No bullshit. No bias. No trolling. Just be honest; was it a good video game?
 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
No bullshit. No bias. No trolling. Just be honest; was it a good video game?
No bullshit. No bias. No trolling. Just be honest; was it a good video game?
|
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
It was just ok
10/10, it was a masterpiece and a fantastic sequel to BOTW. If you're not into the gameplay style it's not a perfect game, but anyone who says it's a 3/10 is just your boring run-of-the-mill Ganker contrarian who only likes dark souls 2
3/10 is pretty spot on for both of the nu-zelda games, yeah
Calling anything in this world 10/10 is admitting your opinion is worthless.
10/10 doesn't mean perfect
It means if you group all like things into 10 groups, it exists in the top group, or the top 10 percentile
>10/10 doesn’t mean perfect
yes it does. just because a literal mud golem that makes $100 a month writing freelance for a video games media company doesn’t know how to use a numbers scale doesn’t mean you have to follow like some moronic lemming
if 10/10 actually meant "perfect game", then no game would ever logically be awarded it, making the rating pointless.
What’s the problem
why have 10/10 on the scale if no game can be awarded it?
10/10 implies no room for improvement. 9.9, 9.8, 9.7 all denote excellent games with flaws and further breaks down games that would normally be in your moronic 10s group. The point of having a 10 denotes the end of the scale, which all scales require. Logically a 5 is an average score denoting an average game as 5 is the median, but in your system a 5 is unplayable and nonfunctional and 7-8s are average games. What if your phone battery said 100% for anything beyond an 80% charge?
>10/10 implies no room for improvement
That's a (You) problem.
When you rate a game you rate it based on your subjective experience with that game, it is not an objective measure of quality and never has been.
>What if your phone battery said 100% for anything beyond an 80% charge?
Ironic example as phones really do this, it's to prolong the lifespan of the lithium ion battery. Similarly, phone battery percentage will saw it's at 1% when there's more power left than that. It's bad for li batteries to be completely full or to be completely discharged.
I think if I tried a game and it was literally unplayable (i.e. wouldn't even load), I'd give it a 0/10.
thanks for admitting your system is worthless
wow great contribution to the conversation, frickwit.
0/10 post.
Why so mad?
For the same reason the scale has a 0/10, even though no game can realistically earn it.
Because no game is perfect. If anyone could actually be assed to read the reviews, the reviewer always brings up problems, but depending on the game and publisher kickbacks the score will just conveniently neglect to mention them. Reviewers should go into a game starting at 10 and work down from that as they encounter gripes or problems, but they don't have the balls to do that anymore. 10/10 is literally just to suck off the publishers and market the game. Modern journos will only rate games based on what they think the publisher won't punish them for and what their audience wants to see.
That is a terrible way to review games. Frick scores, just don't include them.
>That is a terrible way to review games
Scores are innately terrible, but if you're going to have them, that's the way to do it. Not just arbitrary implications of perfection when every single game has problems a score should at the very least reflect.
>Frick scores, just don't include them
That's fine too, but the only reason they have scores is because people can't be assed to read the review.
>Not just arbitrary implications of perfection
They aren't, scores are always subjective. There will never be an objective scoring system for games and there shouldn't be. This isn't as big of a problem for reviews of TV shows and Movies, so why is it gamers have such a hard time grasping the concept of subjective review?
>They aren't
It literally is. Yes scores are subjective, obviously you can't be objective in how you rate something, but you can at the very least try and 10/10 still implies perfection and as we've seen countless times journos will ignore tons of flaws and hand out 10/10s to dogshit, muddying it even further. If journos actually had standards, or hell even finished the games they play half the time, 10/10 wouldn't be that big of a deal, but they don't.
TV shows and movies aren't a good example of anything being done right either unless you think black panther is the greatest film of all time.
If you think 10/10 means perfection, thats down to your own perception of what that score means to the person that rated it that way. A review giving a 10/10 score to a game could (and more than likely would) reflect that their personal experience with the game was excellent, and they felt it fulfilled their expectations. Someone can rate something highly even if they can see some flaws in the product - you can have films that are considered masterpieces even if they have "objective" mistakes in the background of a crucial shot in the film, should the score be knocked down for that? I don't think most people would think so.
>will ignore tons of flaws and hand out 10/10s to dogshit
The fact you feel this way just tells me that you don't fundamentally understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. I don't like the vast majority of games (or movies) that "professional reviewers" rated highly either, but that doesn't matter as they are still ultimately their own opinion pieces. A better way to gauge the quality of something is to find a review source (or better yet, a reliable friend with similar taste to you) with whom you agree with - this should be a specific person, not a review platform or website (which often have a different reviewer for each article, making comparisons even within the same platform unreliable at best); but, as said before it'd be better if people didn't feel the need to slap an arbitrary number on their personal critique.
>reflect that their personal experience with the game was excellent, and they felt it fulfilled their expectations
You can do that with an 8/10.
>The fact you feel this way just tells me that you don't fundamentally understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity
No, you don't. If someone wants to imply perfection I at the very least want to believe that they actually think that, that it's their true, subjective, opinion. I do not want to see them talking about problems that mysteriously don't show up in the score or see how big hyped up games with cultlike fanbases strangely get far more perfect scores than their peers regardless of any egregious issues they have. TotK's asset reuse alone should've knocked 1-2 points off the score of any journo with a shred of integrity. They didn't, not because everyone thought it deserved it regardless, but because it's Zelda and the fanbase would throw an absolute shitfit if they did. Journos can tell the players what they want to hear, but player's engagement doesn't lie and TotK dropped off hard.
If a game fulfills all expectations of the one reviewing it, why wouldn't they rate it as a 10/10?
It did literally everything the person wanted.
>If someone wants to imply perfection
Once again, it's your own perception telling you that 10/10 "implies perfection". A review score is not a grade, it's a personal recommendation scale.
You are missing my point.
>If someone wants to imply perfection I at the very least want to believe that they actually think that, that it's their true, subjective, opinion.
If a fanboy gives a game 10/10 then whatever, they're biased and likely underage, everyone expected that of them, who cares.
For a journo this is their job. They need to have the integrity not to be passing around 10/10s like candy to games with obvious issues. Unlike the fanboy, they should be far more discerning and critical and the game needs to seriously earn it for them to gloss over problems and choose not to show them in the score.
Literally every opinion is going to be biased in different ways. You're right, there's an expectation that "professional game reviewers" should exhibit less personal bias where possible, but there's far too many metrics of game quality that are purely down to personal taste. Also yes, "paid reviews", nepotism, and other corrupt practices are a problem with many too. Still, I think some anons view game review scores as if they're a grade but they don't work that way. Very few reviewers, professional or otherwise, treat review scores all that seriously - it's an arbitrary number. "I loved this game! Blew my expectations out the water, I am eager to play it again - 10/10" is a pretty typical conclusion to a review with a high review score, even if the meat of the review mentioned some things they felt could be better.
Thing is, any game could "be better" simply by nature of having more levels, more content, more depth, more stuff to do...should the only "true 10/10" be a game where you can literally do anything with infinite depth? I don't think so as it's an impossible achievement, so people that think more carefully about how they use a review score often instead rate a game by comparing it with other games they've reviewed and determining a score that fits with how they felt about other similar titles - and even that is a flawed approach but it's probably the best you can do for the midwits that need to see a number slapped on at the end of a review.
>"I loved this game! Blew my expectations out the water, I am eager to play it again - 10/10" is a pretty typical conclusion to a review with a high review score
That's what I would expect to read as a user review on metacritic, not the kind of thing I'd want to see from anyone getting paid to write it is all.
>Thing is, any game could "be better" simply by nature of having more levels, more content, more depth, more stuff to do...
If a game drags on that won't appeal to everyone either. There's a sweet spot and it's different for everybody. Like you say it's all subjective, everyone is different and a journo, being the professional they're supposed to be, needs to be as objective as possible, even if that means calling out problems in hyped up games with diehard fanbases. Even after 8.8. That's what they should be getting paid for.
>even if they have "objective" mistakes in the background of a crucial shot in the film, should the score be knocked down for that?
If it distracts from that scene, yeah. Or just go up to 100. Easy to knock a few points off of 100.
You are missing the point hard if that's your only take away from this.
Is the point not to have flaws reflected in a numerical score like they are in any written review?
Well the real point I was making is that scoring is a moronic practice to begin with. Specifically, though, the way one person decides to score it is going to be subjective, many score simply by how they felt about the overall game and thus may dish out a 10/10 for something even if they spotted some flaw with it if they felt said flaw did not affect their positive experience at all. Like I said in
>A review score is not a grade, it's a personal recommendation scale.
If there's one thing I agree with, it's that a 10 point scale shouldn't be used. Ratings are subjective and treating them with some kind of sense of the quantifiable is missing the point. A 5 point scale is more appropriate. 5/5 doesn't mean perfect, any more or less than 10/10 does. It just means it's among the top. Having gradations as part of a scale that you can't actually use are why current journalism is shit, not because 10/10 is nonviable but because it gets applied to games that don't deserve it because other games can't be rated lower than a 6 without losing publisher contracts and early review copies
Really meant to post this
but then everything bellow good is the worst game ever. and everything good or above is a paid nintendo bonus
most nintendo games get a good reception since most of them are good games, it really is that simple. The bad games they make do exist and rightfully got bad reviews, an example of one of their bad games off the top of my head is Animal Crossing Amiibo Festival - that game is truly bad.
>replace numbers with feelings
honestly a cope for the unintelligent but anything is an improvement over the current system
Good and bad are not objectively quantifiable
Pretending like there's a difference between 78 and 79 when it comes to how we think about a video game (or any work of art) is what's moronic, and the only reason these fractional centigrade scales should exist is as meta amalgamates (which ought to be inherently useless). Even the difference between 7 and 8 is difficult to perceive, especially if we're using the full scale and not the fake 6-10 scale, and you're bound to find inconsistencies when applied especially if you're looking back at even your own scores over time.. I used to religiously rate movies in imdb, and over the last 20 years, what I've come to realize is that my opinion on certain films hasn't changed, but where I rank them next to other films has changed as my experience (namely what movies I've seen) have grown
Imagine: you're 6 years old and have only played 2 games. By virtue, one will be the best you've ever played and one will be the worst, even if they're both very good games or both very bad. Taste is built with experience, and the basis of comparison is where all ratings derive
Protip: Don't play the intelligence card when you're clearly a fricking midwit
With a larger scale, you might think there isn't much difference between 91 and 92, but it does imply that the latter is in the reviewers opinion better, but because of the closeness of the numbers means that personal taste is more at play. Unlike an 85 and 95 which a majority of the time if the games are the same genre the latter should be better.
Saying if a game is just flat good or not is not what people look for in reviews, they want to know how good it is over something else people are saying is good and a solid number gives that. Saying both games are just great doesn't help the buyer choose between them, while giving a number score of 91 and 92 would give the buyer who was reading the review as slight lean to the game that scored 92.
But then the score doesn't matter in the end, the score given only matters if people can't be bothered to read the review. And if the review itself is garbage you can't say the number given can be taken at face value.
it's why I prefer the 100% scale over the 10 point. It's more accurate, and was less open to abuse. Sure games rarely got under 70, but it was much easier to use a 30 point scale (70-100) than a 3 point scale (8-10) to spread out how good a game really was.
I prefer to say why I think a game is good, rather than allocate an arbitrary number to it that doesn't mean anything i particular. Review scores only existas they make for a punchier headline for journo articles, few people will read the review and even fewer will pay attention to who gave the review and what their average taste is like.
>few people will read the review and even fewer will pay attention to who gave the review and what their average taste is like.
This will apply if you give a score or rating on the game or not. People don't read reviews in depth and just skim to the end. If you give any sort of rating at the end of your review that's all people will take away from it. Doesn't matter if it's a 9, a 95 or a "great game" people will only read that footnote at the end.
Saying you think a game is good or not just causes the same problem as giving a number, but is much, much more subjective and harder to compare to other games- thus is actually worse than a 10 point score system.
>Saying you think a game is good or not just causes the same problem as giving a number, but is much, much more subjective and harder to compare to other games- thus is actually worse than a 10 point score system.
See, this is the point I strongly disagree with you about - comparing a score of 1 guy's review from a website with a different guy's review score on a different website makes no sense at all. The two different people are going to have different tastes and more than likely prefer different kinds of games, so having a global scoring system is a poor way to inform yourself whether the game would appeal to you. All global scoring systems (like Metacritic) do is encourage games to hve the broadest appeal, since that's all the score average actually reflects.
>10% of all games are the highest quality
That's now how it works.
The 5 star/point system is better.
women are the only people who don't understand rating on a relative scale. this has been proven scientifically. men tend to rate things relatively evenly and women tend to rate things on an exponential curve either toward 10 or toward 0 depending on context. by arguing against his completely accurate explanation, written in a way that a (male)child could understand, you have revealed that you are, in fact, a woman. congratulations, many men who pretend to be women would love to be hearing this here.
3/10 is more than the number of save files you get.
Nintendo has gone full gay and a sealed palace poops on botw and totk
Just use a different switch profile moron.
I dont need to because I play good games
like zelda the sealed palace.
No, it wasn't.
Probably should decrease the size of the interesting content regions.
> Open world allows you to various things in any order
I don't quite understand your complaint here, guy
>Open world allows devs to ignore level design and development criticism by saying it's more natural this way
it's fundamentally bad game design but since it's nintendo and zelda it automatically gets a pass
Just started replaying it.
I can understand people's frustration with the tedious opening section of ToTK compared to BotW
I nearly quit an hour in. It gets much better though after that.
t. ADHD zoomer homosexual
I was born when the soviet union broke up, ok though
It's the worst part of the game.
>dumb intro
>unskippable cutscene that's long as shit
>more cutscene
>linear tutorial area that is nowhere near as fun as the great plateau
>more cutscene
>backtrack to where you started before the tutorial area
>cutscene
>get down to hyrule
>talk to pyra
>go to hyrule castle, cutscene
>walk back to pyra
>then she decides to give you the paraglider, finally
>activate first tower
>game finally fricking starts
What the frick happened
The story was so convoluted start to finish.
It's amusing that BOTW started you into its world within less than 5 min precisely because people were very critical of the slow start of previous games. Then with TOTK they went back to their old ways.
I couldn't believe just how bad the beginning section of the game is compared to BOTW. Not crazy for BOTW but the Great Plateau was undeniably fantastic, what the frick were they thinking?
And the hilarious thing is that's the biggest sky area. This slog of a tutorial, that's a total regression from the last game.
>BOTW
>Great Plateau ends with the realization, "Holy shit that was the SMALLEST ground area? There's so much more!"
>TOTK
>Great Sky island ends with the realization "Holy shit, that was the BIGGEST sky area? There's so little left!"
>long ass tutorial
Must be why journos love it.
>linear tutorial
moron lol
It is. You can do BOTW's tutorial shrines in any order, while TOTK's tutorial shrines give you much less freedom.
Didn't finish it. Wasn't having enough fun.
Not really. I did a hundred-ish shrines, a lot of sidequests and exploration, and it was mostly bland. Took me 70 hours to finish it and it's the first zelda game i know i'll never replay
No
it's alright if you have QoL improvements(cheats) enabled
it was ok, i liked the sky islands but the depths sucked ass
Never even finished it, so it was okay at best.
Giving players the freedom to do what they want with the engineering becomes pointless when most of the map is empty to begin with.
All those dumb tiktoks consist of, wasting 10-20mins constructing a monstrosity to then use for it 1min cleaning out a camp. I like building things, I even have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, but when the "fun" people claim the game has comes from this. It means the rest of the game is not fun as a result.
I loved BotW. I thought TotK was an interesting way to revisit that world, seeming familiar and somewhat renewed at the same time. But ultimately, it was a lesser experience and I'll never play it again. I will probably revisit BotW several more times eventually
If you heavily abuse the glitches, then it's a pretty good video game. If you play it as the developers intended it is a somewhat bad video game.
>craft the two fans + steering stick vehicle
>lose all desire to explore
inb4 j-j-just dont use it! "NO!"
It's a complex case. It just shows so much intentional willful ignorance for what came before it (not just BotW) that it feels like a spiteful slap in the face. And the laziness in areas like the depths, the temples, the copy-paste story segments for the temples and the lackluster content of the sky islands are glaring.
But god damn it, the final act of the game is so strong it invalidates any contrivances almost entirely. Especially if you don't have the master sword by then, it's actually impressive how well it all comes together. That alone makes it a good game.
The Ganondorf fight was great but that turbo dragon shit at the very end was disappointing. It was a silly victory lap, it killed all of the momentum from the last battle. Why can't Nintendo do final bosses properly anymore?
better than dark beast ganon at least
You're not wrong, but that's also an awful low bar to clear.
I liked the dragon, it was clearly done to cap off the game with pure spectacle but it worked
No.
In my genuine, honest opinion:
I got bored and dropped it. I'd rather play BOTW.
The Ganondorf fight was fun.
it was amazing while it lasted but was disappointed that like every loz game ever, no replayability. after 200 hours of collecting all the things, doing all the sidequests and completing the main story, I havent found another reason to touch it. the world seems pretty empty and boring by that point.
>was it a good video game?
Who cares? What you should be asking is:
>Was it a good Zelda game?
And the answer to this question is no, just like the slop before it.
It was neither a good game or a good Zelda game.
>what matters is not if something is good
>but if it followed the same old stale pattern that the last 19 entries did
This new "open-air" formula has been worse so far, though. Nintendo isn't taking advantage of it to its full potential; hell, they probably don't even want to.
>Nintendo isn't taking advantage of it to its full potential; hell, they probably don't even want to
This is what people aren't focusing on.
Aonuma is one of the laziest motherfrickers at Nintendo, and Fujibayashi is more interested in going "UGUU~ GODDESS WAIFU CHAN" than making a quality game.
Anyone going "m-muh formula" is a moronic Black person who swallows whatever Nintendo and YouTube shove down his throat, incapable of realizing the problems with Zelda are not the games themselves (shocking to many, I know) but the people at the top.
Call me crazy, but I can't help but compare modern post-BoTW Zelda to modern Pokemon regarding all of the lazy dev antics & design philosophies that are now prevailing through the franchise. There are just to many alarming aspects to ignore. Recycling the entire overworld, complete abandonment of competent story and lore, and an obsession over one-time gimmicks, rather than genuinely improving upon core game aspects in a meaningful way. So on and so forth.
Granted, The Zelda series hasn't reached the same dire state that Pokemon's currently in right now, but it's certainly heading there at an unprecedented rate if ToTK's existence is anything to go by.
> noooo puzzles are stale
> not this bland open world shit that the vast majority of games since 2008 have been thats fresh
your fault for playing every open world game released since 2008
Now thats some premium cope right there.
dial8
Mogged FF16
>won a fist fight with a stillborn fetus
Yes. Fantastic game and brilliant sequel.
Only thing it done worse was the opening. After BOTWs hands off approach of just dumping in the world and letting you loose in the first five minutes, TOTK takes a lot longer to get to that point.
Not really, but it is arguably the greatest tech demo ever built. The whole thing feels like a proof of concept of seeing a bunch of really polished mechanics interact with one another, it doesn't seem like they cared too much about making an actual game out of all of them.
It was decent.
The vehicle building is fun, but is incorporated into the game very poorly, and is broadly inferior to the system Banjo Kazooie came up with a decade ago.
The temples were clearly designed with the expectation that nobody would approach them seriously, the fire temple in particular feels incredibly phoned in. Really, this applies to a lot if the game design. At some point they realized there was no hope of balancing or structuring the game, and so gave up, making a lot of the game feel very undercooked. Several shrines and temples are more obvious about how to break than actually complete as "intended", and the Fire Temple in particular, I STILL have no idea what the intended approach is even supposed to be.
I don't think it's an improvement over BotW. You can do significantly more "stuff" in TotK, but most of that stuff is just inferior to doing something else, whereas MOST things you could do in BotW had purpose. Optimal options are optimal by such wide, and deep margins that experimentation becomes a pointless chore.
Sky islands are a giant nothing burger, the depths are cool but become tedious and feel empty after about an hour. The tutorial is worse, feeling more pedantic, slower, and less effective at teaching you what you actually need to know.
The story and plot are horrid, and manage to do a face plant off of the already anemic state of BotW, managing to make an established world feel shallower, which is an accomplishment in its own way.
It's fun, but it's not really all that special, and is really more of a buffet than a fine dining experience. Everything TotK does has been done elsewhere, usually better, including BotW, and it's only good by so much being glued together.
Unironically, it and Palworld share a lot in terms of how the game feels. You've seen all this shit before, now it's living together.
>vehicle building is fun, but is incorporated into the game very poorly
Agree
>broadly inferior to the system Banjo Kazooie came up with a decade ago.
Disagree, N&B had you go into a static vehicle-building area to make things, TotK's building is realtime and more engaging to actually interact with. The main problem with it in TotK is a lack of purpose to make use of it, the game rarely ever pushes you to use Ultrahand creatively outside of a handful of shrines and like 2 minigames.
Nut & Bolts had mechanics for real time vehicle modifications, attaching found parts, ejecting parts you don't need anymore, ect.
It was just nearly pointless to do so because you could make vehicles that actually worked well in the garage, and not have to do hotfixes in the field because X part was off center, attaching wheels to the affix point on this body makes the whole thing not handle terrain at all, or Y part deconstructed because you hit a bump.
You didn't need to make field modifications because the vehicles themselves could be built to handle this; a flying machine could transition into a car, a car could be made amphibious relatively easily, ect.
Most of the time, you only do field modifications of vehicles in TotK because the limited building mechanics force you to, instead of the vehicle working the way you want it to from the start. TotK, turning an aircraft into a ground vehicle means a complete refit, Nuts and Bolts can do this in one, probably two button presses without you ever getting out.
All it was missing is a few traditional dungeons scattered across the world. There's nothing wrong with the open world format, or shrines, or korok seeds, or gmod building. It's just that those things aren't a replacement for actual content.
It would have been GOTYAY if they had added 4-7 traditional dungeons.
It has a lot of cute ideas that, just like BotW, I enjoy, but am waiting to see it in an environment where they design a large number of genuine challenges for it. As it stands, the game is too easy and too broad for my tastes. Probably like, 7/10 for me.
I like it 🙂 The sage abilities are kinda dogshit though and I don't like them running around when I'm trying to activate them. 🙁
Oh and I actually miss the shrines. Objectively better set of abilities to make more interesting and creative puzzles with but I swear half of them are just a treasure chest.
TotK deserved goty imo but I hate CRPG's so it's heavily biased.
weapon durability is still shit
exploring the underground area and the sky islands was pretty cool
building a plane or hot air balloon to fly around was fun but i never got into the autismo gadget building
Yes.
Was good, yes.
No, once I left the celestial islands and were back on earth, it wasn't fun anymore. it wasn't enough for me. using the same world was a big mistake. of course it wasn't a mistake they did it on purpose because lazy
I really enjoyed it, I just want a traditional Zelda game though.
It's a "fine" video game. It works just fine. It can be played just fine. You can talk about it just fine.
But was it good? No.
no
it was great
I think BOTW and TOTK are both great but I will never ever play them again. Ya dig?
It's the best BOTW-like to date.
8/10
Damn. Snoys are out in full force lately. Why are they in meltdown every thread? Was there a bad State of Play recently? Did the new FF7 game refuse to include a Pride flag?
?
Thread seems fine to me.
No LittleBigPlanet 🙁
Fricking sucked. I dropped it halfway in hoping that DLC could improve it, but there's not even DLC coming out
Genuinely a worse game than BOTW
>was it a good video game?
How is this even a question? It is objectively, undeniably, non-arguably an extraordinary masterpiece.
When people say it sucks they are not saying "I can't have fun with it", they probably mean "I expected to be swiped off my feet 1000/10 but it was only a 9/10 so I'll shitpost and say it sucks"
I tried playing it on my girlfriends switch and it felt like it was designed around trying to keep a childs attention. I'm not a child though, so I'm not surprised that a game designed for a demographic other than myself didn't appeal to me. it's probably a good game if you're a child I guess.
If you think an oldgay like me will fall for such shitty bait you're out of your mind.
I was invisioning you as an easily baited 19-21 year old nintensoi, apologies.
moron
> I'm not a child though
Good job proving that you are in fact a child. Go back to Fortnite you little ADHD brat
moron
>samegayging
>calling someone else a moron
Oh the irony
>my girlfriend
Sure, anon. Sure
I don't find it particularly fun because if a challenge is going to be easy, I'd rather it be easy because I have the specific solution to it and am already used to using it, than because anything works to solve the problem. All of TOTK's easy parts are because they gave you a million solutions to that part, a really cool idea on paper that just compromises what might've been neat puzzles if they were a bit more demanding. Then you have moments like the ascent to the two temples in the sky, which while linear were each also a great case of introducing, exploring, and expecting the player to utilize new design ideas.
That last step is probably the most important to me, and that step is what a lot of the game's learning/teaching moments are missing. Most of the stuff BOTW/TOTK teaches you, it teaches you in isolation, and expects you to put to use in your own way on your own timeframe. Which again, I get it, I respect that part. I just feel like too much of the game was then neutered on the reasoning that the player might arrive there without having learned about most of the mechanics. It adds up to a game that gives you all these tools but never really makes you show you know how to use them, and that bothers me a lot more than tools that are overly simple to use.
it's ubisofts open world meme with nintendo slapped on top of it
idk you tell me
One of the best of all time
>Nintendo players experiencing the game at 327p 12 fps all say it's a masterpiece
>PC players emulating at 8k 120fps all say it's mediocre
Is the console itself what adds the SOVL here? I don't know who to trust.
I emulated it since before release and enjoyed TotK a lot.
However, I preferred BotW.
I loved it, I give it an 8/10
I don't mind it lost to BG3 though, I loved that as well. If anything I'm just happy Spiderman lost.
6 yo game with dlc for $70+ u tell me
Nothing will ever give me the same "why do I hear boss music" feeling again like these frickers.
Missed opportunity for these to not drag you down into the Depths and force you to fight waves of enemies. Legitimately what I thought they were going to do when I first encountered them.
>very obviously floormasters
>"gloom spawn"
But why?
I loved it how the cheeky bastards put them into the grove where durian trees were in BotW.
Good
>presents a new way to experience the world of BOTW
>the devices are genuinely a wonderful idea and it’s lovely how they turn into actually game-changing things instead of just gimmics once you upgrade your battery
>the powers are much better than in BOTW, especially ascend is super cool and it always feels amazing to use it to leave caves etc., makes the world see, wonderfully seamless
>Zelda twist is actually cool, although it’s unfortunately the only good thing about the story
>feels like it rewards exploratiom better than BOTW by having all sorts of armor parts etc. scattered around the world
Bad
>dull tutorial
>doesn’t unfortunately have the novelty of BOTW
>combat is still PURE SHIT when lategame silver enemies become common
>tries to have more story focus, but Ganondorf is actually boring as frick, doing nothing during the game and having no plan beyond becoming the King of Bokoblins
>Sky Islands and Depths are ultimately less interesting than they initially look like, especially latter is disappointing
>what the frick were they thinking with some of the armor effects, especially the cool looking elemental armors are so useless that it’s shameful how pointless they are gameplaywise
It’s still a great game as whole, but in order for it to be unforgettable classic, the combat would need some major revising and especially Depths would have needed extra attention.
>Bokoblins
Frick bokoblins.
Frick bokoblins to death.
I hate bokoblins so fricking much.
Zelda did not need a goomba.
They worked exactly once, in Twilight Princess, and should have never been in a game afterwards, except maybe as a one off "oh yeah, those guys" once or twice.
>combat is still PURE SHIT when lategame silver enemies become common
For me, this was a cue to go and finish the game. It’s not that they are too difficult if you have good weapons, but it’s just so tiresome to kill them unless you always have a top-tier weapon fusion at hand against them, and in practice it just means that you want to avoid combat as much as possible when these homosexuals roll around.
It's not worse than BotW.
It's not really better either.
It's just more of the same which kinda feels a drag and worse because you basically payed AAA price for more of the same.
It was great.
It was great, but Ganker is a sony board so it's bad
Yes breath of the wild was garbage. Tears of the kingdom was a masterpiece.
Okay on its own, but a miserably unambitious and uninspired sequel to BotW.
nah, it is a 6/10. i've finished botw and totk and both are nu-zelda slop.
It's legit 10/10 and I'm not even fan of zelda games
Yes, but they didn’t fill out the world with enough interesting stuff to maintain exploration interest for the amount of landmass there is to traverse, especially with the added layers. But the content of substance, mechanics and systems are really good. Though some needed tweaks weren’t made. Great as a whole, disappointing in places
About 5/10 if I'm being generous.
totk is a 6, starfield is an 8
It's not well-designed but it's playable. 6/10 for me.
They unironically should have just had the entire game set in the sky world
This. It should've been either the sky or the depths, recycling Hyrule ruined so much of its potential.
samegay
never played a zelda game more than an hour.
i fricking hate puzzles. same thing that has kept me away from survival horror.
it was ok, which means it was utterly superior to breath of the wild
it's worse than botw imo
>breath of the wild
>walk around grass meadow at 1 mph for 40 hours swinging useless swords that explode into glitter after 10 hits
>totk
>roll up in main battle tank with aimbotting turrets and a Korok attached to a chimney being immolated by a flamethrower
TOTK is better
>>roll up in main battle tank with aimbotting turrets and a Korok attached to a chimney being immolated by a flamethrower
>tank disappears after a few minutes and travels slower than a horse
Ultrahand was so close to being good but too many baffling design choices ruined it.
Also, durability is a bigger issue in TotK as not only did they make most weapons arbitrarily weaker, they also now push you to open a menu to fuse them in order to make them viable as weapons. So yes, I preferred BotW.
>Ultrahand was so close to being good but too many baffling design choices ruined it.
The switch is the problem, not ultrahand. The 4gb ddr3 Nintendo Switch can't handle any more than what TOTK included
No, their design choices are the main problem. Gliders vanishing in about a minute is a deliberate design choice and not a technical limitation in any way. I am not talking about vehicle parts unloading when you're far away from them (which can be prevented anyway), I am specifically talking about Zonai parts flashing then vanishing as an intentional no-fun-allowed game mechanic.
Only thing I can guess is they just didn't want you leaving great sky island too early. Fricking homosexuals.
I put over a hundred hours into BotW. I could be assed to finish the first dungeon in TotK. No, I'm not just "getting old." A year prior I put over a hundred hours into Elden Ring as well. Call me whatever name you want, but something didn't click for me.
>still enjoying fromshit
you’re stupid then
No. Even ignoring how it feels like it should've been a DLC, BotW was a more cohesive game and I don't think that was a truly good game either. There's some good and a lot of potential totally buried in low effort garbage that has zero respect for the player's time. It's an open world because that's what sells and it comes at the expense of everything else, even the series itself. If you have to resort to asinine levels of copy pasted filler for 95% of your content, you are fricking up, but the people who like these games don't care because they like them as walking sims first and foremost.
BOTW was a good game, so by extension this is too, but it adds nothing of value, especially with the Roblox or whatever kiddie shit with the crafting.
it was ok. the fact that vehicles last 20 seconds at most and you have to grind for resources to use anything is moronic. i played the game for 60 hours and didnt get a single battery upgrade somehow. most people i know who put 300 hours into botw didnt even play this game for 10 hours.
>was it a good video game?
It was good DLC to a pretty good game.
Thats it
I didn't take to it at first and dropped it for 5 months. Picked it back up and I'm retroactively making it my game of the year of 2023. It's a great game.
all feedback i can give is that a friend handed me his switch to try it out for a bit and i never realized how actually tiny the Nintendo Switch was. i wasnt able to focus on the game because i felt way too uncomfortable while trying to play it.
it's not a bad game if you have a dent in your head and have the mental capacity of an 8 year old or maybe you're one of those "young at heart" manchildren with no self respect
I like it’s quests a lot more than BOTW. The NPCs are better too.
The one thing that ruined TotK for me was the shitty repeating texture tilling for the water on the sky islands.
You have fricking beginner Unity tutorials that teach you how to do seamless water texture tilling without getting repetition.
And this issue isn't noticed on the old water that got carried over from BotW, which means the new gays that took the mantle over for TotK are fricking shit.
The fact that they let something so bad yet so easy to fix pass on to the final product is Black personlicious.
what's wrong with it
This is why games have become shit, you people have no idea what's good or bad, you only consume.
Thanks for ruining the industry.
they're the same picture
It's a good game but a terribly boring game
Impregnation sexo with e-girl Purah
I can't understand why everything had to be so tedious.
>Why even include stats in a fricking Zelda game
>Why are upgrades so absurdly expensive
>They expect you to sell monster parts and whatnot to make money but to also use those for weapons
>Doubling down on weapon durability
>Horses are useless
>Weapon fusion is more about getting bigger numbers than about interesting or useful combinations
>Temples are half-assed
>It's just plain more interesting to traverse and explore using items than the fricking hand. Doesn't feel like Zelda at all
I really wanted to like it but it just became so boring. BOTW was much better.
bro can't use his hands
Seems like everyone went "We loved BotW but it was too empty" and Nintendo goes and overstuffs it.
These are iterations, IMO. I hope they don't lose momentum or personnel between the games because it's clear these developers are trying to create a vision of what open-world gaming could be, and have been making massive strides, but everyone is still waiting for all the elements to click and create that truly transcendent game we've been hoping for.
It's kind of funny that these Zelda games, no matter how good or revolutionary they already are, or how well made, are still shit all over because people have this faith that LoZ should have that new transcendent, flawless game.
TLoZ has been a prestige franchise since OoT. You expect the best from the best, Anon.
I think that's a compliment to the game more than anything. I appreciate that TLoZ is taking real risks to push gaming forward.
It was fun but extremely unmemorable. It will leave no mark in gaming history, it's just BotW and more BotW
Good if never played BOTW
Meh if played BOTW
Why couldn't the game just take place in the Depths or Sky? They are both cool settings. Why include THREE maps instead of polishing just one?
This game wanted to be bigger, but doing so felt like padding and lose its sense of identity. I don't care if there is less new content, they should have cut the vestige that was BotW. It did not need Hyrule or shrines or towers again. They only made the experience worse and repetitive. I think everyone was extremely disappointed by the lack of Sky Islands. And most of the tiny ones were dull and empty.
I actually liked BOTW much more ¯_(ツ)_/¯