@Zero

I wasn't around for those discussions and, frankly, was disappointed to learn that we'd adopted it. I don't review many games nowadays, but I gotta admit I don't follow those descriptions because, well, nobody needs a 100 point system to review games and thinking you do is part of the problem. If you're going to use it, then use it the way everyone understand it works.

I'm not sure it being a 100 point system is really the particular issue here though? In fact, I think Jim Sterling uses a 10 point system? (I'm at work where all game sites are blocked now so I can't double check this stuff.) Any system I can think of, no one would be happy with BOTW scoring that low. Would people really have been ok with 3.5 out of 5 stars or something? (Or if it was an actual 5 star system with no decimals and he went as low as a 3?) We'd still see the same complaints. I think people more or less expect the same from any numbered system whatever multiple it is.

If anything I think with those more limited scoring systems people expect perfect scores a lot more. Because your two options in a 5 point scale for a good game are basically a perfect 5 out of 5 score or a 4 out of 5 which is a C in the US grading system. Even in a 10 point scale a 9 is already dropping into B territory.

One of the best-written, most insightful and even-handed professional reviews for Shapes of Gray gave it a 5 out of 10: "Average" on their review scale. Even though I'd like to point people to that review, I always have to qualify it by saying "but keep in mind that a 5 is Average to them!", and that sucks. But we've had this discussion a hundred times before. Review scores are silly, you can't condense a complex opinion into a number. The only way it makes sense is for comparing how much you like one game versus another, and even that gets murky. How am I supposed to compare Super Monkey Ball to Shadow of the Colossus? I don't even rate games anymore because I don't like having to pick favorites.

kriswright said:

The main appeal was the adventure/exploration/discovery - which massive, linear dungeons tend to interrupt. That's why BotW really hits the sweet spot for me. The puzzles are decentralized, so I can work them when I want and progress the story in other ways through exploration.

There's a pretty good Youtube series going on right now called Boss Keys where this dude analyzes the structure of the dungeons in each Zelda game, and one things he's found is that they've become way more linear as time has gone on... which shouldn't be too revelatory to anyone here, but it's kinda cool seeing it laid out. The upside to that is that sequential puzzles can build on each other's difficulty, but you lose that little bit of explorative freedom that you had in the earlier games' dungeons.

I've done one dungeon in Breath of the Wild so far and loved it. Even though it felt tiny, it still took me like 45 minutes to get through. The puzzles were really cool, the structure was a totally new thing... really looking forward to the next dungeons. They're perfectly long enough when you have the Shrines to supplement them. Only complaint is the boss being ridiculously easy. That thing killed you, Mipha!? It's no wonder we lost!

Not to keep this thing going longer but this response says a lot about why I like Jim, he's even calling out a lot of the people defending him in a bad way:

Comment silliness goes both ways. I'm not "more honest" because I gave Zelda a 7/10. You have no proof any 10/10s were dishonest. Let's not.

7 is a shit score for this game regardless of the real flaws this game has because it does SO very much right, especially in this day and age.

Many people consider this to be a modern OOT/Mario 64 and downplaying the achievements this game made is idiotic. 7/10 just seems...disrespectful towards what is clearly a pioneer in game design. Does he have better reasoning beyond the usual "wah, why do my weapons break?" complaint?

-----

Having said that, I see the flaws this game has, and it feels like a bit of a shame because they came so so so soooooo close to this being a "perfect" Zelda game.

But I can't ignore the music, while still pretty awesome overall, ends up feeling a bit repetitive and far too low key. It needs a stronger presence IMO, something closer to SS style music would have been great. It would have fit perfectly. After SS my dream was for the next Zelda to follow in its footsteps and have fantastic tracks like Scaldera, Lanaryu Desert, Skykeep, etc. Some of the music feels kinda budget, which is a bit of a shock considering everything else in the game is top quality. I honestly think it may have been a cost cutting measure. Oh well. Hopefully the sequel corrects this. The minimalist music isn't *bad*, it would just be nice to switch between jingles, silence, and "real" music. It's just too ambient, and if you hear the same few jingles nonstop through a god knows how many hours game, it's bound to lose its impact. Like, I still can't wait to get to the desert but it feels like a bit of a shame knowing I'll ve there only to hear the same little jingles instead of a superb desert track like Lanaryu Desert in SS.
So that's my take on the music.

Weapon breaking I could see being annoying to some people but people really need to suck it up and enjoy the design and embrace the fact it encourages variety and experimentation. Did people complain that weapons didn't last long in Condemned? Also, weapons break far less often further into the game so that complaint can almodt go out the window.

Dungeons. Here's a big one for me and that should come as no surprise to anyone. I finally did one and I fucking loved it. Could it have been better or more like a real dungeon? Sure. What was there was fucking awesome! I'm not about to complain about what something isn't (especially when the writing was on the wall long ago) but I will examine what it *is* . Atmosphere was fantastic, the music was really good, and I loved the air of mystery/creepiness it brought. The gameplay was wonderful too. I thought it was stunning, and can't wait to do the others.
Still, I do want a return to the old style dungeon with the DLC (fingers crossed that that's the plan) or a sequel, and it would work great with the open design of the game. I always envisioned a Temple hidden deep in the woods somewhere, where parts of it are open (like cracks or holes) and you could get in via some side entrance. I really wished from long ago that would be the case with this game. It hurts a bit that this didn't make it in, but I'm happy with what we got. We had 30 yrs of old dungeons, it's okay to try something new. Hell, even the current dungeons as they are operating how I wished would have been amazing. Maybe next time!

Underwater stuff/Hookshot are also two things I wish made it into the game, but again it just gives me something to look forward to in a sequel.

Oh and I think the game could use just a liiiiiittle more structure. Just a weeee bit.

Just imagine if Nintendo applies all these things to a sequel. Then you'd have a 100% Metacritic score ;)

Jimquisition on Zelda and the reaction.

I definitely agree with a lot of the criticism he has towards the whole weapon durability system. It doesn't bother me as much as it does him but it does suck when you beat a dungeon, get the cool unique weapon of the tribe you helped, and then have it break or just don't use it. And there were just cool weapons I would come across and the excitement of finding them is immediately tempered by the knowledge that it is temporary and who knows when you will find another one.

I think the game could've been improved if the system was reworked or there was some kind of armory where you could stock up and get them to supply you with a few choice weapons every hour or something.

I guess this is early Kakariko village spoilers, if anyone still hasn't gotten past that part, but I have a question about the first item you get: Are there Champion's Trousers somewhere? If there are, I feel like I'm missing them.

As far as this discussion about reviews and scores goes, I think it's too early for me to really get into that myself. I'm still playing the game, after all. At this point, all I can throw out is a vague "This is a great game, but it isn't quite Zelda enough." Which I know is the appeal for some people, but not for me. I'd be down for a sequel that reuses engines and assets to save dev time, and I'd hope for it to add in more Zelda 1 elements. I feel Zelda 1 has the perfect structure for Zelda and I'm still waiting for a 3D Zelda 1.

@Mop it up I think I found some later on?

Also, this looks interesting...

Tomorrow at 6 AM PT, we’ll be debuting a three-part series called The Making of The Legend of #Zelda: Breath of the Wild! pic.twitter.com/bTDROEZ8i0

— Nintendo of America (@NintendoAmerica) March 13, 2017

@Zero
Bro told me about that. Can't wait. I wonder if it'll address the logic behind some things people take issue with like the weapons durability.

-----

I trust Nintendo struck the right balance. You can hold plenty of weapons later, and can pick and choose as you please later. Save the better weapons for the stronger enemies if you want.

If anything is an issue with that, it's the balance. It went from being a bit concerningly easy to very hard (this new enemy I met is a savage). But we also have the hard mode coming. Can't wait for that. Is that end of year :( ?

Fingers crossed for DLC Dungeon being a traditional dungeon! With open design/climbing! Please!

Personally I think the weapon durability works, makes it more interesting. It makes for a pretty dynamic system where you actually end up using a lot of stuff, and weapons aren't instantly useless just because something better comes around. Some of my most interesting battles ended with me scrambling to use whatever I could find laying around to finish someone off. And it's weird to me that people feel the need to hold onto good weapons for super long, if you're doing a bunch of sidequests and stuff you just keep getting new, better weapons anyway.

There's nothing better than finishing off a big enemy by chucking a weapon in its face!

@Zero

I've got a giant 34 attack broadsword that can set things on fire. I'm not sure how it gets much better to be honest. And I don't want to use it. (Although I know where there is a second one I can grab.) It comes in handy as a personal heater in a pinch, so I want to hold on to it.

I think a better approach would have been to make the weapons far rarer and not break, but make enemies particularly vulnerable to one particular type of weapon.

They've done that to some extent, but really you can beat on the enemy with whatever is to hand. Specialise it a bit more and you can make each weapon feel really special- That forces you to switch up tactics and addresses the weapon issue in general.

Oh god please no, then it just becomes the dumb elemental system or something. USE HEAT ON WOOD, WOOD ON WATER, WATER ON HEAT. Ew. I hate those. I don't mind basic enemies having puzzle elements but "keep trying different weapons until you find the one that works" is not a puzzle element. And if it is broadcast in some open way so there is nothing to solve, what even is the point beyond making me change weapons constantly?

No thanks.

Zero said:

And it's weird to me that people feel the need to hold onto good weapons for super long, if you're doing a bunch of sidequests and stuff you just keep getting new, better weapons anyway.

For real, the whole point of having them break quickly is that none of them are ever so valuable that you have any incentive to hold on to them. I mean, I typically do use my plethora of Boko Clubs when I'm just fighting weak enemies and save the stronger ones for when I'm in a pinch, but hanging on to all your best items until the final boss rolls around is the most boring way to play the game! What exactly are you optimizing by doing that, even from a strategic perspective?

Zero said:

what even is the point beyond making me change weapons constantly?

No thanks.

...You're talking about the breakable weapons, right?

Incidentally I didn't mean an elemental system, just that certain weapons are better suited than others. E.g you can keep poking the Hinox with your sword and ticking it off, and it will die eventually....or you can just drop a few arrows into it's eye and do critical damage with each shot.
At the moment whilst arrows *do* work to stun it, melee weapons are pretty similar in effectiveness in terms of damage.

@TriforceBun

The first six dungeons were all temples rather than just generic dungeons, and the last dungeon was the "Great Palace", so presumably an old castle that the Royal Family once used.

Also, the newly released Hyrule Encyclopedia apparently has a page comparing the maps of the various games, and it outright confirms that the southwestern portion of AoL's world is where the events of LoZ took place.

Of course the book also makes some other weird claims that throw canonicity into question, though I think we should always question the canonicity of out-of-game information regardless.

Still, the geography comparison maps are kind of interesting: http://zeldauniverse.net/forums/Thread/183385-Timeline-and-other-interesting-tidbits-in-Hyrule-Encyclopedia/?postID=5880650#post5880650

(Side note: Yay that the Hyrule Historia timeline has been retconned slightly to better fit what the games say! Boo that it just moved one game and screwed around with a bunch of other lore that doesn't match the in-game information.)

@kriswright

Lol, I very nearly included a parenthetical in my post clarifying that I wasn't trying to brag or insult with that paragraph, but I thought doing so would invite the unintended implication.

It's weird. I also contend that I value exploration in Zelda more than any other one element, but TWW is probably my least favorite 3D Zelda game, and LoZ is probably my least favorite 2D Zelda game (not counting TFH or the Four Swords duo). I love the exploration in those games, but they rank lower for me because other games in the series do certain things better than others. While I love the exploration aspect in those two games, I'm very much a parts-make-the-whole type person with video games. I think PH has the best puzzles in the series, for example, but it's one of my least favorite Zelda games overall. I think LoZ has the best exploration in the series (apart from BotW), but it's one of my least favorite Zelda games overall. I like a Zelda game that can do everything really well. So if I could get a Zelda game that has great exploration and great dungeons, that would rank above a Zelda for me that just has great exploration. Or put another way, if I had a Zelda game that had above-average exploration and above-average dungeons, I would prefer that to a Zelda game that had great exploration and terrible dungeons (all other things being equal).

So I guess I'm saying I probably don't agree with Anand's theory (or at least don't believe it can be accurately applied to every person), and that I'd be perfectly okay with a Zelda game with great dungeons that are optional or that you can come back to whenever you want while still having other stuff to do in the mean time.

@V_s
I didn't know that this encyclopaedia was a thing! I knew about the art book, but not this.

We're apparently getting a Western release, I'll be all over this.

Back on topic, the reason why exploration in Wind Waker sucks ass is because there really isn't that thrill of discovery. Every square has an island. And most islands can be quickly searched for the one or two secrets they hold. It's fairly formulaic actually.

The only 3D entry worse than WW for exploration would be Skyward Sword.

The weapon degradation system really hasn't bothered me at all like I thought it might. I have a considerable arsenal of weapons of varying strengths and perks, and I can use any one of them at any time and it doesn't matter. They all pretty much get the job done. The point is totally to use them, that's what they're there for! I get a certain amount of satisfaction when I pick up a new melee weapon or shield and it's better than my current worst one, so I can drop my new worst weapon and collectively I get stronger.

It anything, it's only the act of picking up a new item with a full inventory that isn't intuitive. When your inventory is full, and you try to pick up a weapon that's worse than the one you have equipped but better than the worst one in your inventory, swapping one for the other isn't as smooth as you'd want. In general, I think the controller mappings are inefficient in some key ways. For example, D-Pad down to drop item would be a whole lot more useful to me than whistling is.

Shadowlink said:

Back on topic, the reason why exploration in Wind Waker sucks ass is because there really isn't that thrill of discovery. Every square has an island. And most islands can be quickly searched for the one or two secrets they hold. It's fairly formulaic actually.

Yep. You know there's one thing worth seeing in each square, and it's either really important or not very important. It's a pathetic overworld, really.

@TheBigG753
Shadowlink said:f=id=13326&pagenumber=16#503974 said:

@V_s[/ref]

Back on topic, the reason why exploration in Wind Waker sucks ass is because there really isn't that thrill of discovery. Every square has an island. And most islands can be quickly searched for the one or two secrets they hold. It's fairly formulaic actually.

Completely disagree. I absolutely felt that thrill of discovery while playing Wind Waker for the first time and so did my wife. That WAS the appeal of Wind Waker and the reason it's been my favorite Zelda ever since. (I'd also say it outclasses OoT in this department by a mile). Yes, compared to Breath of the Wild, Wind Waker is positively empty. But I consider it the most interesting exploratory Zelda pre-BotW. Or at least a tie with the original Zelda on that score.

Yes, each square only has one island, but to dismiss the game as formulaic on those grounds alone is really weak. Might as well dismiss BotW because there're too many shrines and they're all structured the same. Anyway, there are lots of other things to do out on the ocean - platform battles (which reappear triumphantly in BotW, btw), treasure hunting, submarines, the Ghost Ship, battling those giant Seahats, barrel slaloms, the way the sea would turn choppy during storms, etc. As I mentioned to Kal earlier in the thread, I've always denied this argument that there was nothing to do on the ocean, because I always found lots of great, fun stuff to do. I absolutely loved the sailing in Wind Waker. It was my favorite part of the game. But I do agree that, in light of BotW being so packed with stuff to do, Wind Waker does start to look pretty spare. Up until this point I'd have never demanded the kind of density of individual events we see in BotW because it's just so dense that it's almost too much to ask for. And yet, here it is.

@kriswright

Well to each their own I guess. But IMO if your search process is drastically curtailed (i.e. find the island within the grid, then explore that distinct and specific tiny area), then you aren't really doing all that much in the way of 'discovery'.
Also I think it's a bit erroneous to compare them to the shrines in that fashion, as A) the shrines aren't laid out according to any specifically predictable pattern ala the map grid, and more importantly B) Because whilst many of the shrines are obvious, (like the islands), many more are not. Some are cleverly tucked away with the only clue to their presence being the incessant beeping of the Shiekah Sensor. Others don't even trigger the Shiekah Sensor at all, rather they only appear when you complete the sidequest required to make them appear.

I think Wind Waker *could* have had a greater feeling of discovery for me if it had a more organic map ala Phantom Hourglass where you actually went looking for secret uncharted islands. Whether you stumbled upon them by random exploration, or following up on NPC hints, it just triggered that 'Hey look what I found!" feeling a little bit more than an island you know HAS to exist in a specific area.

Fair point on things like the subs and the ghost ship though. If Wind Waker had more stuff like that it probably would have been better in my eyes. Things like random salom courses and shark attacks or whatever though...ehhh. Diversions really less relevant to exploration IMO.