well timed bomb throw. There is pressure to do this correctly as it hops towards you.

      Floor Master: You have to not only avoid this enemy's shadow, but be careful while fighting it in close range as well, if it manages to grab you, your progress is reset.

      Rat: Small, sneaky, will creep up behind you and bump into you. Will steal your items.

      Miniblin: Appear out of nowhere in large groups, you need to be aware of your surroundings at all times until their chants disappear.

      Mothula: Dispenses Morths that encumber you and slow you down, making you vulnerable to attacks from itself and other enemies.

      Those are a few examples to show you what I mean. Each enemy has a specific niche that it fulfills. When you combine this with MULTIPLE enemies existing together, you have to be careful of many things. Not so much the case in BOTW when most of the enemies you are fighting are bipedal humanoids with similar tactics. Now would these multiple enemy types be more meaningful if they did more damage? Probably, but that doesn't mean that they serve no purpose.


      (Click to set source)
      I think it was interesting that you mentioned that you could easily run away from enemies. Hasn't this always been the case in 3D games?
      No, this has not been the case. You are not always fighting enemies in a large space, but a more restrictive arena, this happens much more frequently then in Breath of the Wild. Running away isn't always a viable option. And you aren't understanding the point that I'm making.

      The point that I was making is that once you have a good set of weapons, there is little incentive to fight enemies that drop weaker weapons. It makes much more sense to just avoid them and run away when you find them. When a lot of the game is fighting enemies in the overworld, this is not a good thing.

      As for the rest about Dungeons there is not much I can say to that, you didn't really say anything that wasn't just a straight opinion.

      As for what I want out of Zelda it's not very hard. The core elements of modern 3D Zelda games were defined in Ocarina of Time. Every 3D Zelda game should maintain these core elements, it it doesn't then it has failed.

      - Good dungeons. If you don't know what qualifies as a good dungeon, I'll explain. A good dungeon HAS to have a place in the setting of the game. It has to FEEL like it is a unique place in the world with a real purpose. They should be large structures with a set of interconnected rooms. The rooms have to interconnect ORGANICALLY, they cannot just be two puzzle rooms stuck together. A great example of what I would consider a good Dungeon is from Twilight Princess, specifically the Yeti Mansion (which I forget what is called).

      - Tools. Things like Bombs, the Deku Leaf, the Beetle. They don't have to be obtained in dungeons, and they don't to have be combat oriented. The tools ideally should not all be obtained at once, and should open up new parts of the world to the player. Progression based on these tools is not necessary but STRONGLY encouraged unless a viable alternative is found.

      - Story. Hard to define, I think most people understand what a Zelda-esque story is like by this point. It is not convoluted or complex, it is just a simple mythological story with a slightly more complex theme underpinning it. Wind Waker for example: Good vs Evil and a more complex theme, something like: "The familiar yet stagnating past versus an uncertain yet potentially bold future."

      - Music. Same here, you all know what to expect out of Zelda music. Strong melodies, a few recurring themes. Toned down atmospheric tracks for specific areas, bombastic orchestra for other parts .

      Anything else is subject to change, though I should say I HATE open world games.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by CheckMyDoublesKids ().

    • It was a feature that was present in every 3D Zelda game (barring Skyward Sword) since Ocarina of Time. Why not include it?

      I would have kept it personally, but it's not a material loss. If they want to incorporate it in the future, I would want it to serve more of a game-play function. I obviously can't be sure of Nintendo's thought-process, but there may well have been a specific reason they took it out. For example, allowing the player to stab with swords would have reduced the main appeal of spears (range). As I said previously, outside of Skyward Sword (and even that was very hit and miss), Zelda has never really excelled at deep one-on-one sword play. Given the vast array of new abilities in this game (jumping, sprinting, free-form climbing, crouching/stealth etc.) the loss of directional attacks, which had virtually no game-play impact, is not something I lose sleep over.

      On the other hand, Breath of the Wild does have a dash attack. It has the timed dodge and the parry as well. It could be that I don't have the timing down yet, but I find these moves nowhere near as broken as WW's laughably easy parry attack or SS's shield bash.

      Personally, I've died way more in Breath of the Wild than any previous 3D Zelda, and had way more fun in combat. I'm not trying to throw the earlier games under the bus entirely. I think the 3D series has always had fun--if mostly simplistic and easy--combat. But Breath of the Wild is a big step up. I agree that more variety in enemies would have been great and the relatively small bestiary is probably is the game's weakest quality. Yet, even with that consideration, I've experienced much more fun, variety, action and challenge in Breath of the Wild's combat compared to OoT - SS by a wide margin. Sword planting foes from above, electrocuting water dwelling enemies, gliding above an enemy and nailing them with a bomb arrow--these are actions that are far beyond what we've seen in the past, and I think it would be a mistake to undersell just how much the combat has evolved in this game.

      In the other Zelda games you had dungeon items along with the sword to add more weapon "types" to the game. Those items are for the most part, absent in this game.

      But most of these items/weapons are very lackluster (e.g. simplistic and either broken/overpowered or useless) from a combat perspective. At least in the 3D iterations of the series, "weapons" are more accurately described as puzzle solving tools. Basing progression in the game on the collection of items made for a more linear experience. This was fine in it's own way, but I was definitely ready for a change. Being able to go anywhere and explore at your leisure is very gratifying and a return to form.

      If you have played Dark Souls, think about how there are multiple Great Swords, and while they have similar move sets, there is some variation between how they act. Weapons as they are now are just reskinned versions of one another with different damage values.

      If you're comparing to Dark Souls, them maybe it is fair criticism. If you're comparing to prior Zelda games, I think it makes no sense at all. I think it was a positive and overdue thing for Breath of the Wild to incorporate some concepts from modern gaming, which it clearly has, but from my view, the series remains its own unique entity. I don't think it was ever Nintendo's goal for Breath of the Wild to directly compete with Dark Souls in terms of having a complex and deep combat system, and indeed this has never been the series' focus or strong point. My primary concern is how it compares to prior Zelda games. And it's a significant step up from that perspective.

      I wouldn't say the AI is that much better than any of the previous Zelda games, or that any challenge in fighting most enemies has to do with their AI.

      Previous Zelda games can barely be said to have AI at all. Enemies would attack you one at a time in very predictable and pre-set ways. And they were typically very passive. Breath of the Wild's enemies don't take turns. They flank you in a way that makes it a bit harder to take them out together. And they are much, much more aggressive and deliver way more damage. They're not perfect and occasionally you get instances of poor AI, but other times they do very clever and surprising things. I won't hold up Breath of the Wild as the gold standard for AI in gaming as a whole, but within the series, it is light years ahead of anything prior.

      It is hard not to realize that you are fighting the same enemies over and over again. This detracts from the experience. Even if enemies had roughly the same move sets, but were entirely different looking, this would be a massive improvement. This is not to undercut the main point though. There are MANY niches that were not fulfilled by the available enemy types, and as a result fighting becomes a lackluster experience.

      On this point, I don't entirely disagree, but I guess it just didn't bother me as much. I will concede it is probably the most disappointing thing about the game to me, but it still hasn't hampered my enjoyment. Even with the relatively low variety of enemies, I still find the combat more fun. So I see it as more of a missed opportunity than something that really upsets me. I hope it will be a point of emphasis in the sequel. There could have been Tektites bouncing around the mountains, Skulltulas to make your life difficult on cliffs, and of course we all miss the un-dead legion of Poes, Gibdoes et al. Dark Nuts were another curious omission and would have filled a difficulty niche between Moblins and Lynels.

      Those are a few examples to show you what I mean. Each enemy has a specific niche that it fulfills. When you combine this with MULTIPLE enemies existing together , you have to be careful of many things.

      I get what you're saying about niches, but I also think it misses the forest for the trees. Whether it fulfills niches or not, Breath of the Wild is way harder than the other 3D Zelda games, and the proof is in the number of deaths I've had, or the fact that I don't dear venture into certain areas unprepared, nor can I just run straight into a group of enemies and hack 'n slash and hope to be successful. For the most part, I think it's being more than a little generous to suggest that you ever really need to be careful 99% of the time in the other 3D Zeldas. The enemies are timid, deal very little damage, and are slow.

      If anything, these small/non-melee enemies serve the function of giving you something to do and break up the game-play. And I agree that it's nice to see variety for variety sake. It's that feeling of "oh, there's a new thing I haven't encountered yet." But I feel that Breath of the Wild gives me that feeling in so many other ways at a near constant pace that it's not really an issue. Nonetheless, I would agree that more enemy variety is a clear point of emphasis in a sequel.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Bill ().

    • I've seen some of these points mentioned already, but here's my two cents...

      1- Sidequests

      I think this was the most glaring issue and the most noteworthy of the game. In fact I don't believe the game achieved perfection simply because of this. Let's face it, the sidequests are shit. It's like the dev team played WoW and said "so this is what these are supposed to be like!". Find ten of these, collect 100 of that, go clear these five enemies...ugh. Five + years of development and they couldn't manage to make ONE decent sidequest worth remembering? No? Didn't Aonuma play the Witcher 3 in an effort to find some inspiration with this game?

      This is more than just a matter of something to do in the game, but it was also a major missed opportunity to really expand the stories of some of these villages and the people within besides the trivial crap we got. They had the foundation and the characters, they just need the push.

      Wishful thinking here, but hopefully this is something that can be addressed with the DLC.

      2- Present Day Story

      I do honestly believe the flashbacks in the game were done quite well and the story they told brought a meaningful depth to Zelda and Link's relationship. It was one thing to be told the major points of the past from Impa, but quite another to see the smaller details that led to them.

      However, the present day story was just lacking. Every major city you visited consisted of one quest, a fight against a Divine Beast, a flashback, and a dungeon. Wash, rinse, repeat for the next area. Only one race actually remembered who Link was, the rest just said "hey I just met you, and this is crazy, but could you save the future of our entire race? K thnkx!". Well Rijo figured it out, but stll...

      I think something with the sidequest point could've fixed what these places lacked. Say once you finished a dungeon, that would open up a small series of sidequests diving into not just the problem with the divine beasts, but the problems these people are facing within their own home. The Zora Royal Family mourned the loss of the princess, Rijo was worried the Gerudo didn't have faith in her to lead, the Gorons could've been recovering from the destruction left behind from the Divine Beast, and I don't know about the Rito but they coulda made something up. Again, the foundation is there, just...do something with it!
    • Anything else is subject to change, though I should say I HATE open world games.

      Well, this might just be the crux of it.

      I haven't gamed nearly as much in recent years. I am actually a bit embarrassed to say that I have never really played an open-world game before. All I know is I love Breath of the Wild.

      To me, this style of game is a return to form for what the series is about. The recent games have been far too linear. I like each game for different reasons, but I personally find the open world design to be the best thing about Breath of the Wild. I love exploring, being able to go anywhere, and glide off of high mountains.

      It's certainly not for everyone, but I do admit it is hard for me to understand how a Zelda fan wouldn't be thrilled by Breath of the Wild. It's everything I've wanted in a Zelda game for over a decade, and the first game that has excited me at or beyond the level of the N64 games.

      As for what I want out of Zelda it's not very hard. The core elements of modern 3D Zelda games were defined in Ocarina of Time. Every 3D Zelda game should maintain these core elements, it it doesn't then it has failed.

      By maintaining the core elements of Ocarina of Time, the series stagnated in a huge way. Mandating that a game has to adhere to certain principles established by a previous game, no matter how great that game was for its time, is obviously self-limiting. By modeling every new game after Ocarina of Time, you're basically ensuring that game will remain in its shadow.

      Ocarina of Time is/was my favorite game ever, but no, I wouldn't say it should define what the series is. The series didn't start with Ocarina of Time, and while it did add a lot, something was lost as well. I think Breath of the Wild has finally brought that back.

      As for your list of what constitutes a good Zelda, by my judgment, Breath of the Wild contains all of those elements. Ultimately, of course, it is subjective.

      You're bearish on the music, and I'd agree that it is not the best in the series. But to my judgment, the music hasn't been as good ever since Koji Kondo took a reduced role. The N64 games had the best music, WW was close, and I'd put TP/SS/BotW on roughly equal ground.

      I think your perspective on the dungeons is interesting. To me, the Divine Beasts clearly fulfill the criteria you laid out even if they come up short in other ways. They have a purpose, a back-story, and are actually seamlessly integrated with the world in a way that feels believable. They're fine in that regard. Where they come up short is in their lack of enemies, mini-boss, their length, and their repetitiveness. Atmosphere is very important for me in a dungeon. My favorite dungeons in the series are the Forest Temple, the Spirit Temple, the Stone Tower Temple, and I also like unconventional dungeons like the Snowpeak Ruins and the Sand Ship from Skyward Sword. I can wax poetic about how the Forest Temple creates the perfect atmosphere. The thing is, the type of experience I want in a dungeon is pretty much fulfilled by Breath of the Wild's over-world.

      I'll give you that boss fight designs are disappointing in their repetitiveness and art direction. I would rather take down a unique and charismatic beast than an amorphous blob. But I think this is off-set by a huge improvement in actual game-play. The boss fights feel like fights, not glorified puzzles. Ideally the next game will marry the best of both worlds.

      I think the story is on par with the other Zeldas. I appreciate that it is non-intrusive and they don't force you through a long-winded prologue and tutorial. You're basically granted the freedom to purse and engage the story at your own leisure and preference. I've only been to one story-focused region so far (Zora's Domain), and I felt the quality of the lore, the characterization, the attention to detail in their culture and history . . . was some of the best I've seen in the series.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Bill ().

    • okay so i have finished the game and i would give it an 89/100

      almost above 90, but not really. here are a few reasons why:



      the frame rate lags on the wiiu are simply unacceptable. the render range is also bzzzzt which is kind of silly because from far away sometimes the hills look like just tiny blobs. it is like if you bought a sick ass mercedes benz but the gear shift is broken and every now and then the car farts.

      the characterisation of calamity ganon was really underwhelming. its basically just a love craftian horror. don't get me wrong, it does GREAT for the world building and atmosphere, kinda like MMs moon, but unlike MM there was nothing to sympathise with or even fear from calamity.

      the fact that weapons can't be repaired or in general just get destoyed kinda sucks. i am on the fence, but really i would have liked if there were some more weapons like the master sword that "run out of energy" in particular the ones like Urbosa's scimitar or the light scale trident. but i suppose being able to have them remade is a fair compromise. it just becomes tedium after a while tho, scrolling through all your weapons and shit etc

      the voice acting is legitimately TERRIBLE in english. it doesn't seem to fit the dialogue, sounds or body language of the characters in other moments. also the accents are totally weird, like some are american, SOME ARE AMERICANS TRYING TO BE BRITISH, and yeah. it is just weird. not a fan. maybe it would be better in japanese? SUBS B4 DUBS

      i think that the story was kinda ultimately lacking. in particularly the fragmented nature of it all made it difficult to be invested in the more dramatic moments of the recalled memories.





      and that is about it. the rest is all really really great. i have finished the main quest, but i am likely to keep playing to try and complete all of the shrines at the very least and upgrade a whole bunk of armour too! there is too much to see :D
    • Alright, let's focus on the more important issues for now. I'll explain what I view as the fundamental problem of open world games, and try to relate that to Breath of the Wild. There is another fundamental issue that is also relevant, but I'll leave that out for now.

      In order for a game to be open world, it has to be large. The larger the game world is, the more content you need to create to fill this game world. Creating content requires time, manpower, and money. Time, manpower, and money are limited resources. Presuming you have the same amount of resources available to you as you did before you committed to making an open world game, you now have to spread your resources thinner. As a result, the game suffers.

      Now, how does the game suffer? Well it depends on what it is the developers have prioritized during development. If for example, the developers prioritize creating a well crafted overworld, then all other elements of the game will typically be of lower quality. If the developers put in an equal amount of effort into all categories, then the game will not excel in anything.

      The limiting factor here is something that CANNOT be surmounted under the current development system used by almost all game developers.

      Let's say you've created a beautiful, believable, expansive, and large world. However, there is nothing at all to do in it. What is done about this? Well, many developers of open world games use tricks to "deceive" the player into believing that there is more content than there actually is, by using shallow mass replicated content. This content isn't necessarily "copy pasted" just incredibly similar in relation to the base template that the content is deriving itself from.

      How does this relate to Breath of the Wild? Well, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that the area that received the most amount of effort was the overworld itself. This is based on the emphasis that Nintendo has placed on the overworld in the marketing of the game as well as how I perceive the other areas to have suffered.

      So, you agree with me that there is a lack of enemy variety. Good. The question is, WHY is there a lack of enemy variety? Did the entire development team just somehow manage to forget about the existence of Darknuts, Redeads, and other such enemies? Of course not. The enemy variety suffered because of a lack of either funds, manpower, or time. Nothing more nothing less. Any lacking quality the game has in comparison to previous entries in the franchise can be attributed to these constraints. And as I've said before, these constraints cannot be bypassed in any real sense, only through tricks. The reason this upsets me, is because this time I think it has detrimentally effected MUCH more than enemy variety, I think it has extended to what I view as the most important element, dungeons.

      Now you have not played many open world games, so perhaps you are not so quick to notice a few of these "tricks" characteristic to open world games. That's fine, if you're smart enough and have a critical eye, you'll come to figure it out at some point so long as you keep playing the game.

      Now, for the second most important point...

      The post was edited 2 times, last by CheckMyDoublesKids ().

    • Mandating that a game has to adhere to certain principles established by a previous game, no matter how great that game was for its time, is obviously self-limiting.
      Yes you are right that it is self limiting, but that's not a bad thing. Every single game in a long running franchise has an implicit limit set on it by other successful entries in the franchise. The original game was (presumably) successful because there were elements about the game that were liked. In creating a sequel, you want to introduce new elements, keep old good elements, and remove old bad elements. If you don't keep old elements, then what you are doing is not creating an X Game, but creating a Y game.

      So the question is, for Zelda, what elements are necessary for the game "to be" a Zelda game? Now obviously in the literal sense, any game made by Nintendo with Zelda on the cover is a Zelda game, but that's not what I mean. I mean, what are the CORE elements of Zelda that are necessary for a title to be, in that other sense, a Zelda game? That's what it is I was talking about in the last section of my 2nd to last post. It has to have those elements. If it doesn't, then it fails at being a Zelda game. I would argue that Breath of the Wild almost fails entirely at being a Zelda game.

      Now obviously what elements make up the core of the Zelda franchise are up to interpretation. Evidently, you disagree with me, and think that Dungeons, Tools, etc, aren't necessary.
    • KeeSomething wrote:

      The game needs a more intuitive way to scroll through inventory. It's very clear to me that this game was originally going to have touchscreen inventory like the HD remasters, but that got scrapped when they moved over to Switch.

      One simple change would be to allow the R/L buttons to jump from Melee Weapons to bows to shield, etc. rather than having to scroll through pages of materials. This is so annoying, especially when you're switching and dropping items so often. It doesn't ruin the game, but Nintendo needs to patch this. It would be such an easy fix, too!
      Just want to check, you do know that the right controlstick (at least on the Switch) fast scrolls pages instead of individual items?
      Don't know if there is something equivalent on the WiiU tho...
    • As the this thread is about nitpicking I will skip all the things that make this game great and will focus on the few things I want to see changed/improved in future. I just want to mention that I thing BotW is the best Zelda game I have ever played (and actually one of the best games in general I have ever played) and I want future open world games to be inspired by its achievements. Its just my perfectionistic self that wants to also see the last minor details to be fixed ;).

      Dungeons: Like a few others in the community I miss the the existence of themed dungeons like in skyward sword etc. I mean big themed constructs filled with riddles and enemies. While the "dungeons" (divine beasts) have a cool concept and the riddles (in the shrines) are genious I kind of miss the big connected spaces. That would also solve the point with the missing (epic) music because then in the dungeons the orchestral themes can be played while in the open field you still have your ambient tones.

      Which I would not like is if they would sacrifice an big open world just to put in a few "caves" which represents the dungeons. The open world is what makes that game so great. As a matter of compromise I would suggest that the new version of "dungeons" is complelty melted with the open world. So instead of having seperated spaces with a fixed entries you make e.g. a dungeon that consists out of a whole mountain where the boss awaits at the top. That hopefully will realize dungeons without sacrifizing to much of the open world characters.

      Enemy/Boss Variety: More is better ..... simple as it is. I would also really like if they would introduce named Bosses in the Overworld ... like for example a Bokoblin warlord which roams the world. Or the spirit of a fallen champion haunts the ruins at night .... something more than this is the gigantic Rock monster of this place.

      Weapons: I really like the way weapons are handled in this game. But it would be even cooler if you could upgrade (and repair) weapons somehow. There are so many cool weapons and upgrades which you hardly can use ( I for example found an torch which an upgrade that lets it throw better ... never saw something like that on a real weapon ....). I would really like if you could salvage unused weapons (and use ores and gems) to upgrade (and repair) your weapons.
    • CheckMyDoublesKids makes a good point. There are limited resources and every decision has an opportunity cost. The game probably would've been better if the overworld were 20% smaller and more dense, but it does add more detail and content than most overworld games.

      The voice acting doesn't bother me. It's not good, but not horrible either. I'm just happy Nintendo did it so that the big elephant in the room is no longer ignored

      Enemy variety is a legitimate concern. Not one that severely detracts from my fun in the game but a larger world could've had more enemies. Hopefully we will see some in the DLC.
    • Something else I've noticed is that the sense of "Hyrule is gone" isn't really there, and this kind of goes with Calamity Ganon not having much character to him. When I heard that Hetano Village wasn't hit that hard because it was near the fringe of the kingdom, I expected to see other towns doing pretty badly. And it's true that there are a ton of ruined towns, but the inhabited ones seem to be getting along just as well as Hetano is. No one really mentions the monsters all over or the giant evil demon king swirling around the castle. In the regard of making us feel the despair, it didn't do that as well as the trailers made it seem.

      Ultimately, I've noticed, most of my problems with the game are in the direction of art design (dungeons/bosses) and story. I also thought the story suffered from being fragmented, the memories I mean. I didn't get invested at all in what happened 100 years ago because we barely got to know Zelda or the Champions. Yet on the other hand, the worldbuilding and lore for the races is better than it's ever been. We actually have words in the Gerudo language now! I never expected Nintendo to bother with that.

      As far as gameplay/exploration goes, I adore BotW. Definitely the best Zelda in that regard. The story left me wanting.
      "That's the real trouble with the world, too many people grow up." - Walt Disney

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Reign ().

    • Re: enemy diversity

      I am the only one who really didn't miss a lot of the old enemies not being present here? I literally only remembered about Deku Babas when someone mentioned them here for example and I dont even care that they weren't in it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying more diversity wouldn't be welcome but I really didn't think about the repetitiveness of enemies until now because I was enjoying getting my ass handed to me on multiple occasions for once. Not only that but it introduced overworld bosses which is really cool imo.

      The only enemy I can think of that I have missed has been the Darknuts. It's a shame they weren't in the game
    • ^I agree with you.

      I miss the old enemies in theory, but not very much in practice.

      Before I ever picked up the controller, I was disappointed to know there were relatively few classes of enemies in the game. And yet, when I'm actually playing, it has never come close to bothering me, and I've probably already played 25 - 30 hours.

      I can acknowledge it as an area where the game could have offered more, and hope they do in a sequel, but in my opinion, it's not the significant flaw some see it as. The big picture for me is that, hand-wringing aside about enemy variety aside, the combat is way more fun and challenging, and that's what really matters. It is a matter of quality over quantity in my view.

      Something else I've noticed is that the sense of "Hyrule is gone" isn't really there, and this kind of goes with Calamity Ganon not having much character to him.

      A lot of recent Zelda games (really, every 3D game post N64) has struggled with this to varying degrees. I refer to it as a sense of urgency. Where is the imminent danger in the world coming from? In ALTTP, OoT and MM, you saw the impacts of evil on the world. I don't get that nearly as much in WW - BotW.

      I also miss more characterization for the primary villain. Demise and the Calamity Ganon are basically masses of unbridled evil, but I'm ready for the return of a humanoid villain with motivations, personality characterization etc.

      In order for a game to be open world, it has to be large. The larger the game world is, the more content you need to create to fill this game world. Creating content requires time, manpower, and money. Time, manpower, and money are limited resources. Presuming you have the same amount of resources available to you as you did before you committed to making an open world game, you now have to spread your resources thinner. As a result, the game suffers.

      I can appreciate this reasoning in theory, but I don't think it really applies to Breath of the Wild. Sure, resources are limited and trade-offs have to be made, but this will always be the case no matter what approach the developers take. Some people will prefer emphasis be placed on certain aspects of the game, while others would prefer other aspects. Majora's Mask scale back the number of dungeons to focus on high quality character driven side-quests, for example.

      But I do reject the blanket assertion/implication that because BotW is large, the quality has taken a hit. Whether it was through a long development time, a larger team, or simply better efficiency, I would argue that BotW has actually maintained or even increased its overall level of polish/quality relative to other games in the series, even with its grander scope.

      Of course they had prioritize certain elements, but that's not "suffering" in my opinion. The expansive, rich, and engaging over-world we got--and the ability to explore it at will--more than justifies scaling back the dungeons in my view. Obviously this is a matter of personal taste. And to my taste, there is a ridiculous glut of high-quality content in this game.

      I also like that they focused on creating a great over-world because it offered and experience that was distinct and fresh for the series. The over-world in the prior 3D games is lackluster by comparison. Prior to this, Nintendo never really succeeded at creating a satisfying over-world experience.

      Now, as much as I adore BotW, I don't want the next game to be a retread. So I hope they re-balance things again. Not because there is anything wrong with BotW, but because I want a different experience. So maybe for the sequel, they can give us a world half as large, give us maybe half as many shrine like entities, and focus more on traditional dungeons etc.

      The post was edited 5 times, last by Bill ().

    • My only criticisms are the lack of a compulsory storyline and the size of the dungeons.

      The story is great from what I've seen so far, but the fact that it's optional makes it seem super unimportant and really cheapens the experience of seeking it out for yourself. There's a skip button for a reason - no need to emphasise that the game can be completed without knowledge of its backstory.

      The dungeons are... okay. I was expecting a lot more given the scale of the game and the fact that there are only four. I just finished Vah Rudania and it honestly gave me the biggest headache. Everything looked the same, there were barely any puzzles, and the dungeon mechanic was tedious and confusing. That's not to say I hated it, but it definitely wasn't a Zelda dungeon by my standards.



      Ohai Paul, fancy seeing you here. :> | My ZU Fitness Challenge progress.

    • I think the only objective criticism I can offer is the framerate which is pretty inexcusable. I don't personally mind it (come on, I grew up with games that would occasionally run at 10fps) that much, but it should have shipped in a better state, at least for the Switch platform. It's certainly much better than the Wii U version in that regard, but it whenever it rains.... it pours...
      "Can't post that on a Christian forum."
    • Bill wrote:

      A lot of recent Zelda games (really, every 3D game post N64) has struggled with this to varying degrees. I refer to it as a sense of urgency. Where is the imminent danger in the world coming from? In ALTTP, OoT and MM, you saw the impacts of evil on the world. I don't get that nearly as much in WW - BotW.
      To be fair, in WW (and SS) it wasn't really something the general populace was really aware of, so it makes sense they didn't really react. In a situation where they do know about it, like TP, we see them freaking out. I guess part of the explanation for BotW is these people have grown up with Hyrule the way it is, it's not some new thing, so they're used to it, but I still didn't quite feel like the kingdom was gone outside of the central area.
      "That's the real trouble with the world, too many people grow up." - Walt Disney

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Reign ().

    • The Blood Moon glitch is a pain. I'd argue that it's actually worse than the infamous blue rupee explanation in Twilight Princess, and the parts finding in Skyward Sword, because the cutscene and proceeding loading screen last much longer. Also, since you don't necessarily know when it's coming before its too late, it can disrupt your activity in the overworld, which has happened to me more than once.


      Lucretia wrote:

      i think that the story was kinda ultimately lacking. in particularly the fragmented nature of it all made it difficult to be invested in the more dramatic moments of the recalled memories.
      That's the problem with nonlinear storytelling--you can't build up to more intense or emotional moments. Context gets lost if background isn't there.

      This can become a big problem for someone who comes upon the Hidden Memories out of order and doesn't realize it. Once I acquired all of them, I plan to watch each one in order like a giant movie (which is what I think is intended), but I already broke the sequence with one or two before realizing it. That kinda stunk.

      This game also suffers from the Majora's Mask dilemma when it comes to its characters. None of them, aside from Zelda, are dynamic. The storytelling is too fragmented and too loose to allow for characters to go through arcs. Barely any are around for the long haul, too. They show up for a scene or two, and then disappear for good.

      The development that does exist is sudden and unremarkable, such as Teba softening up, or Muzu becoming less...racist. Sadly, I don't think very many of the game's characters will be remembered in years to come.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Mirren ().

    • well yeah i mean i went very out of order, but even watching it in order I was kinda EH!?

      HOWEVER

      i will say that i will take back some of those comments about the story being lacking. most of it is actually in the conversations and diaries of people that you read!

      if you just play the game, get all the memories etc, the game's story and emotional core is going to be pretty damn shallow. however, a few frineds have pointed out things like:

      Display Spoiler

      • link's dad was a knight stationed at zoras' domain, thus link actually grew up there and was in a clique with four other zoras, which explains mipha's love for him
      • when the sheikah began to bring back the guardians and devine beasts, which were created AFTER TP, the Yiga clan set up a laboratory underneath hyrule castle, and began to experiment to see if they could control the calamity ganon for their own purposes
        • this in effect is the closest thing we see to characterisation of the calamithy as well. without this, the calamity is nothing more than an empty lovecraftian horror. it's not all that interesting. see it tries to take from MM in that its threat is ever present (you can see the calamity and the castle basically from almost anywhere on the map, LIKE the moon of termina. however in MM Skull Kid gets GREAT exposition and characterisations. EVERY character who is important has been affected by him and his vengeful mischief. in BotW, the calamity is just a thing that is there that more or less is just a natural disaster of sorts. the fact that the yiga clan has been experimenting on the CG makes ganondorf all the more pitiful. a trapped soul, experimented on by mere mortals, unable to revert or get past its evilness.
      • zelda resented link, and noted in her diary she asks him why he is so stoic, with him giving and explanation that he feels he needs to be strong and bottle things up so that he can help people, she felt really bad for yelling at him
      • the king of hyrule really regrets being so hard on zelda for her geeking out on the guardians and pushing her so hard.

      and i would have literally gotten NONE of that without taking the time to actively look for it. the real emotional core of the story is super fragmented, but you actually have to LOOK for it. which in someways makes it more satisfying.


      HOWEVER,
      even the bits which are linear more or less kinda fall flat, as you say. like it is really hard to get invested in revali or teba when you see them for all of three scenes. really, MM did a better job of making smaller self contained stories within a zone than anything BotW has been able to do, but even then it was all because you had to understand it in relation to skull kid, the best "stories" of each area were those of darmani/mikau, and that is because essentially YOU WERE darmani/mikau.

      imo, of course

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Lucretia ().

    • I'm gonna have to say that my biggest complaints are swimming, the general lack of a present-day storyline, secondary characters who get introduced and then dropped (Sidon, Yunobo, Teba, and RIju being my biggest complaints, but then even Impa and King Rhoamhave definite issues with this too), and the fact that by the 100th shrine, I was just sick of seeing shrines. I wish there were more sidequests that built the world rather than just giving you shrines. Kass's sidestory about his master, the Sheikah bard, is a good example of what I'm looking for, or the guy in Kakariko who's being blackmailed by the Yiga to be a mole. Other than that, though, this game is friggin' awesome.

      (Oh, and Zelda's voice actress is just the worst. The others are mostly ok, though I feel like Daruk and Rhoam don't always say their lines with the correct inflection, and I can't friggin' stand that breathy anime female voice that Mipha has, seriously who talks like that? No one. Stop doing it. Revali was the best, but he was also a douche, so...)

      Here's the real question though: when you open up a chest and it's a weapon/shield/bow, but your inventory is full, why doesn't the game ask you right there if you want to swap? That would have made life so much easier then making me go to my inventory screen and drop a weapon and then re-open the chest. It's the little things, Nintendo.
      What good is Power without the Wisdom to wield it? What good is Wisdom without the Courage to act? What good is Courage without the Power to change the world?

      NNID: Croutonz

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Zesty Crouton ().