5 ms·

Zelda BOTW is just the first NES Zelda for the modern era. Nintendo's open-world is the only open-world I liked. I can't get immersed in GTA's open world beca

by linkdd 5y ago

Zelda BOTW is just the first NES Zelda for the modern era. Nintendo's open-world is the only open-world I liked. I can't get immersed in GTA's open world because I'm just a random going on a killing spree for 15 minutes then shut the game down. I hated Skyrim, the world is big but empty. There is nothing particular about the landscape that makes me want to "go there". Most of the time, I discovered areas because I was going in straight lines. Zelda on the other hand, I was like "oh wow, a mountain split in two, I wanna see it". The landscape view makes you want to see what's going on and act as a map ("oh so the gemini mountain is on my right, I must be at XXX"). You're on top of a tower, look at the volcano, and you're like "what is that thing moving on the horizon". Same thing for pretty much all divine beasts. The other nice thing about BOTW's open world is the map. You don't need it. In The Witcher 3 you have a GPS that tells you where to go. When people tells you to go somewhere in this Zelda, you ask people, you look at the road signs, and you go there. This makes the world much more realistic and less empty because you need to interact with it. To go to the Goron village, you have many ways of doing it, stockpile a huge amount of food to heal while you burn, or go around and talk to people to find the potion. If you choose to stockpile food, you need to hunt, to cook, and to interact with the world once again. The world is part of the game play, unlike many other open world games where the world is just the scenery where the game play take place.

oneoff786 5y ago
Botw is so much more than just NES Zelda. That the two are non linear is just one similarity.
- linkdd 5y ago
  Both games are centered on exploration more than the main quest. You're thrown into a world without instructions, you don't know who you are or what you're doing here. There is just a world to explore and have a fun adventure in. While quite different of course, they have basically the same goal: you first have to get lost in order to find your way. The fun begins when you explore and stumble across things by mistake. Also many landmarks in BOTW are straight up taken from the NES game, like the twin mountains in the gerudo desert. After Ocarina of Time, the Zelda games went to a linear story with a dungeon formula almost copy pasted for 20 years. BOTW breaks this pattern to get back to its roots: exploration. Just watch the interviews of Aonuma explaining this.
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    Eh. The original Zelda is vaguely non linear. But there are several sequential dependencies for dungeons. Once you’re done with the first 3 it’s pretty darn linear for things like the ladder and the bow and what not. And that game has a progression curve that makes it fairly punishing to do things out of order for normal players. I would say that game forces you to be lost whereas botw really allows you to enjoy exploring. The original isn’t that big and you’ll probably find yourself scouring the same few areas annoyedly over and over. Zelda 2 was pretty linear too. The twin mountains are spectacle rock. They have appeared in many games. Most notably, imo, they’re in the crater of death mountain in ocarina of time. If you squint at the way the fire temple is built (two towers) it’s sort of implied to be built inside of it. Very cool https://zelda.fandom.com/wiki/Spectacle_Rock https://zelda.fandom.com/wiki/Spectacle_Rock
    - Izkata 5y ago
      I don't remember that at all, but I do definitely remember the Dueling Peaks, which were visible as soon as you finished the tutorial (and were in the direction you had to go to continue the main quest): https://zelda.fandom.com/wiki/Dueling_Peaks https://zelda.fandom.com/wiki/Dueling_Peaks
mcbutterbunz 5y ago
One part of BOTW that really stuck out to me is how close, yet far away things felt. You know how when you look at something through a telephoto lens, things get compressed? They did that really well in BOTW. Things could look close and you could see they were there, but when you start moving towards something, there was actually a lot of ground to cover. It helped make the world seem within reach, yet distant at the same time. This made me want to explore cause I was almost there, just gotta get through this valley or around this lake. If the devs and designers are out there reading this, great job and thank you.
- linkdd 5y ago
  Yes the "oh i'm on this quest, but what's a little detour?" is quite fun in this game.
- bombcar 5y ago
  This is what I call the "World of Warcraft" scale - because WoW was the first game where I really experienced it. The game is compressed and not actually to scale (because nobody wants to spend literally days crossing the map) but it still feels like it is large, and regions are distinct. Both BotW and WoW also made exploring the "empty" areas rewarding (they're not actually empty, and there are things to find).
  - bryans 5y ago
    > because nobody wants to spend literally days crossing the map Weirdly, that's what every FFXI player did almost every day and for years, until they finally added fast(er) travel options in later expansions. Even using the Chocobo to increase run speed, it took 30+ minutes of travel to get to any end game content. And it was very easy to accidentally die along the way in places where nobody could resurrect you without also dying themselves, and then you would need to make the entire trip again. It was absolutely stupid and a complete waste of time, and yet I have nothing but fond memories of it.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      Yeah 30 minutes to even an hour is about the limit - makes it feel epic but doesn’t make it boring (crossing the barrens on foot was a similar time). But literally days of walking would be too much without something (either plot along the way or fast travel).
ChildOfChaos 5y ago
- linkdd 5y ago
  > Zelda is a game for little girls No need to insult the fanbase. You can just say "I don't like it". > it just goes to show that people like different things. Which is why I simply explained what worked for me and what didn't work for me, not saying any of my comment was an absolute truth.
- katbyte 5y ago
  People are going to hate on you for being sexist. You could have said little kids but nope, you went with little girls.
  - linkdd 5y ago
    How is "little kids" better? Games are for every one (well some games are for mature audience but that's not the point). I like easy games because I don't want to be punished for not being good enough after a job week. I like thinking/strategy games like chess because I like to challenge myself. I like a lot of other genre for different reasons. But not a single one of them should be depicted as "for little kids", not even sokoban, tictactoe, etc... because that's just not true. Games are for entertainment. You're either entertained, or not when playing the game. It's completely subjective. It does not depend on the fact you're a kid or an adult.
    - katbyte 5y ago
      Well it’s not sexists but yea I agree, neither are good. I just didn’t feel like having that battle. Am adult and enjoyed botw! And my only issue was with there being no offline save backup :/
  - ChildOfChaos 5y ago
  - oonerspism 5y ago
flohofwoe 5y ago
First thing I switched off in Witcher 3 was the "GPS". It's a much better game without.
lloeki 5y ago
> I hated Skyrim, the world is big but empty. There is nothing particular about the landscape that makes me want to "go there". Most of the time, I discovered areas because I was going in straight lines. I discovered the Elders Scrolls via Morrowind, then because I enjoyed it so much I was overjoyed about Oblivion coming out, and a little bit less about Skyrim. ... But these last two left me with that feeling of emptiness about the world. Oblivion had some redeeming qualities on specific quests (going into that painting was absolutely fantastic, although way too short), but felt like a drag overall. Skyrim felt like you never stop stumbling on something, encounters and quests felt evenly spaced and incredibly generic, succumbing to a Horror Vacui of sorts[0]. Also since everything dynamically adjusts in difficulty to your progress, everything is always as easy as it ever was. As a result there's no risk, no surprise, no tension. Comparatively, Morrowind had many many flaws but I just kept on wanting to explore the world more, go past this ridge, reach to that spiky thing on the horizon, enter this weird tomb, walk down that windy road... [0]: http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2014/11/11/horror_vacui/ http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2014/11/11/horror_vacui/

by linkdd 5y ago

oneoff786 5y ago

Botw is so much more than just NES Zelda. That the two are non linear is just one similarity.

linkdd 5y ago
Both games are centered on exploration more than the main quest. You're thrown into a world without instructions, you don't know who you are or what you're doing here. There is just a world to explore and have a fun adventure in. While quite different of course, they have basically the same goal: you first have to get lost in order to find your way. The fun begins when you explore and stumble across things by mistake. Also many landmarks in BOTW are straight up taken from the NES game, like the twin mountains in the gerudo desert. After Ocarina of Time, the Zelda games went to a linear story with a dungeon formula almost copy pasted for 20 years. BOTW breaks this pattern to get back to its roots: exploration. Just watch the interviews of Aonuma explaining this.
- oneoff786 5y ago
  Eh. The original Zelda is vaguely non linear. But there are several sequential dependencies for dungeons. Once you’re done with the first 3 it’s pretty darn linear for things like the ladder and the bow and what not. And that game has a progression curve that makes it fairly punishing to do things out of order for normal players. I would say that game forces you to be lost whereas botw really allows you to enjoy exploring. The original isn’t that big and you’ll probably find yourself scouring the same few areas annoyedly over and over. Zelda 2 was pretty linear too. The twin mountains are spectacle rock. They have appeared in many games. Most notably, imo, they’re in the crater of death mountain in ocarina of time. If you squint at the way the fire temple is built (two towers) it’s sort of implied to be built inside of it. Very cool https://zelda.fandom.com/wiki/Spectacle_Rock https://zelda.fandom.com/wiki/Spectacle_Rock
  - Izkata 5y ago
    I don't remember that at all, but I do definitely remember the Dueling Peaks, which were visible as soon as you finished the tutorial (and were in the direction you had to go to continue the main quest): https://zelda.fandom.com/wiki/Dueling_Peaks https://zelda.fandom.com/wiki/Dueling_Peaks

mcbutterbunz 5y ago

One part of BOTW that really stuck out to me is how close, yet far away things felt. You know how when you look at something through a telephoto lens, things get compressed? They did that really well in BOTW. Things could look close and you could see they were there, but when you start moving towards something, there was actually a lot of ground to cover. It helped make the world seem within reach, yet distant at the same time. This made me want to explore cause I was almost there, just gotta get through this valley or around this lake. If the devs and designers are out there reading this, great job and thank you.

linkdd 5y ago
Yes the "oh i'm on this quest, but what's a little detour?" is quite fun in this game.
bombcar 5y ago
This is what I call the "World of Warcraft" scale - because WoW was the first game where I really experienced it. The game is compressed and not actually to scale (because nobody wants to spend literally days crossing the map) but it still feels like it is large, and regions are distinct. Both BotW and WoW also made exploring the "empty" areas rewarding (they're not actually empty, and there are things to find).
- bryans 5y ago
  > because nobody wants to spend literally days crossing the map Weirdly, that's what every FFXI player did almost every day and for years, until they finally added fast(er) travel options in later expansions. Even using the Chocobo to increase run speed, it took 30+ minutes of travel to get to any end game content. And it was very easy to accidentally die along the way in places where nobody could resurrect you without also dying themselves, and then you would need to make the entire trip again. It was absolutely stupid and a complete waste of time, and yet I have nothing but fond memories of it.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Yeah 30 minutes to even an hour is about the limit - makes it feel epic but doesn’t make it boring (crossing the barrens on foot was a similar time). But literally days of walking would be too much without something (either plot along the way or fast travel).

ChildOfChaos 5y ago

linkdd 5y ago
> Zelda is a game for little girls No need to insult the fanbase. You can just say "I don't like it". > it just goes to show that people like different things. Which is why I simply explained what worked for me and what didn't work for me, not saying any of my comment was an absolute truth.
katbyte 5y ago
People are going to hate on you for being sexist. You could have said little kids but nope, you went with little girls.
- linkdd 5y ago
  How is "little kids" better? Games are for every one (well some games are for mature audience but that's not the point). I like easy games because I don't want to be punished for not being good enough after a job week. I like thinking/strategy games like chess because I like to challenge myself. I like a lot of other genre for different reasons. But not a single one of them should be depicted as "for little kids", not even sokoban, tictactoe, etc... because that's just not true. Games are for entertainment. You're either entertained, or not when playing the game. It's completely subjective. It does not depend on the fact you're a kid or an adult.
  - katbyte 5y ago
    Well it’s not sexists but yea I agree, neither are good. I just didn’t feel like having that battle. Am adult and enjoyed botw! And my only issue was with there being no offline save backup :/
- ChildOfChaos 5y ago
- oonerspism 5y ago

flohofwoe 5y ago

First thing I switched off in Witcher 3 was the "GPS". It's a much better game without.

lloeki 5y ago

> I hated Skyrim, the world is big but empty. There is nothing particular about the landscape that makes me want to "go there". Most of the time, I discovered areas because I was going in straight lines. I discovered the Elders Scrolls via Morrowind, then because I enjoyed it so much I was overjoyed about Oblivion coming out, and a little bit less about Skyrim. ... But these last two left me with that feeling of emptiness about the world. Oblivion had some redeeming qualities on specific quests (going into that painting was absolutely fantastic, although way too short), but felt like a drag overall. Skyrim felt like you never stop stumbling on something, encounters and quests felt evenly spaced and incredibly generic, succumbing to a Horror Vacui of sorts[0]. Also since everything dynamically adjusts in difficulty to your progress, everything is always as easy as it ever was. As a result there's no risk, no surprise, no tension. Comparatively, Morrowind had many many flaws but I just kept on wanting to explore the world more, go past this ridge, reach to that spiky thing on the horizon, enter this weird tomb, walk down that windy road... [0]: http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2014/11/11/horror_vacui/ http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2014/11/11/horror_vacui/