Gaming The Legend of Zelda | Earthquake: "It's actually ridiculously good, and keeps getting better." ★★★★★

[Redlambs]

I suppose we have different things we call masterpieces. I'd give both 9 or 10 out of 10 (again, not far enough into Zelda to properly see how good it is), but to call something a masterpiece I'll not have anything to comment on as a negative thing, neither TW3 or BotW so far to me gets that notice.

I think what makes them both masterpieces to me are what they do, not what they don't. Witcher is just a ridiculous example of how to do story and characters in a game world, the atmosphere, the quests (bar the very tedious witcher gear ones), it all comes together to form something never really seen before on that scale. Sure it has problems with every part of it's gameplay mechanics for me, but that doesn't mean the whole experience isn't stunning. As for Zelda, well you are just getting your teeth into it, but man look at the world they've built...and I don't just mean the graphics or that, but look at how everything works together all the slightest of little touches that make it easily the most cohesive and interactive world ever seen in a video game. Sure the story is lame and the NPC's are bog standard fare, but my god the way everything works is just a ridiculously high standard that is going to take some beating. There's plenty of developer videos and talks on it too, how it's the new standard for world creation, which it rightly is. Just how Witcher is the yard stick for RPG's and how they move forward.

Nothing is flawless, it's just down to our own perceptions really. I think the problem more is when someone says "I don't get why..." then proceeds to bang on about their equally flawed game. We should just consider ourselves lucky we are still getting great games like these to debate about anyway I suppose

 

[Ødegaard]

I think what makes them both masterpieces to me are what they do, not what they don't. Witcher is just a ridiculous example of how to do story and characters in a game world, the atmosphere, the quests (bar the very tedious witcher gear ones), it all comes together to form something never really seen before on that scale. Sure it has problems with every part of it's gameplay mechanics for me, but that doesn't mean the whole experience isn't stunning. As for Zelda, well you are just getting your teeth into it, but man look at the world they've built...and I don't just mean the graphics or that, but look at how everything works together all the slightest of little touches that make it easily the most cohesive and interactive world ever seen in a video game. Sure the story is lame and the NPC's are bog standard fare, but my god the way everything works is just a ridiculously high standard that is going to take some beating. There's plenty of developer videos and talks on it too, how it's the new standard for world creation, which it rightly is. Just how Witcher is the yard stick for RPG's and how they move forward.

Nothing is flawless, it's just down to our own perceptions really. I think the problem more is when someone says "I don't get why..." then proceeds to bang on about their equally flawed game. We should just consider ourselves lucky we are still getting great games like these to debate about anyway I suppose

I think Witcher 3 does amazing things with how fun the combat is, but is more "game-changing" with the way quests are handled. If it weren't for itemization and how most stuff you find feels like either a lump of gold or not worth even picking up is annoying and takes it away from being a masterpiece. A so far and hopefully further genre-defining game for sure that others will try to make and improve upon. But with flaws that needs ironing out for a close to perfect experience.

Zelda to me does it amazingly (so far) with how you can burn grass to create updraft, how you can use lightning-arrows to fish a pond at the time, how (annoyingly) you can't climb well on wet surface but you can use your shield to ride on that surface. How lightning makes it so you can't run around with metal on you in a wide open field where the lightning will be guided to you. Or in simpler terms as you said, coherency in how you interact with the world.
I do like that there is a weapon-degradation system, but think they should have added materials and maybe one or two places with a blacksmith to fix your equipment before it breaks if you want to spend materials on it. Your horse (once tamed, mind) should be able to go down small things a lot easier and I think you should be able to make notes of recipes within the game so you easier can re-make useful food.
I also find it weird how korok-seeds are used instead of (and not complimentary of) multiple ways to get improved inventory. Removal of the old "win a arrow-container by beating this archery game" thing from OoT could have filled the world up a bit more.

Still great games, and just minor inconveniences (well, I think the itemization in TW3 is a big issue but that's more down to me loving the old Diablo 2 way of finding usable equipment every now and then), but they do keep me from calling them a masterpiece even though I wouldn't necessarily take away from their ratings.

 

[Redlambs]

I think Witcher 3 does amazing things with how fun the combat is, but is more "game-changing" with the way quests are handled. If it weren't for itemization and how most stuff you find feels like either a lump of gold or not worth even picking up is annoying and takes it away from being a masterpiece. A so far and hopefully further genre-defining game for sure that others will try to make and improve upon. But with flaws that needs ironing out for a close to perfect experience.

Zelda to me does it amazingly (so far) with how you can burn grass to create updraft, how you can use lightning-arrows to fish a pond at the time, how (annoyingly) you can't climb well on wet surface but you can use your shield to ride on that surface. How lightning makes it so you can't run around with metal on you in a wide open field where the lightning will go be guided to you. Or in simpler terms as you said, coherency in how you interact with the world.
I do like that there is a weapon-degradation system, but think they should have added materials and maybe one or two places with a blacksmith to fix your equipment before it breaks if you want to spend materials on it. Your horse (once tamed, mind) should be able to go down small things a lot easier and I think you should be able to make notes of recipes within the game so you easier can re-make useful food.
I also find it weird how korok-seeds are used instead of (and not complimentary of) multiple ways to get improved inventory. Removal of the old "win a arrow-container by beating this archery game" thing from OoT could have filled the world up a bit more.

Still great games, and just minor inconveniences (well, I think the itemization in TW3 is a big issue but that's more down to me loving the old Diablo 2 way of finding usable equipment every now and then), but they do keep me from calling them a masterpiece even though I wouldn't necessarily take away from their ratings.

I agree with almost every word.

I guess I look at it from the perspective of what it takes to create these games and the pure talent it takes to pull this sort of thing together and how rarely it happens. No game will ever be perfect, not even the mighty OoT or Deus Ex games are/were but I just think genuine defining titles come around so rarely that when they do, they deserve recognition for what they are. It may be odd, I know, but I do consider them both masterpieces in game creation even if neither are near the goat for me.

 

[Ødegaard]

I agree with almost every word.

I guess I look at it from the perspective of what it takes to create these games and the pure talent it takes to pull this sort of thing together and how rarely it happens. No game will ever be perfect, not even the mighty OoT or Deus Ex games are/were but I just think genuine defining titles come around so rarely that when they do, they deserve recognition for what they are. It may be odd, I know, but I do consider them both masterpieces in game creation even if neither are near the goat for me.

Agree with that. They should be praised, and if calling them masterpieces is whats needed for the rest of the industry to take notice then I'm all for it.
Just for myself I'll not call something a masterpiece if there are some relatively big improvements to be made, despite them being massive upgrades on what we already have. Praise them to high heavens, but mention what should be improved (just in case) so those who make the next genre-defining game can pick up on those minor details.

 

[Maagge]

Still great games, and just minor inconveniences (well, I think the itemization in TW3 is a big issue but that's more down to me loving the old Diablo 2 way of finding usable equipment every now and then), but they do keep me from calling them a masterpiece even though I wouldn't necessarily take away from their ratings.

Out of curiosity, which games would you label masterpieces, if any?

I've been wondering when to get this game as I got the Switch for Christmas. I'm a bit afraid that I'll become recluse when I buy it though, so the timing needs to be right. I have two long flights coming up within the next two weeks so i might wanna bring it on there. Plus it might be good in the hotel when I'm off duty.

 

[Ødegaard]

Out of curiosity, which games would you label masterpieces, if any?

I've been wondering when to get this game as I got the Switch for Christmas. I'm a bit afraid that I'll become recluse when I buy it though, so the timing needs to be right. I have two long flights coming up within the next two weeks so i might wanna bring it on there. Plus it might be good in the hotel when I'm off duty.

Masterpieces... That's a hard one.
I'm not one of those that plays games due to them being highly praised in general due to liking specific things and knowing I like those things.
An example of that would be how I've avoided any shooter-game, like destiny or those that have some shooting in them, like fallout and uncharted.

Bit hard to explain, but jrpg/old-school rpgs are my favorites. Think FF6-9, Shadow Hearts 1-2, Breath of Fire 3 & the Legend of Dragoon. But I know there are faults in those games. FF6 is the closest of those, but I feel it's a bit saturated with playable characters, and it certainly doesn't hold up against the RPGS of today with the innovations that have been done over time in terms of graphics.

Maybe Bloodborne, by from software (action rpg in the Dark Souls mould)... But then, I'm not a pvp-player and I think there was too many (again saturation) main-chalice dungeons. I think they should have made the chalice dungeons a bigger addition to the story. Say a off-branched dlc-like story that ventures through the main-chalice dungeons in order to find out about queen Yharnham and what happened around that time, but shortened down the number of chalices you had to run to get to the queen.

Note: Also keep in mind that despite me saying that Bloodborne is closer to a masterpiece, I enjoyed Nioh more, despite it just being it's own spin on how from software made their games that defined the genre.

If it helps I do think there are a fair lot of genre defining or close-to-masterpiece games out there if you're able to look past the limits of their times and like the stuff that defines their genres.

 

[Redlambs]

Agree with that. They should be praised, and if calling them masterpieces is whats needed for the rest of the industry to take notice then I'm all for it.
Just for myself I'll not call something a masterpiece if there are some relatively big improvements to be made, despite them being massive upgrades on what we already have. Praise them to high heavens, but mention what should be improved (just in case) so those who make the next genre-defining game can pick up on those minor details.

Oh believe me, the industry has noticed, people who make games are the biggest game players of anyone. There's loads of videos of developers, including the big guns, talking about Zelda and what they've achieved for example. It's covered

It's more a case that the word Masterpiece can mean anything really. For me it's not just about defining moments in gaming, which both clearly are, but more about doing something that's never been done before to a ridiculously high level that it should be the bar set for all future titles and just be huge achievements. Both are the standard setters for very different reasons, and are what everything else similar should be aspiring to. Something like Horizon, although a great game in it's own right, falls short of what these games do even though it emulates both to a degree. That right there is the difference for me between a great and a Masterpiece. Something that sets the bar, rather than something that merely gets close to touching it.

Out of curiosity, which games would you label masterpieces, if any?

I've been wondering when to get this game as I got the Switch for Christmas. I'm a bit afraid that I'll become recluse when I buy it though, so the timing needs to be right. I have two long flights coming up within the next two weeks so i might wanna bring it on there. Plus it might be good in the hotel when I'm off duty.

TBF it is a game you can jump in and out of. It's addictive sure, but you won't forget how to play or can't jump back in after a break.

 

[Sweet Square]

This is the best Metal Gear Solid 5 clone I've played in ages. Great game

 

[Redlambs]

Masterpieces... That's a hard one.
I'm not one of those that plays games due to them being highly praised in general due to liking specific things and knowing I like those things.
An example of that would be how I've avoided any shooter-game, like destiny or those that have some shooting in them, like fallout and uncharted.

Bit hard to explain, but jrpg/old-school rpgs are my favorites. Think FF6-9, Shadow Hearts 1-2, Breath of Fire 3 & the Legend of Dragoon. But I know there are faults in those games. FF6 is the closest of those, but I feel it's a bit saturated with playable characters, and it certainly doesn't hold up against the RPGS of today with the innovations that have been done over time in terms of graphics.

Maybe Bloodborne, by from software (action rpg in the Dark Souls mould)... But then, I'm not a pvp-player and I think there was too many (again saturation) main-chalice dungeons. I think they should have made the chalice dungeons a bigger addition to the story. Say a off-branched dlc-like story that ventures through the main-chalice dungeons in order to find out about queen Yharnham and what happened around that time, but shortened down the number of chalices you had to run to get to the queen.

If it helps I do think there are a fair lot of genre defining or close-to-masterpiece games out there if you're able to look past the limits of their times and like the stuff that defines their genres.

You've raised another point that I disagree with, that the thought a great game can degrade over time. FF6 is a true great, an absolute masterpiece of game creation. Just because times have moved on, it still stands shoulder to shoulder with the greats. Technology moves on, but that doesn't mean that everything becomes obsolete. Films, music, games, there are just some things that are timeless.

Stuff like Bloodborne has no chance for me. I love that game, but it did nothing new or interesting enough to even be mentioned in the same breath. Do I think it's a great game? Yes, yes I do, of all the games my missus has on PS4 (including Witcher, Yakuza, TLou) it is by far my favourite. However it did nothing to really set it apart from it's peers, in fact it's basically a spin off that is tailored to the console crowd and in fact is watered down for me. I'd absolutely love a sequel though

This is the best Metal Gear Solid 5 clone I've played in ages. Great game

Nice try! Should have posted that last night when I was drinking, I'd have had fun with this

 

[Ødegaard]

Oh believe me, the industry has noticed, people who make games are the biggest game players of anyone. There's loads of videos of developers, including the big guns, talking about Zelda and what they've achieved for example. It's covered

It's more a case that the word Masterpiece can mean anything really. For me it's not just about defining moments in gaming, which both clearly are, but more about doing something that's never been done before to a ridiculously high level that it should be the bar set for all future titles and just be huge achievements. Both are the standard setters for very different reasons, and are what everything else similar should be aspiring to. Something like Horizon, although a great game in it's own right, falls short of what these games do even though it emulates both to a degree. That right there is the difference for me between a great and a Masterpiece. Something that sets the bar, rather than something that merely gets close to touching it.




TBF it is a game you can jump in and out of. It's addictive sure, but you won't forget how to play or can't jump back in after a break.

This is really why I haven't picked up Horizon.
I don't generally like "ubisoft games" like Assassins Creed.
I enjoyed Black Flag loads because of the setting, but without something that specific to pull me in, i'll just skip it altogether if it comes across as "another one of those games". Zelda on the other hand has looked unique enough for me to want to try it, which was partly why I got the switch console alongside wanting to play Super Mario Odyssey and Xenoblade 2.

My main reason being that I don't like the direction of PS4 and XboX games heading more towards lootboxes and pay2win games. Hell, they (activision/ea) add that stuff even in single-player games.

 

[Ødegaard]

You've raised another point that I disagree with, that the thought a great game can degrade over time. FF6 is a true great, an absolute masterpiece of game creation. Just because times have moved on, it still stands shoulder to shoulder with the greats. Technology moves on, but that doesn't mean that everything becomes obsolete. Films, music, games, there are just some things that are timeless.

Stuff like Bloodborne has no chance for me. I love that game, but it did nothing new or interesting enough to even be mentioned in the same breath. Do I think it's a great game? Yes, yes I do, of all the games my missus has on PS4 (including Witcher, Yakuza, TLou) it is by far my favourite. However it did nothing to really set it apart from it's peers, in fact it's basically a spin off that is tailored to the console crowd and in fact is watered down for me. I'd absolutely love a sequel though




Nice try! Should have posted that last night when I was drinking, I'd have had fun with this

Suppose it's how I formulated it. FF6 is a genre-defining game and for me, the graphics is a non-issue. But for people who will go from todays graphics to how it was back then without a bit of nostalgia of those kind of games, they'll struggle to get the same experience as we did back then.
So the game doesn't get degraded, but the potentially new audience will have a harder time than we did to get into it due to technological advancements.

 

[Sweet Square]

Nice try! Should have posted that last night when I was drinking, I'd have had fun with this

Thanks.


It was at the start of that mission with the bananas that I thought feck this is completely a kojima game, you use the bananas in the same way you use dirty magazines in metal gear.

 

[Redlambs]

This is really why I haven't picked up Horizon.
I don't generally like "ubisoft games" like Assassins Creed.
I enjoyed Black Flag loads because of the setting, but without something that specific to pull me in, i'll just skip it altogether if it comes across as "another one of those games". Zelda on the other hand has looked unique enough for me to want to try it, which was partly why I got the switch console alongside wanting to play Super Mario Odyssey and Xenoblade 2.

My main reason being that I don't like the direction of PS4 and XboX games heading more towards lootboxes and pay2win games. Hell, they (activision/ea) add that stuff even in single-player games.

It is a great game though, you'd definitely like it. If anything it shows Zelda in a new light too, I think I'd have liked it more if I hadn't been spoiled by the Zelda world before playing it tbf

Suppose it's how I formulated it. FF6 is a genre-defining game and for me, the graphics is a non-issue. But for people who will go from todays graphics to how it was back then without a bit of nostalgia of those kind of games, they'll struggle to get the same experience as we did back then.
So the game doesn't get degraded, but the potentially new audience will have a harder time than we did to get into it due to technological advancements.

Yes that's true, however, that doesn't change the fact it's an all time genre defining moment and a true masterpiece for me. Without that moment, rpgs wouldn't be the same, I've no doubt about that.

 

[Redlambs]

Thanks.


It was at the start of that mission with the bananas that I thought feck this is completely a kojima game, you use the bananas in the same way you use dirty magazines in metal gear.

I'm not a fan of the MG series at all, I appreciate them for what they are, but they just aren't for me. Kojima is a crazy mf though, absolute legend

 

[Sweet Square]

I'm not a fan of the MG series at all, I appreciate them for what they are, but they just aren't for me. Kojima is a crazy mf though, absolute legend

Yeah I'm not massive fan of them either, most people hate MGS5 as it has no story which for me is the reason I like it(The less of Kojima god awful story telling the better)but was it funny to certain Metal Gear aspects pop up in Zelda.

 

[Ødegaard]

It is a great game though, you'd definitely like it. If anything it shows Zelda in a new light too, I think I'd have liked it more if I hadn't been spoiled by the Zelda world before playing it tbf




Yes that's true, however, that doesn't change the fact it's an all time genre defining moment and a true masterpiece for me. Without that moment, rpgs wouldn't be the same, I've no doubt about that.

We agree on that, but where you (by my assumptions) think it needs to be something relatively new and defining to be a masterpiece I need it to have what I think is a "perfect balance in what it does" or something to that extent. Which is why I can rate Bloodborne as closer to a masterpiece than Dark souls despite Dark souls being the one that defined the genre (edit, i forgot demon souls). Dark souls had a lot of issues with menus and stuff like that which got ironed out in large parts in order to make what was closer to a masterpiece in Bloodborne, in my opinion. Rarely will you get anything close to a masterpiece without having a genre-defining game beforehand, which is why it's amazing when games like BotW & TW3 comes along and almost gets there immediately.

Sadly for FF6, it's more of a case of a "should have been genre-defining" than actually being genre-defining. As good a story as FF7-8 were and other games coming out after FF6 in the rpg-genre, they didn't stand up to the storytelling of FF6.

I suppose on afterthought, i think FF9 is a masterpiece. Didn't really bring anything new, but did the final fantasy stuff perfectly (unless I've forgotten issues with it).

 

[Maagge]

Masterpieces... That's a hard one.
I'm not one of those that plays games due to them being highly praised in general due to liking specific things and knowing I like those things.
An example of that would be how I've avoided any shooter-game, like destiny or those that have some shooting in them, like fallout and uncharted.

Bit hard to explain, but jrpg/old-school rpgs are my favorites. Think FF6-9, Shadow Hearts 1-2, Breath of Fire 3 & the Legend of Dragoon. But I know there are faults in those games. FF6 is the closest of those, but I feel it's a bit saturated with playable characters, and it certainly doesn't hold up against the RPGS of today with the innovations that have been done over time in terms of graphics.

Maybe Bloodborne, by from software (action rpg in the Dark Souls mould)... But then, I'm not a pvp-player and I think there was too many (again saturation) main-chalice dungeons. I think they should have made the chalice dungeons a bigger addition to the story. Say a off-branched dlc-like story that ventures through the main-chalice dungeons in order to find out about queen Yharnham and what happened around that time, but shortened down the number of chalices you had to run to get to the queen.

Note: Also keep in mind that despite me saying that Bloodborne is closer to a masterpiece, I enjoyed Nioh more, despite it just being it's own spin on how from software made their games that defined the genre.

If it helps I do think there are a fair lot of genre defining or close-to-masterpiece games out there if you're able to look past the limits of their times and like the stuff that defines their genres.

It seems like you treat a "masterpiece" as being somewhat in the realm of utopia. I totally get your reasoning it's just funny to see how definitions differ, and personally I don't really see the point in having a term that can't really be used as most games are flawed in some way. It's a bit like having a rating scale where you refuse to use the best rating. Anyway...

TBF it is a game you can jump in and out of. It's addictive sure, but you won't forget how to play or can't jump back in after a break.

That's good to know, I rarely have time for prolonged gaming sessions these days so something I can play for an hour here and there is always good.

 

[Redlambs]

We agree on that, but where you (by my assumptions) think it needs to be something relatively new and defining to be a masterpiece I need it to have what I think is a "perfect balance in what it does" or something to that extent. Which is why I can rate Bloodborne as closer to a masterpiece than Dark souls despite Dark souls being the one that defined the genre (edit, i forgot demon souls). Dark souls had a lot of issues with menus and stuff like that which got ironed out in large parts in order to make what was closer to a masterpiece in Bloodborne, in my opinion. Rarely will you get anything close to a masterpiece without having a genre-defining game beforehand, which is why it's amazing when games like BotW & TW3 comes along and almost gets there immediately.

Sadly for FF6, it's more of a case of a "should have been genre-defining" than actually being genre-defining. As good a story as FF7-9 were and other games coming out after FF6 in the rpg-genre, they didn't stand up to the storytelling of FF6.

I suppose on afterthought, i think FF9 is a masterpiece. Didn't really bring anything new, but did the final fantasy stuff perfectly (unless I've forgotten issues with it).

You are a big one for menus Which actually validates your point, because that's important to you and I understand it perfectly. However, for me BB sits behind the others in the series because it's watered down to me rather than seeing it as streamlined. I think what bugged me most was the lack of armour/weapons and choice. The weapon upgrades too, that was just pointless and didn't really work for me. I also think the combat was way too forgiving, but I understand why they did that (the parry system for example), it was to chase console sales, however for me I don't think doing something already done merely well is enough. Besides I'm fine with the Dark Souls inventory system and much prefer that way of upgrading/progression.

Again, I absolutely love it just like I'm seriously enjoying Nioh (again, thanks for that recommendation mate!), but neither come close to Dark Souls for me. Now that is a masterpiece, that world and the way it all connects is truly outstanding and to my knowledge has yet to be beaten in the shear brilliance of how it all interlinks together. That's something that took serious talent and imagination to pull of, it's something that to this day is hard to replicate which is why nothing quite lives up to it. Plus, even though Demon Souls did it first, DS1 took the idea of true difficulty and reward for being good and made it a genuine new way to make games. I mean, even Zelda has borrowed from the combat, that's how defining that game is.

BB merely took the formula and made it sell-able on console, that's exactly what they aimed for and exactly what they got. Polished? Yes. Great? Yes. Perhaps my favourite PS4 game to date? Yes. But to me, it's not up there.

 

[Ødegaard]

You are a big one for menus Which actually validates your point, because that's important to you and I understand it perfectly. However, for me BB sits behind the others in the series because it's watered down to me rather than seeing it as streamlined. I think what bugged me most was the lack of armour/weapons and choice. The weapon upgrades too, that was just pointless and didn't really work for me. I also think the combat was way too forgiving, but I understand why they did that (the parry system for example), it was to chase console sales, however for me I don't think doing something already done merely well is enough. Besides I'm fine with the Dark Souls inventory system and much prefer that way of upgrading/progression.

Again, I absolutely love it just like I'm seriously enjoying Nioh (again, thanks for that recommendation mate!), but neither come close to Dark Souls for me. Now that is a masterpiece, that world and the way it all connects is truly outstanding and to my knowledge has yet to be beaten in the shear brilliance of how it all interlinks together. That's something that took serious talent and imagination to pull of, it's something that to this day is hard to replicate which is why nothing quite lives up to it. Plus, even though Demon Souls did it first, DS1 took the idea of true difficulty and reward for being good and made it a genuine new way to make games. I mean, even Zelda has borrowed from the combat, that's how defining that game is.

BB merely took the formula and made it sell-able on console, that's exactly what they aimed for and exactly what they got. Polished? Yes. Great? Yes. Perhaps my favourite PS4 game to date? Yes. But to me, it's not up there.

I'm a jrpg-lover. Menus is love, menus is life.
Doesn't have to be extremely stylish as persona 5 for example, but I need it to feel like it isn't a issue towards the game-play that could be upgraded upon. For example, on the menus part I would comment on that on BotW if it wasn't for the type of game. If it was meant to be more of a open-world dark-souls game or I took it as one, I'd say it's a negative that we don't have a quick-eat menu since food becomes the same as health-potions or antidotes from that genre.
In the example used before, I think a issue in DS1 was how it was harder to organize and find the weapon or armor you wanted than in DS2. Fast-switching or just having the option to see and compare the stats you want became harder in DS1 than it had to be and was rightly upgraded.

When it comes to Bloodborne being watered down I just disagree, really.
There were sets for anti-poison, anti-frenzy, anti-physical, anti-blood etc etc. I think it was fine. Difference between Bloodborne & say Dark Souls on the armor-front was more how you could upgrade the armor you liked in Dark Souls, while the focus in game-play on Bloodborne had shifted a lot from the slow fighting mechanic of DS where poise mattered into a "hunters game" where your ability to dodge or counter was more at the forefront of the gameplay, meaning the importance of armor itself due to game-design was less important but still had an importance on if you wanted to be able to take a physical hit, last longer vs lanterns or other frienzy enemies or wanted to have more resistance vs poison buildup etc.
They still had that to some degree in the DS-games, but bleed for example as the alternative to frienzy was absolutely dogshit in the DS-games, so the importance of upgraded equipment got changed to specified equipment if you wanted to have a upper-hand of the place you were traversing. Of course leaving high skill to be the key to neither upgraded or specified armor being important at all.

I think another negative on Bloodborne mechanics-wise is blood-vials to some degree being something you farmed for. Although I never had that issue, I've heard and read others speak about it as one, so I believe it could be. DS2 took it too far where you really had unlimited healing, while DS1 kind of forced you to interact with bonfires to fill your sunny-d's. Bloodborne was the middle-road where you had healing coming as you played by killing enemies that dropped blood-vials.
I think the healing-by-counter mechanic it was brilliant because it gave the option for players to either go in for the kill and reduce danger (dead enemies don't fight back) while healing back up (incentivizing risk-taking) or take the route of getting out of the way but forefeiting that health you lost by your own fault.

Dark souls in comparison... The first item it gives you is the shield. The second it gives you is a weapon to fight back with. It already at the beginning incentivizes you to hide behind a shield as you can nullify the damage that it scares you with with it's title "prepare to die edition". Those incentives makes for two completely different game-plays, where only one can be taken to the other game and succeed.

It seems like you treat a "masterpiece" as being somewhat in the realm of utopia. I totally get your reasoning it's just funny to see how definitions differ, and personally I don't really see the point in having a term that can't really be used as most games are flawed in some way. It's a bit like having a rating scale where you refuse to use the best rating. Anyway...

That's good to know, I rarely have time for prolonged gaming sessions these days so something I can play for an hour here and there is always good.

Yeah. I do keep that in mind though when rating games. I can call something a 10/10 without seeing it as a masterpiece because there is more to talking about a game than just smacking numbers on it. If it's a "must play for those who like the genre" it gets a max score. Then I can go more in depth about small quirks that annoys in that part of the "review" or wax lyricals all over it and say it's a masterpiece without flaws in my opinion.
A lot of people will keep that max score away from anything that isn't perfect, and I too find that tendency annoying. But I can see how people don't like my way of speaking of games, but it's the way I feel comfortable with.

 

[Redlambs]

I'm a jrpg-lover. Menus is love, menus is life.
Doesn't have to be extremely stylish as persona 5 for example, but I need it to feel like it isn't a issue towards the game-play that could be upgraded upon. For example, on the menus part I would comment on that on BotW if it wasn't for the type of game. If it was meant to be more of a open-world dark-souls game or I took it as one, I'd say it's a negative that we don't have a quick-eat menu since food becomes the same as health-potions or antidotes from that genre.
In the example used before, I think a issue in DS1 was how it was harder to organize and find the weapon or armor you wanted than in DS2. Fast-switching or just having the option to see and compare the stats you want became harder in DS1 than it had to be and was rightly upgraded.

That's fair, but then again you keep looking to what should have been based on the sequels and not what was. I had absolutely no problem with Dark Souls menu, that's in no way saying it was perfect mind you, which it wasn't (very far from it), but the game was in no way affected by it for me and I can easily go back and play it all again with no issue.

When it comes to Bloodborne being watered down I just disagree, really.
There were sets for anti-poison, anti-frenzy, anti-physical, anti-blood etc etc. I think it was fine. Difference between Bloodborne & say Dark Souls on the armor-front was more how you could upgrade the armor you liked in Dark Souls, while the focus in game-play on Bloodborne had shifted a lot from the slow fighting mechanic of DS where poise mattered into a "hunters game" where your ability to dodge or counter was more at the forefront of the gameplay, meaning the importance of armor itself due to game-design was less important but still had an importance on if you wanted to be able to take a physical hit, last longer vs lanterns or other frienzy enemies or wanted to have more resistance vs poison buildup etc.
They still had that to some degree in the DS-games, but bleed for example as the alternative to frienzy was absolutely dogshit in the DS-games, so the importance of upgraded equipment got changed to specified equipment if you wanted to have a upper-hand of the place you were traversing. Of course leaving high skill to be the key to neither upgraded or specified armor being important at all.

I think another negative on Bloodborne mechanics-wise is blood-vials to some degree being something you farmed for. Although I never had that issue, I've heard and read others speak about it as one, so I believe it could be. DS2 took it too far where you really had unlimited healing, while DS1 kind of forced you to interact with bonfires to fill your sunny-d's. Bloodborne was the middle-road where you had healing coming as you played by killing enemies that dropped blood-vials.
I think the healing-by-counter mechanic it was brilliant because it gave the option for players to either go in for the kill and reduce danger (dead enemies don't fight back) while healing back up (incentivizing risk-taking) or take the route of getting out of the way but forefeiting that health you lost by your own fault.

But that's the problem with BB, you have specifics for specific situations. But you don't really have the choice to just fully tailor to what you want to do, the armour being the biggest example as it's scenario dependent and nothing more. It's literally all the same bar buffing you for the next thing you face. The weapon upgrades are even worse, as it's just adding in those silly gems depending on the situation. With the Souls games, you tailor to your style and be done with it, I like that much more than finding the gem you need for the next bit, then swapping it out when you are done. It just feels more arcadey to me.

Dark souls in comparison... The first item it gives you is the shield. The second it gives you is a weapon to fight back with. It already at the beginning incentivizes you to hide behind a shield as you can nullify the damage that it scares you with with it's title "prepare to die edition". Those incentives makes for two completely different game-plays, where only one can be taken to the other game and succeed.

That's because you like to (and this really isn't a dig at all!) level up and tank. The old "hiding behind a shield" criticism is one that annoys me, because I never did with DS. I used my shield for parry and parry alone, i just mastered the weapons and (I'm sorry for this ) Got gud. Like with Zelda, I struggle to see how you think the fighting is one dimensional when it clearly isn't, every single enemy has a fighting type and every weapon something unique that you really can learn if you put the effort in. It isn't a game for farming and just overpowering, much like DS wasn't really about that. BB on the other hand seriously limits the style of fighting and it basically comes down to fast attacking rather than actual battle management. It descends to a button bashing version of DS at times for people, and again I totally get why they did that, but for me I just simply like variation and to earn my wins.

The fact is both Dark Souls series and Zelda give opportunities to vary your style as much as you want, BB never did. Sure I can appreciate you liking that more focused style, but to me it's limiting. But that still sounds so negative towards a game I really did enjoy and can't wait for a sequel for

 

[Ødegaard]

That's fair, but then again you keep looking to what should have been based on the sequels and not what was. I had absolutely no problem with Dark Souls menu, that's in no way saying it was perfect mind you, which it wasn't (very far from it), but the game was in no way affected by it for me and I can easily go back and play it all again with no issue.

I was late to the party, but even during my first travel through Lordran I thought the menus while usable needed upgrades, but again as we mentioned before it's something I do care a lot about, so was more noticeable for me than it was for you. It wasn't something that came to me when playing the other games, but since I was able to play them in succession it was more highlighted once I started on the next game.

But that's the problem with BB, you have specifics for specific situations. But you don't really have the choice to just fully tailor to what you want to do, the armour being the biggest example as it's scenario dependent and nothing more. It's literally all the same bar buffing you for the next thing you face. The weapon upgrades are even worse, as it's just adding in those silly gems depending on the situation. With the Souls games, you tailor to your style and be done with it, I like that much more than finding the gem you need for the next bit, then swapping it out when you are done. It just feels more arcadey to me.

But that's really not a problem though?
You can still dodge through and kill lanterns without frenzy armor, you can still get through poison areas without the use of armor to detract uses of BB's equivalent of an antidote and if you wasn't good enough to kill the enemies that made you poisoned you could still use an antidote to remedy that mistake. Just as in Dark Souls. Most without a extreme-strengths (and weaknesses) had balanced enough stats to make anything usable in those situations. If we're talking arcadey then surely Dark Souls "need" to upgrade every equipment to the level you have your other sets at and makes it the more arcadey of the two, since you have to go back and farm to upgrade new equipment or buy it with souls just to make it usable - which again is less of a issue because Bloodborne forces you to learn how to dodge whereas Dark Souls tells you to hide behind a shield and take it slow and steady.
Mind, I obviously love to farm so for me that's not a issue, but these games are more geared towards people who want to push forward through difficulty and learn mechanics than to farm themselves "overpowered". I just happen to be able to enjoy grinding due to my preference of jrpg-like games.

 

[Ødegaard]

Forgot to address the weapon/gem-criticism, @Redlambs.
I think it could have been done better, absolutely. But at the same time I think Dark Souls (and especially DS2) was saturated with unneeded upgrade-paths on tons of different weapons within the same category.
After all most people would find out that there are weapons that are just better than others so they'd google or try to find that "best one" and upgrade that with the optimal path.
Say you find a broadsword or something like that and then find the bss, you'll have two similar weapons where one is superior to the other. And then you'll find weapons that are worse than the one you have if you get the BSS early on and they'll add nothing for you. In Bloodborne most weapons are unique in moveset. There are less, but more within those weapons due to them also having two weapons in one with their "released state" (can't remember the term).

How many times did you make a fire weapon, a magic weapon or a divine weapon? Especially if you knew lightning was meta or standard upgrades would see you be perfectly fine even if they changed stuff in a patch?
If anything that saturation for a slightly increased damage vs specific enemies or bosses were unneeded in a game that bases it's difficulty in how skilled/knowledgable you are against the enemies positions and movesets/A.I.

While I do think gems in Bloodborne itself was just a way to add a minor bonus against enemies, I think more of it as a improvement upon that "diverse way of crafting your equipement" in DS that I felt was unneeded for locking that specific weapon to it. I think the distribution of those gems could be improved upon so that you don't have to farm for a specific one, because just as I think DS had saturated ways of upgrading-ways I think the sheer number of gems in Bloodborne was a bit much due to them being generated on enemy-kill instead of being in specific places like runes.

 

[Redlambs]

I was late to the party, but even during my first travel through Lordran I thought the menus while usable needed upgrades, but again as we mentioned before it's something I do care a lot about, so was more noticeable for me than it was for you. It wasn't something that came to me when playing the other games, but since I was able to play them in succession it was more highlighted once I started on the next game.


But that's really not a problem though?
You can still dodge through and kill lanterns without frenzy armor, you can still get through poison areas without the use of armor to detract uses of BB's equivalent of an antidote and if you wasn't good enough to kill the enemies that made you poisoned you could still use an antidote to remedy that mistake. Just as in Dark Souls. Most without a extreme-strengths (and weaknesses) had balanced enough stats to make anything usable in those situations. If we're talking arcadey then surely Dark Souls "need" to upgrade every equipment to the level you have your other sets at and makes it the more arcadey of the two, since you have to go back and farm to upgrade new equipment or buy it with souls just to make it usable - which again is less of a issue because Bloodborne forces you to learn how to dodge whereas Dark Souls tells you to hide behind a shield and take it slow and steady.
Mind, I obviously love to farm so for me that's not a issue, but these games are more geared towards people who want to push forward through difficulty and learn mechanics than to farm themselves "overpowered". I just happen to be able to enjoy grinding due to my preference of jrpg-like games.

No, you've missed the point I'm trying to make (and it's probably my fault for being shit at it!) entirely. You DON'T need to farm and upgrade in DS, in fact I don't think you do in BB either, but you CAN tailor the game to how you want because you have options and choice. I found BB limited in that option, all the armour is basically aesthetic with the odd buff you need, and there's very little weapon choice. That the whole point, they even said so themselves, they scaled it all back to make the combat fast and fluid to suit the console.

This is why I will always say you've missed out on the best DS1 has to offer by grinding yourself to huge levels to beat the bosses, because for me the greatest rewards have been learning the game and winning by figuring out my own style. That's in no way again, and I stress this, a slight on you and how you like to play, but it's the reason I think how I do about these games. I totally get what you are saying and what you mean, I understand you love spending hours grinding to overpower things and move forward, to you doing what I do is tedious and I get that. That's great and what makes these games so fantastic, that we can be the opposite ends but still love them, but you also have to try to understand my point of view. I love having the freedom to do whatever I want, to go up against Havel naked with just a stick and feck him up, to face down Ornstein and Smough with a basic sword and die a hundred times, smash my controller up and have an argument with my missus because she fecking laughed at me being so pathetic over a game...then being absolutely vindicated when I finally took them down because I perfected what I did, rather than simply leveling up.


This is a great example of differing opinions though, isn't it? We are both huge fans of exactly the same games, but for different reasons

And I am a huge fan of BB and I'm loving Nioh, both are far better than most else I've played in recent years. In fact, both would even be above Odyssey and I really think I've played both for more consecutive hours than I even played BotW. Neither hold a candle to Dark Souls and what that game did and continues todo for gaming though, not for me.

Forgot to address the weapon/gem-criticism, @Redlambs.
I think it could have been done better, absolutely. But at the same time I think Dark Souls (and especially DS2) was saturated with unneeded upgrade-paths on tons of different weapons within the same category.
After all most people would find out that there are weapons that are just better than others so they'd google or try to find that "best one" and upgrade that with the optimal path.
Say you find a broadsword or something like that and then find the bss, you'll have two similar weapons where one is superior to the other. And then you'll find weapons that are worse than the one you have if you get the BSS early on and they'll add nothing for you. In Bloodborne most weapons are unique in moveset. There are less, but more within those weapons due to them also having two weapons in one with their "released state" (can't remember the term).

How many times did you make a fire weapon, a magic weapon or a divine weapon? Especially if you knew lightning was meta or standard upgrades would see you be perfectly fine even if they changed stuff in a patch?
If anything that saturation for a slightly increased damage vs specific enemies or bosses were unneeded in a game that bases it's difficulty in how skilled/knowledgable you are against the enemies positions and movesets/A.I.

While I do think gems in Bloodborne itself was just a way to add a minor bonus against enemies, I think more of it as a improvement upon that "diverse way of crafting your equipement" in DS that I felt was unneeded for locking that specific weapon to it. I think the distribution of those gems could be improved upon so that you don't have to farm for a specific one, because just as I think DS had saturated ways of upgrading-ways I think the sheer number of gems in Bloodborne was a bit much due to them being generated on enemy-kill instead of being in specific places like runes.

But you see, that's because you get involved in all the online stuff about how to beat things and what to do. I don't, it's just two different gameplay styles.

I loved using different weapons in DS to get to where I wanted to be, BB limits that it just gives you the option to change your weapon to suit the next battle. I prefer variation and learning new skills over buffing, all day long.

 

[Ødegaard]

No, you've missed the point I'm trying to make (and it's probably my fault for being shit at it!) entirely. You DON'T need to farm and upgrade in DS, in fact I don't think you do in BB either, but you CAN tailor the game to how you want because you have options and choice. I found BB limited in that option, all the armour is basically aesthetic with the odd buff you need, and there's very little weapon choice. That the whole point, they even said so themselves, they scaled it all back to make the combat fast and fluid to suit the console.

This is why I will always say you've missed out on the best DS1 has to offer by grinding yourself to huge levels to beat the bosses, because for me the greatest rewards have been learning the game and winning by figuring out my own style. That's in no way again, and I stress this, a slight on you and how you like to play, but it's the reason I think how I do about these games. I totally get what you are saying and what you mean, I understand you love spending hours grinding to overpower things and move forward, to you doing what I do is tedious and I get that. That's great and what makes these games so fantastic, that we can be the opposite ends but still love them, but you also have to try to understand my point of view. I love having the freedom to do whatever I want, to go up against Havel naked with just a stick and feck him up, to face down Ornstein and Smough with a basic sword and die a hundred times, smash my controller up and have an argument with my missus because she fecking laughed at me being so pathetic over a game...then being absolutely vindicated when I finally took them down because I perfected what I did, rather than simply leveling up.


This is a great example of differing opinions though, isn't it? We are both huge fans of exactly the same games, but for different reasons

And I am a huge fan of BB and I'm loving Nioh, both are far better than most else I've played in recent years. In fact, both would even be above Odyssey and I really think I've played both for more consecutive hours than I even played BotW. Neither hold a candle to Dark Souls and what that game did and continues todo for gaming though, not for me.




But you see, that's because you get involved in all the online stuff about how to beat things and what to do. I don't, it's just two different gameplay styles.

I loved using different weapons in DS to get to where I wanted to be, BB limits that it just gives you the option to change your weapon to suit the next battle. I prefer variation and learning new skills over buffing, all day long.

Yeah, I understand it's a difference in how you want to play.
I'm just arguing why Bloodborne to me is closer to what I'd call a masterpiece than Dark Souls is, despite Dark Souls defining the genre.
I do know I'm missing out on the experimental headaches with the way I go about things, and respect that others want to do that. Hell, I wouldn't be able to enjoy these games as much if it weren't for people who share their experimentation.

For the record, I think genre-defining games is something one can agree on from a "objective point of view", but a game being a masterpiece or not will almost always be down to subjective likes, dislikes and where we put importance of things (if we could even agree on definition as a starting point).
I think genre-defining games are more important in the larger scheme of things than having a masterpiece.

 

[Redlambs]

Apart from New Donk City though.

I dare anyone to come up with a single more feel-good impressive level than what they did there. Ridiculous creativity.

 

[Redlambs]

Yeah, I understand it's a difference in how you want to play.
I'm just arguing why Bloodborne to me is closer to what I'd call a masterpiece than Dark Souls is, despite Dark Souls defining the genre.
I do know I'm missing out on the experimental headaches with the way I go about things, and respect that others want to do that. Hell, I wouldn't be able to enjoy these games as much if it weren't for people who share their experimentation.

For the record, I think genre-defining games is something one can agree on from a "objective point of view", but a game being a masterpiece or not will almost always be down to subjective likes, dislikes and where we put importance of things (if we could even agree on definition as a starting point).
I think genre-defining games are more important in the larger scheme of things than having a masterpiece.

Whereas I don't think they are mutually exclusive. BB hasn't defined a genre, DS has. That's why every game since is referred to a 'souls-lite' rather than 'borne-lite'.

Demon Souls started it all, but isn't really referred to as what really pushed everything on, it wasn't until DS1 and that world that cemented the genre and how to do things. BB and it's console-orientated stature and console exclusivity may have made step into mainstream, but that still hasn't proven to work yet, hence why the sequel (and it is coming) isn't at the forefront of the plans. What has worked is that even Nintendo themselves are taking cues from the souls games, which brings us neatly back around to the thread

 

[Ødegaard]

Whereas I don't think they are mutually exclusive. BB hasn't defined a genre, DS has. That's why every game since is referred to a 'souls-lite' rather than 'borne-lite'.

Demon Souls started it all, but isn't really referred to as what really pushed everything on, it wasn't until DS1 and that world that cemented the genre and how to do things. BB and it's console-orientated stature and console exclusivity may have made step into mainstream, but that still hasn't proven to work yet, hence why the sequel (and it is coming) isn't at the forefront of the plans. What has worked is that even Nintendo themselves are taking cues from the souls games, which brings us neatly back around to the thread

I don't think they are mutually exclusive either, I just think that most often something that re-defines a genre tends to have used a lot of energy in the creative process of making it unique and often forget about those finishing touches. I'm fine with us having a minor disagreement on it though.

For the record, Nioh is a bb-lite, not a ds-lite. People often confusingly start with ds-lite because it's the first.

 

[Vidyoyo]

This is really why I haven't picked up Horizon.
I don't generally like "ubisoft games" like Assassins Creed.
I enjoyed Black Flag loads because of the setting, but without something that specific to pull me in, i'll just skip it altogether if it comes across as "another one of those games". Zelda on the other hand has looked unique enough for me to want to try it, which was partly why I got the switch console alongside wanting to play Super Mario Odyssey and Xenoblade 2.

My main reason being that I don't like the direction of PS4 and XboX games heading more towards lootboxes and pay2win games. Hell, they (activision/ea) add that stuff even in single-player games.

I can get behind this. I feel like Ubisoft and EA are making their games to be more like social media feeds - loads of content just for the sake of more content. By contrast, BotW feels simple. I don't know if Nintendo were purposefully trying to rebel against modern tropes of RPGs but it feels that way to me.

The Witcher 3 sort of goes the other way. Loads of content but it's handled well and feels like they put a lot of thought into why it should be there.

 

[Redlambs]

I don't think they are mutually exclusive either, I just think that most often something that re-defines a genre tends to have used a lot of energy in the creative process of making it unique and often forget about those finishing touches. I'm fine with us having a minor disagreement on it though.

For the record, Nioh is a bb-lite, not a ds-lite. People often confusingly start with ds-lite because it's the first.

Is it though? That's just what you want to call it. I could argue BB is souls-lite, but I won't :tongue:

In any case, it kind of makes sense to me why you struggle to get in to Zelda as much as something like Witcher or BB. They are both very driven games in that you know what you need to do, you know what tools you have to get there and you can level up and do whatever it takes to complete that goal and move on to the next. Whereas in Zelda, it's basically like a playground and you can be creative and just do what you like, yet can't exactly farm. It's a very different style, is that fair to say?

I can get behind this. I feel like Ubisoft and EA are making their games to be more like social media feeds - loads of content just for the sake of more content. By contrast, BotW feels simple. I don't know if Nintendo were purposefully trying to rebel against modern tropes of RPGs but it feels that way to me.

The Witcher 3 sort of goes the other way. Loads of content but it's handled well and feels like they put a lot of thought into why it should be there.

Coupled with your earlier post, have you actually played the game? No offense to you, but I'm not getting your angle, perhaps I've miss understood.

Going from point A-B may be simple enough, it's what the game gives you to play with that takes it well beyond. After all, if Zelda can be described as simple, the Witcher must be childs play.

 

[Ødegaard]

Is it though? That's just what you want to call it. I could argue BB is souls-lite, but I won't :tongue:

In any case, it kind of makes sense to me why you struggle to get in to Zelda as much as something like Witcher or BB. They are both very driven games in that you know what you need to do, you know what tools you have to get there and you can level up and do whatever it takes to complete that goal and move on to the next. Whereas in Zelda, it's basically like a playground and you can be creative and just do what you like, yet can't exactly farm. It's a very different style, is that fair to say?




Coupled with your earlier post, have you actually played the game? No offense to you, but I'm not getting your angle, perhaps I've miss understood.

Going from point A-B may be simple enough, it's what the game gives you to play with that takes it well beyond. After all, if Zelda can be described as simple, the Witcher must be childs play.

That's fair to say, yes.
I enjoy jrpgs as I've stated a thousand times, but I do so because it's easy to pull stuff out of it as a parallel to other games. I enjoy story-driven games like TW3. I don't particularly like sandbox-playstyles like skyrim. I like concrete goals and advancements to the characters and story I can hold on to and checklist-like psychology in character-progression (but not world-exploring).

I dislike content for the sake of amount of content, but love it when it's done well. Which is why TW3 was so perfect for me in the sense that I had grown increasingly tired of seeing more and more games just bloating the map with uninteresting stuff to do like the AC-series, but it came with tons of good and enjoyable content.
in jrpg's we have the end-game grind to beat certain superbosses. It's always there. A enemy or more that isn't a must-beat but that you have to crank the grinding until another level for a while to beat. If the games progression/battle system is enjoyable I'll do that, if it's mostly just enjoyable because of the story i'll skip that.

I do think my dislike for sandboxing like GTA-games for example can make it harder for me to really enjoy that aspect of BotW, but I will be putting in the hours in hopes of getting past my particular taste there because the game has so much else to offer that is enjoyable.

 

[Ødegaard]

Is it though? That's just what you want to call it. I could argue BB is souls-lite, but I won't :tongue:

In any case, it kind of makes sense to me why you struggle to get in to Zelda as much as something like Witcher or BB. They are both very driven games in that you know what you need to do, you know what tools you have to get there and you can level up and do whatever it takes to complete that goal and move on to the next. Whereas in Zelda, it's basically like a playground and you can be creative and just do what you like, yet can't exactly farm. It's a very different style, is that fair to say?




Coupled with your earlier post, have you actually played the game? No offense to you, but I'm not getting your angle, perhaps I've miss understood.

Going from point A-B may be simple enough, it's what the game gives you to play with that takes it well beyond. After all, if Zelda can be described as simple, the Witcher must be childs play.

Think he means Zelda doesn't look bloated with uninteresting stuff to do despite gameplay-wise (without going into mechanics that makes it deeper) looking like those games that tend to be bloated. You walk around in a world instead of just aimlessly running between check-list stuff on a map.

 

[Redlambs]

That's fair to say, yes.
I enjoy jrpgs as I've stated a thousand times, but I do so because it's easy to pull stuff out of it as a parallel to other games. I enjoy story-driven games like TW3. I don't particularly like sandbox-playstyles like skyrim. I like concrete goals and advancements to the characters and story I can hold on to and checklist-like psychology in character-progression (but not world-exploring).

I dislike content for the sake of amount of content, but love it when it's done well. Which is why TW3 was so perfect for me in the sense that I had grown increasingly tired of seeing more and more games just bloating the map with uninteresting stuff to do like the AC-series, but it came with tons of good and enjoyable content.
in jrpg's we have the end-game grind to beat certain superbosses. It's always there. A enemy or more that isn't a must-beat but that you have to crank the grinding until another level for a while to beat. If the games progression/battle system is enjoyable I'll do that, if it's mostly just enjoyable because of the story i'll skip that.

I do think my dislike for sandboxing like GTA-games for example can make it harder for me to really enjoy that aspect of BotW, but I will be putting in the hours in hopes of getting past my particular taste there because the game has so much else to offer that is enjoyable.

See, this is where you have got Zelda wrong and are pre-judging it. Those little touches aren't there for the sake of it, they all mean something. The problem isn't them, it's you and just wanting to go from A-B. Now once again, I fully stress that's no dig on yourself or the type of games you like, none at all. I happen to think you have excellent taste! But it's perhaps why you misjudge this game and why you don't seem to get why others are so mad for it.

Next time you play, take an arrow and fire it at an apple in a tree and see what happens. That's not bloating, it may mean nothing in terms of your mission, but it's a small example of why this is the most cohesive world ever created in a game and why so many love the charm of it all, why it's a true masterpiece. Sure you wouldn't notice it if it wasn't there one way or another, but that's kind of the point. The fact it's in there means that the world truly is open and fluid and it all just works. That's the crux of why it's a masterpiece, you cannot say that about any other world in a game, including Witcher and Horizon.

Again to some players, they don't care and that's fine. But to others, we stop and appreciate these things and to us that's why it's such a moment in gaming history. That's fine too.

Think he means Zelda doesn't look bloated with uninteresting stuff to do despite gameplay-wise (without going into mechanics that makes it deeper) looking like those games that tend to be bloated. You walk around in a world instead of just aimlessly running between check-list stuff on a map.

I hope so. The wording seems odd, but it's just text so I think I've not grasped the point.

 

[Ødegaard]

See, this is where you have got Zelda wrong and are pre-judging it. Those little touches aren't there for the sake of it, they all mean something. The problem isn't them, it's you and just wanting to go from A-B. Now once again, I fully stress that's no dig on yourself or the type of games you like, none at all. I happen to think you have excellent taste! But it's perhaps why you misjudge this game and why you don't seem to get why others are so mad for it.

Next time you play, take an arrow and fire it at an apple in a tree and see what happens. That's not bloating, it may mean nothing in terms of your mission, but it's a small example of why this is the most cohesive world ever created in a game and why so many love the charm of it all, why it's a true masterpiece. Sure you wouldn't notice it if it wasn't there one way or another, but that's kind of the point. The fact it's in there means that the world truly is open and fluid and it all just works. That's the crux of why it's a masterpiece, you cannot say that about any other world in a game, including Witcher and Horizon.

Again to some players, they don't care and that's fine. But to others, we stop and appreciate these things and to us that's why it's such a moment in gaming history. That's fine too.





I hope so. The wording seems odd, but it's just text so I think I've not grasped the point.

Seems you are misunderstanding.
I'm not going from A to B despite having that option. I have the option of looking up where to run to get the memories I need to get further, but I'm making myself go through the game as a adventure instead of my usual story-way or looking up stuff apart from things that bother me (like when i asked if the master sword could be broken) in order to hope to get more out of it.

Also, I perfectly understand why people love BotW, or GTA, or shooters. I'm just fully aware that I tend not to, so most often skip the experience or trim it down to the kind of experience that I enjoy.

 

[Vidyoyo]

Coupled with your earlier post, have you actually played the game? No offense to you, but I'm not getting your angle, perhaps I've miss understood.

Going from point A-B may be simple enough, it's what the game gives you to play with that takes it well beyond. After all, if Zelda can be described as simple, the Witcher must be childs play.

Maybe we played it in a different way then. I spent most of my time exploring, not necessarily running through quests, shrines or photo memories in a bid to complete the main part of it. I wasn't really keeping up with weapon or potion crafting either. I especially liked how I could take my time without feeling like the game was forcing me to do things.

I suppose I'm probably framing my argument in terms of aesthetics. For me, BotW has a lot of simplicity. It's serene compared to the chaos of most action-RPGs, such as AC: Origins which I've been watching my flatmate play this week. The music, the visuals, the gameplay choices are all relatively simple and add to an experience guided more by atmosphere than content (again, if you choose to play it that way).

That's why I compared it to Journey. Somebody else mentioned Shadow of the Colossus as another example.

I hope so. The wording seems odd, but it's just text so I think I've not grasped the point.

Yeah I'm terrible at explaining myself sometimes

 

[Redlambs]

Seems you are misunderstanding.
I'm not going from A to B despite having that option. I have the option of looking up where to run to get the memories I need to get further, but I'm making myself go through the game as a adventure instead of my usual story-way or looking up stuff apart from things that bother me (like when i asked if the master sword could be broken) in order to hope to get more out of it.

Also, I perfectly understand why people love BotW, or GTA, or shooters. I'm just fully aware that I tend not to, so most often skip the experience or trim it down to the kind of experience that I enjoy.

Yeah I think we kind of both get it now

As for the weapons thing, I think you'd get used to it a bit more (and don't get me wrong, that's a system that desperately needs adjusting even I think that) as the game goes on and realise it really doesn't hinder you at all. In the early stages, hell even past the first beast or two, it seems a pain, but you really don't need to worry as the powerful weapons are so abundant and you soon realise that protecting a weapon you thought was great really wasn't worth it. I mean it's clear why they did it, it's because the combat is deeper than you realise and they want you to learn to use everything at your disposal, but it should have been a whole lot more forgiving or at least fecking mentioned that!

This is one of those things Witcher also fecks up in completely the other way though too, as in the degrading system is utterly pointless as are any other weapon than the one you have. Even mods haven't been able to fix that. It's quite amusing if you think about it, they both got it wrong in polar opposite ways

Maybe we played it in a different way then. I spent most of my time exploring, not necessarily running through quests, shrines or photo memories in a bid to complete the main part of it. I wasn't really keeping up with weapon or potion crafting either.

I suppose I'm probably framing my argument in terms of aesthetics. For me, BotW has a lot of simplicity. It's serene compared to the chaos of most action-RPGs such as AC: Origins which I've been watching my flatmate play this week. The music, the visuals, the gameplay choices are all relatively simple and add to an experience guided more by atmosphere than content (again, if you choose to play it that way).

That's why I compared it to Journey. Somebody else mentioned Shadow of the Colossus as another example.

I get you my friend, that makes sense. In terms of aesthetics I can agree. Simplistic doesn't mean simple, it means there's just not a lot of clutter and as you rightly say, chaos. It's in that serenity I just enjoy checking out all it has to offer, and it's ridiculous just how much is in there under the surface, all those little things and especially those that add up to something you can tangibly use to progress too.

And whilst both Journey and SotC might be a little too strong comparisons, this game definitely is more like them than just another open world RPG. It's purely a sandbox adventure game where you can just drift along and admire what they've created, or you can head straight to the point. As I said above about the other games we were talking about, it's that true freedom of choice that we are moving towards and that's the key to gaming these days for me, that's what now holds my attention after all these years.

 

[Earthquake]

Meh, the weapon degrading isn't much of a problem, especially once you know your way about and where some of the better weapons spawn points are.

 

[BusbyMalone]

The one thing i will say about Zelda which i really, really like is the fact that there's not much clutter on the map. I've only put about 4 hours into the game as i haven't had it for that long, so unless something drastically changes i can really appreciate that approach.

I've said on here before how much i didn't like The Witcher. There was just so much fecking clutter in the map. I think The Witcher (at least for me), was a case of a gaming almost having TOO much. I know that may sound absurd, especially considering that a lot of people seem to value a game purely for it's running time or things to do. Normally when someone asks if a game is "worth it" they're normally asking how long the game is, and how much you can do. I don't particularly like this way of thinking. There's a lot more to a games worth than simply how long and how much "stuff" there is. Also, the combat sucked.

Anyway, i just wanted to say i appreciate that the map isn't absolutely cluttered with shite. It makes me want to play and explore the world more, without the game being bogged down in side quests and obnoxious icons everywhere you look.

 

[Gambit]

Everyone can feck off now with this conversation. This game is a masterpiece and is better than anything anyone has used for comparison. Now feck off the lot of you.

 

[Olly Gunnar Solskjær]

Everyone can feck off now with this conversation. This game is a masterpiece and is better than anything anyone has used for comparison. Now feck off the lot of you.

Best post from the last couple of pages.

 

[Gambit]

I am currently ( in the game) sat on a mountain outcrop with a fire awaiting the moon to be just right and align perfectly with a tower so I can fire an arrow at it. The fact that I am willing to do this shows how this game is a masterpiece.